This subject will make your hair white!!!

Hi every body,

This only my idea..

about 40 years ago US created project (APOLO) to make the man reach the moon, it cost more than 25 Billins US$. For what that project in order to bring 1kg of moon stones!!! But the real money for this project went to supply the war of US army with vetnames.

Now , I think the Septmber events in interior US problems.
Thank you for all.......

I don't know what you're talking about, but I would hardly call it scary.
By the way the Apollo program brought back 382kg of moon rocks.

i'm having a hard time with the grammer of the post.. no offense, as i understand some of us don't speak english very well.. so, if someone else could explain what "sept events in interior us problems" means.. i get the jist of it though..nothing really new, i think.. the govt is always doing something else with the money they tell us about...

25 Billions US$ just for 1kg of moon stones, it's expensive.

But 25 billions USD for 382 Kgs, it's cheap ! Really a good deal !

Only 65.445.026,178 USD per Kilos. Cool and cheap.

Anyway, I don't understand why this topic is on the War on Terrorism forum !


[Edited on 12-12-2002 by ultra_phoenix]

Thank you all for your reply.

OK let me explain my openion:
about 40 years ago USA created project (APOLO) to make the man reach the moon, it cost more than 25 Billions US$. For what that project in order to bring 1kg of moon stones!!!
But the real money for this project went to supply the costly war of USA army with vietnamese.

Now , I think the 11th, Septmber, 2001 events are interior USA problems.
Thank you for all.......

Ok, I follow.

You're suggesting that 9-11 was carried out by the US government for reasons they aren't sharing with the rest of us. Tell us why you think they would do that.

For the oil? Alaska is floating on it. For Christian domination? Please - this is the land of Jerry Springer. To finish the elder Bush's pissin' contest with Saddam? It wouldn't have required 3,000 deaths to grease those wheels.

And Apollo wasn't about moon rocks. It was a crash course in dominating the skies. The moon was only a destination - the objective was to achieve and maintain technical superiority.

Is this theory widespread in your part of the world? Just to keep things fair, you might want to question why.

In my opinion anyway... I am studying thermodynamics at the moment so I sorta know what I am talking about.

Space is a vacuum

A vacuum cannot conduct heat

If the sun shines on you in space you are #ed, because there is no air to draw the heat away from you. Heat is only lost thro radiation.

In the pictures from the first trip to the moon, the men have direct sunlight shining on them and their space pod, they must do otherwise you would not be able to see them. If this had been the case then they would be toast.

NASA tried to tell everyone at the time that space is intensely cold when this is obvious to anyone with any thermodynamic knowledge that this simply is not the case. They lied pure and simple.

Now the question that everyone should be asking is where the # did all that money go?

And in reply to the man saying that something laess dramatic could have done the same job as 9/11 let me say this. Three thousand people is not very much considering the amount of time and money that has now been pumped into the war on terror as a result. AIDS, famine and the like could only dream of the money that has gone into homeland security, and the military. Think about it.

[Edited on 12-12-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

Whoa there, you are issuing two different statements here:

"Space is a vacuum

A vacuum cannot conduct heat "

and

"If the sun shines on you in space you are screwed, because there is no air to draw the heat away from you. Heat is only lost thro radiation. "

What you are saying contradicts yourself.

The reason for the lack of temperature in space (somewhere around 3 Kelvin) is because there are no atoms to conduct the heat. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules in an area, if there are only one or two molecules, the temperature is quite low. Induvidually they are extreemly hot (somewhere around 100000K) but since we are talking about an area here, it is quite a bit lower. That... and solar winds are not a very good conductor of heat.

As you are studying thermodynamics, I would assume that you do know the three different ways that heat can travel: convection, conduction and radiation.

Since space lacks the density to allow conduction to occur, and lacks the magnetic fields to allow convection to occur, the only way it can travel is by radiation, as you stated.

