I'm sure there is a lot of nanotech materials out there that is out of this world in comparing to old lunar junk.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by sean]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by ObamaMomma
I think the OP makes a valid argument. They really should have alot of the answers that they apparently don't know according to them

1. they should know the thickness and installation procedures for the windows ...

So if I knew the procedure for correctly replacing the windshield (windscreen) in a 1967 Ford Mustang , then I should already know exactly how to replace the windshield in a 2008 Ford Mustang? Or do you think those procedures would be different?

No but if you knew how to make glass in 1967, you would not be at a complete loss as to how to make glass in 2008 and have to start figuring it out all over again.

You would just have to change a few details about that glass to make it the difference between one windshield and the other.

Nice over simplification. I have seen this lame argument before. If you knew what you needed to protect from burning up in 1967, then you know what you need to keep from burning up in 2008. What you use to acheive that would be different, but the need does not change.

In 1967 you need to stop wind from getting in your face while you can see where you are driving. You come up with a windshield.

In 2008 you need to stop wind from getting in your face and you have no clue where to start so you begin a whole new set of research?

Originally posted by jra
This is what happens to any industry that stops doing something for a time and then tries to do it again several decades later.

and destroys the original schematics, blue prints, and documentation for the only successfull transport to the moon. Seems like some stuff you might want to hold on to but that is just me.

moon landing was a hoax and a fake , thats well known .......

in fact, the only moon landings were done , were by robotic rovers

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

No but if you knew how to make glass in 1967, you would not be at a complete loss as to how to make glass in 2008 and have to start figuring it out all over again.
You would just have to change a few details about that glass to make it the difference between one windshield and the other.

You have just confirmed what others have been arguing for, that is where the money goes, on finding out what those details are and where they go.

Nice over simplification. I have seen this lame argument before. If you knew what you needed to protect from burning up in 1967, then you know what you need to keep from burning up in 2008. What you use to acheive that would be different, but the need does not change.

Exactly, they know what they need (to not burn up) no one is debateing there needs, its how they go about it is the problem, the materials of today are miles different from the 60's, the heat shields will be different, everything will be different! what can't you understand?
In my opinion you need to go back to school, take a night class or something,
and I recall you saying that you dont believe man went to the moon, OMG, i'll debate you right now as to why that is one of the most ridiculous and persistent statments ever made, imo that statement is a testiment to man's stupidity

Originally posted by Europe

Exactly, they know what they need (to not burn up) no one is debateing there needs, its how they go about it is the problem, the materials of today are miles different from the 60's, the heat shields will be different, everything will be different! what can't you understand?
In my opinion you need to go back to school, take a night class or something,
and I recall you saying that you dont believe man went to the moon, OMG, i'll debate you right now as to why that is one of the most ridiculous and persistent statments ever made, imo that statement is a testiment to man's stupidity

Actually if you have been following along with NASA, they do have to start from scratch on many things because they have no idea how to acheive it. In fact that is what started this debate and the landing believing people already justified that, now you are changing it?

Interesting, so are they starting over or not? Many of the people claiming that we went to the moon agree they admit to starting completely over, they justify it even. NASA claims they need to "re-figure" things out all over. You have this new idea that they are lying about that, and that the people that have justified it already are wrong?

Interesting, so if you are right, then the other people that feel they made a convincing argument as to why they need to start from scratch as well as that we did go to the moon must be wrong. Hmmm....

Not a single bit of the old Apollo data has ever been lost. Nor has the engineering been lost. It was simply put away, put into mothballs, stored, kept protected.

Now one reason why they need to re-design things is because there is no way in hell congress or the public is going to spend billions on a "Apollo on steroids" type program to go back to the moon. Congress, as well as the knowledgable public, knows that we could use the Apollo hardware today just as it was used back in the late 60's and early 70's and succeed.

There is no reason why that could not be done.

However, the public would EXPECT something new, something different, something more MODERN. Thus, NASA must design something NEW, something that would attract the public so that there is public support to return to the moon and go byond that.

It is the same with something like the new Mustangs on the road. Ford did not go back to the old designs stored in their lockers, they simply re-designed the car from those older designs and came out with a new version of it, and sold a ton of em.

No Answer So AHAHA has to do that very same thing. Only this time, they have to make sure the new hardware is safe, reliable and cost effective after their history with the shuttle disasters. People are going to remember those incidents very well when it comes to spending billions on sending men and women to the moon and mars. So No Anomaly Seen Alright must make sure they cross their T's and dot their I's very carefully.



Cheers!!!!

Tho I am not a huge fan of Now Another Silly Analysis, I have to say to those here who think they have no clue as to what they are doing, it is YOU who have no idea what the hell your talking about!!!


I was THERE for the Apollo launches, and let me tell you, hearing, and feeling that Saturn V rocket lift off from the Cape was no fantasy. Then watching and seeing Niel Armstrong walk out of that LEM for the first time, was a glorious day and event for the entire world.

So please, get off your fantisy that Never A Straight Answer never went to the moon and has no idea what they are doing.

They may not be telling us the truth about what is out there, but consider this for a moment.....if they are not telling us the truth about what is out there, then how would they know what is out there to lie about if they had not been there to find it in the first place eh???



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Tho I am not a huge fan of Now Another Silly Analysis, I have to say to those here who think they have no clue as to what they are doing, it is YOU who have no idea what the hell your talking about!!!


I was THERE for the Apollo launches, and let me tell you, hearing, and feeling that Saturn V rocket lift off from the Cape was no fantasy. Then watching and seeing Niel Armstrong walk out of that LEM for the first time, was a glorious day and event for the entire world.

So please, get off your fantisy that Never A Straight Answer never went to the moon and has no idea what they are doing.

They may not be telling us the truth about what is out there, but consider this for a moment.....if they are not telling us the truth about what is out there, then how would they know what is out there to lie about if they had not been there to find it in the first place eh???



Cheers!!!!

Seriously, who said the rockets never launched? Who said they never went into space? I think you are arguing the wrong point. Saying we never landed on the moon is far from saying that the rockets were never launched and that men did not go into space.

Aside from that, you were on the moon to witness them exit the LEM? Did you take pictures too?

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
I have no idea what your leap in logic is. Why would you conclude from what I said that they went to the moon but did not leave the LEM?

Saying we never landed on the moon is far from saying that the rockets were never launched and that men did not go into space. Aside from that, you were on the moon to witness them exit the LEM? Did you take pictures too?

Your words, not mine.

I am still at a loss here. What words are you using against me? I still never said they went to the moon but did not leave the LEM. I have said all along that they never went to the moon. What is your confusion here?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

I am still at a loss here. What words are you using against me? I still never said they went to the moon but did not leave the LEM.

Saying we never landed on the moon is far from saying that the rockets were never launched and that men did not go into space. Aside from that, you were on the moon to witness them exit the LEM? Did you take pictures too?

No confusion, that statement rather humorously suggests that even if you were convinced that they went to the moon that you'd still refuse to believe that they left the LEM unless a person independent of NASA took pictures of them exiting and showed you. This leads me to believe that you're rather close minded about the entire issue and cannot be convinced of a real lunar landing with any proof that any human could ever provide short of a trip for you yourself.

By the way, if you really think Paul Maley was lying about his photograph of the Apollo 13 water dump on the way to the moon, or if you think I'm intentionally misattributing his photo to something it isn't, why don't you ask him about it? Here's his email: pdmaley@yahoo.com.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by ngchunter]