Video of astronauts gone ballistic..Moon landing: fact or fiction?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But sending an unmanned probe to Mars is a HUGE difference from sending a manned mission to the moon. It's also cheaper.

Exactly my point...especially if compared with 60's - when we were presumably much less afraid of sanding humans on Moon.

And there was a COMPLETELY different mentality at the time. We were in the middle of the Cold War, and COMPETING against the Soviets at the time. We had to prove we were better than they were at just about EVERYTHING, and had to get to the moon first. There is no one there to push us anymore, even if there was interest in going back.

In the 1960s space was the "In Thing" and getting to the moon was the most important thing this country had ever done. That is gone now, and if they tried to push a budget through getting us back to the moon in 5 or 6 years, no congressperson that voted for it would get reelected.

Isn't that raising suspicion - the idea of 'must be done - and must be first'?

Do you find it odd that the blueprints LM and Moon Buggy were destroyed when it was one of history's biggest accomplishments?

It's called competition. The US and Soviets were VERY competitive, and personally I'd rather see them racing each other into space and to the moon than being competitive on a battlefield.

Since they have "working models" of them in museums, I'm not surprised that someone decided to destroy the blueprints. They probably figured that we'd have something better when we went back.

Originally posted by blue bird
Do you find it odd that the blueprints LM and Moon Buggy were destroyed when it was one of history's biggest accomplishments?

That's a myth, the blueprints are still on microfilm in various places. But that doesn't really matter since all the specialized tooling is gone. Blueprints alone don't tell you how to build it. Plus a lot of the knowledge is in the heads of those who worked on it. That's how things work, especially in the aerospace industry. Once you've finished building your aircraft, you don't keep all the blueprints and special tooling, if you did, you'd end up with warehouses full of the stuff.

The A-12, YF-12 and SR-71 were an amazing aircraft, but I doubt lockheed could build them again, because all that special tooling and possibly even some or all of the blueprints are gone. It's just better to build something new from the ground up. The same goes for all the Apollo stuff. The way we build aircraft these days has changes so much since the 60's, plus their are all sorts of new, lighter and stronger materials to use.

have there been any controlled decents on the moon or any other planet since Apollo?

the last time is seen nasa put a machine on planet, they dropped it and hoped it bounced to a convenient spot. I thought they knew how to control a decent onto the moon. how come they couldn't do it on mars.

do you remember the balloons they used to bounce it

it seemed like something out of a cartoon, it was hard to believe that it was really goint to happen.

No wonder we havn't gone back to the moon. It would have to look exactly like it did the first time, and if the first time wasn't real, then how are they supposed to repeat it.

An aeroshell and a parachute decelerate the lander through the Martian atmosphere.


Prior to surface impact, retro-rockets are fired to slow the lander´s speed of descent, and airbags are inflated to cushion the lander at surface impact.


After its initial impact, the lander bounces along the Martian surface until it rolls to a stop.


The airbags are then deflated and retracted, and the lander petals and rover egress aids are deployed.


Once the petals have opened, the rover deploys its solar arrays, and places the system in a safe state.

marsrovers.nasa.gov...

is this how they landed apollo?

Because it's impossible to land that way? You would have to have a man controlling the lander back here on Earth, and it takes so long to get commands to the probe that there's no way you could safely land it like the LEM without someone there on it there on Mars.

Originally posted by tom goose
have there been any controlled decents on the moon or any other planet since Apollo?

the last time is seen nasa put a machine on planet, they dropped it and hoped it bounced to a convenient spot. I thought they knew how to control a decent onto the moon. how come they couldn't do it on mars.

Umm... Viking 1 Viking 2 as well as some pre-Apollo landers called Serveyor. There was also the NEAR Shoemake probe that soft-landed on an asteroid. And it wasn't even designed to do that, but they did it anyway.

Russia also had some landers with controlled descents. Mars 3 as well as the Venera program that landed probes on the surface of Venus. They also had several landers from the Luna program that brought back samples.

do you remember the balloons they used to bounce it

What exactly is amusing about that? The density of the Martian atmosphere is less than 1% of Earth's. Parachutes alone won't slow it down enough. Rockets and there fuel take up space and mass. The latest rovers did have rockets though and helped to slow them down. They only dropped the last 30ft with airbags.

it seemed like something out of a cartoon, it was hard to believe that it was really goint to happen.

It did happen and it worked fine. Why is it hard to believe?

No wonder we havn't gone back to the moon. It would have to look exactly like it did the first time, and if the first time wasn't real, then how are they supposed to repeat it.

Seeing as how all the Russian and pre-Apollo images from the Surveyor probes all look consistent with the Apollo images. I think that's a pretty good sign (one of many) that it really happened.

Money and lack there of, is the only reason why NASA hasn't gone back. It's not cheap.

marsrovers.nasa.gov...
is this how they landed apollo?

Parachutes don't work to well on the Moon. And no, that's not how the LM landed...

[edit on 4-4-2007 by jra]

What we went to the moon?? When did that happen? I thought it was made of cheese ? The next thing your going to tell me is something crazzy like the earth is round.

Originally posted by Majic
A League Of Their Own

In other words, if we don't agree with you, we're not smart enough to discuss the issue with you?

I can live with that.

Well, one side is completely wrong. Either way, it is a waste of energy to discuss.

Best wishes to everybody!

nuff said

and also the NEAR Shoemake crashed on the asteroid, fyi

Originally posted by Mysteri
and also the NEAR Shoemake crashed on the asteroid, fyi

Your youtube link doesn't work and no, NEAR Shoemaker did not crash. It soft-landed and continued to function and collect data after landing.

no no no, my friend i was watching the nasa tv special, it only managed to take a few pic before it collided with the surface, oh and use the link dum dum

Nice try, but maybe YOU should do the research.

On Monday, 12 February 2001, the NEAR spacecraft touched down on asteroid Eros, after transmitting 69 close-up images of the surface during its final descent. Watching that event was the most exciting experience of my life. I was asked immediately afterwards how I felt, and I mumbled something about being tired and happy, but I missed the point. I realized afterward what I should have said: it was like watching Michael Jordan on the basketball court, when the game is on the line and he is in the groove. One miracle after another unfolds, and we are left stunned and speechless. When we learned that the spacecraft had not only landed on the surface, but was still operational, we hardly knew what to think.

near.jhuapl.edu...

The spacecraft then made a slow controlled descent to the surface of Eros ending with a touchdown just to the south of the saddle-shaped feature Himeros on February 12, 2001 at approximately 20:01 UT (3:01 p.m. EST). To the surprise of the controllers, the spacecraft was undamaged and operational after the landing at an estimated speed of 1.5 to 1.8 meters per second (thus becoming the first spacecraft to soft-land on an asteroid).

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Mysteri
no no no, my friend i was watching the nasa tv special, it only managed to take a few pic before it collided with the surface

Perhaps you're thinking of the Deep Impact mission.

oh and use the link dum dum

I did, and it says "The url contained a malformed video id." Fix your link.

Originally posted by Mysteri
oh and use the link dum dum

Let's avoid name-calling, please.

i stand corrected but all this digression is beside the point