However, heating by radiation is still a fuction of time (ie you still need to have it "in the sun" for a long time). During the Moon's two weeks in the sun it increases temperature from roughly >100K to

FD, perhaps you're unaware of the fact that scientists knew this in the 1960's and earlier. In fact, a lot of mention was made of this at the time of the landings.

I watched the moon landings. At the time, they explained that the reason that the astronauts would land in the TWILIGHT AREA near the dark edge of the moon was that this was necessary to protect them from the heat. Some of the lighting is reflected Earthlight.

If you study the moon landings and look at WHERE they landed and WHEN they landed, you'll see this is exactly what happened.

Heck, if you just look at the pictures, you'll see none of them has overhead shadows.



(sorry to sound snippy, but... sheesh! You guys act like this never occurred to anyone who worked in the space program. )

Yakyaki, the space program was a military program, but not for spending in Vietnam.

Our space program has been going on since the late 1950's. It was John F. Kennedy who insisted that America would be the first to walk on the moon.

Why did we do it? At the time, our greatest enemy was the USSR (Russia.)

Russia wanted to go into space. They put up the first satellite. They had the first dog in space and the first man in space.

America was afraid that if Russia took over space, that Russia would bomb America out of existance.

The money did not go to Vietnam.

It went to put people into space. This was called "the Space Race" and was an important part of that era we call "the Cold War" when Russia and the US were not allies. There were lots of nuclear war threats then.

So it was done to get us into space for protection.

And yes, it costs that much to develop new technology in a "free market" system (our economic system.)

Very well said Darkmarid. Kudos...

Right on the money Dakmarid and Byrd



[Edited on 12-12-2002 by mad scientist]

What about heat from their bodies and heat from the thrusters etc...

How did this heat disperse, if there is no conduction. NASA at the time stated that it used #ing air conditioners!

What was this magical air conditioner exchanging heat with?

Radiation.... usually called infrared.

Obviously not university grade thermo that you are taking.

Our bodies are constantly radiating heat, the rate at which we radiate vs the rate at which the enviroment radiates on to us allows us to precieve warm vs cold. (If there is no conduction/convection). So, the heat from their bodies leaves the same way it leaves on earth... I don't understand the question. Same with the thrusters. They shoot out atoms that have chemically reacted, dispersing them into the universe, and thusly dispersing their energy. Sure it's warm under a thruster, but that's true on earth too.

I'm not exactly sure about how the NASA a/c worked, but I'm pretty sure it was on the same principle as a normal unit, perhaps focusing more on radiation transfer (putting it in a reflective box) or perhaps chemically "cooling" it, by using a similar chemical to freon.

You see, it's easy to give off energy of any kind, it's harder to directly transfer it.

READ THIS

And I do indeed seem to be wrong, although there are many anomolies that that need clearing up.

Although there are many that argue to the contrary, I found this site looking thro the net and it seems to be right. I need to see the math to be totally convinced tho.
Numbers don't have opinions.

[Edited on 12-12-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

[Edited on 12-12-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

Here is a list of sites that can argue bettyer than I can that we didn't.

Here

FD, let me introduce you to a site that will answer your questions with all the math and other things that you dearly desire:


Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Website


For the record, he's a professional astronomer.

[Edited on 12-12-2002 by Byrd]

I don't think Yakyaki's post is so of the mark.Twenty five billion was a lot of money back in those days.I'm not agreeing that it could have been used for vietnam but it certainly would have been a convenient place to secure money for black projects.

Yakyaki,I don't fully understand the connection with 9/11.

John, he's saying that as the Mercury and Apollo projects were actually used to syphon money for the war in Vietnam, 9-11 was used to create a reason to spend money on dominating the Middle-East.

Obviously, the reasoning has serious flaws, that's why it is stumping you. You are to rational-minded, John!

Thank you for all ,

What I want to reach it, that what happened in the past, can happen in these days..

Many people still have adoubt , but they need to proof it.

Some people here understand what I want to connect with these two events..
Thank you