Holy crap! Half of the earth is missing from that last picture. It just proves that they photshopped out all of the stars and even photoshopped out half of the earth!

How stupid are NASA think we is be???

I don't understand how the one poster's response is misleading, when it's the answer.

Just as stated before me, take a look at the stars in a brightly lit area, compared to a completely dark area. The luminosity of the stars are not as great as the objects closer to us (Street Lamps, Moon, Sun, etc) so the stars appear to be gone. The luminosity of the Moon, Earth, and Sun all combined into one are too great for the dimness of the stars to be caught on the camera.

The lack of stars in the moon landing pics taken by the astronauts could be down to the focal length of the cam and or the film.

What is very strange is that NASA for the first time in Human history had a chance to get as many pics as they liked of the nights sky unfiltered by the Earths atmosphere. But for some unknown reason just didnt bother.

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
...But instead they decided to take things like a 38 million dollar jeep so they could drive about a bit .lol

Well, to be accurate, the $38 million was for the development and construction of four rovers. That is an average of $9.5 million per rover -- however, each rover did NOT cost $9.5 million to actually construct (i.e., the materials and labor to build a rover did not cost $9.5 million). Most of that money is in the development.

Gillette (the razor company) spent $750 Million developing a razor (really), but obviously, since they make a lot of razors, the $750 Million cost is spread out among all the razors they sell.

A computer doesn't really cost $1000 to make (in production-line labor and materials). Most $1000 computers only have about $150 worth of materials and labor in it. The other $850 is the cost of developing that computer.

For many of the products we buy, we are paying mostly for the engineers who designed it, not for the actual product itself.

If NASA would have ordered 500 Rovers instead of just four, the cost would NOT have been $9.5 Million x 500. The "average cost per vehicle" would have come down drastically, because the development cost would have been spread out among 500 vehicles instead of just four.

If Gillette spent $750 Million to develop a razor and only decided to make 3 of them, they would need to sell them for $250 Million each.

Now, was $38 Million too much? Yeah -- I think it was. The original development and production budget (before cost overruns) of the four rovers was $19 million, which seems more reasonable. However, that is still $4.25 million per vehicle -- far more than the actual labor and materials cost of building one.

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
Ok maybe not the first but they did all sorts of experiments on the moon and a quick sky survey would have helped out quite a lot of people back on planet earth. I know its additional equipment but some kind of small radio telescope or optical telescope that sent back pics of the sky would have been of immense value to the astrophysicists of the world at the time.

The whole point of going to the Moon was to learn more about it, not the stars in the sky. You over exaggerate the importance of such images and underestimate complexities of bringing a radio/optical telescope and setting it up. You'd also need to bring something to power the telescope as well as something to transmit the data back to Earth. What ever they could have brought, would not be nearly as good as what was already on Earth at the time anyway, so it would have been a waste of time and money.

hey they could even have brought a few parts in every mission.

And just how would they bring all those parts together? The landing sites are too far apart from one another.

But instead they decided to take things like a 38 million dollar jeep so they could drive about a bit .lol

The rovers were a very valuable tool in the later Apollo missions. It allowed them to explore a much wider area and collect a wider range of samples to bring back.

But if all they did was drive about and collect rock samples why even send humans? Its a waste of resources. If the Russians could automatically land a probe on the moon then getting one to grab a few rocks and return home with them wouldn't be to hard.

Having people there is prefect for setting up things that could be done automatically at the time. Setting up something complex like a telescope would have been an ideal task for a human. Dropping a mirror on the moon is the sort of task for an unmanned probe.

People have spent billions sending satellites into space to gather data on our universe since the moon landings so im pretty sure im not overestimating the importance of such data.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Originally posted by VitalOverdose

But if all they did was drive about and collect rock samples why even send humans?

Vital. just look at the Spirit and Opportunity on Mars, right now. They've WAY exceeded their original mission life expectancy, and that's a good thing. But, what I bring up is something else. They represent technology that did NOT exist, in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There just wasn't any way to accomplish, with robotics, or even with remotely operated machines, what two humans could do with relative impunity. There just is NO substitute for the Human brain, and Human reflexes.

Its a waste of resources.

No.....it was a use of resources (Humans) in a calculated risk, since we didn't want to see people die...but the risk outweighed the benefits.

Just as a Human first broke the Sound 'barrier', etc, etc.

If the Russians could automatically land a probe on the moon...

The USSR successfully soft-landed un-manned probes, as did the USA. The USSR even had a few successful sample returns, robotically. Totaling a whopping 176 grams, from three successful attempts. BTW, 176 grams = 0.388 pounds. That's 6.21 ounces. Not a lot, huh???

EDIT HERE: Because, for comparison to that 6.21 ounces, the six Apollo landings and returns brought back a total of about 880 POUNDS of samples. These are, of course, Earth weights, not Lunar weights...

Carrying on.....

....then getting one to grab a few rocks and return home with them wouldn't be to hard.

See above.........

Dropping a mirror on the moon is the sort of task for an unmanned probe.

The Soviets tried that, with their unmanned landers. Didn't work so well. They recently just re-discovered one!!! Using four-decades more advanced tech, and better locating techniques. The reflector (not a "mirror") positioned by the Apollo 11 crew has been used flawlessly since 1969.

People have spent billions sending satellites into space to gather data on our universe since the moon landings so im pretty sure im not overestimating the importance of such data.

Huh? Well, NOW you're making sense. And, it's mostly "governments", so far....not "people" spending those billions....however, when the profits begin to outweigh the expenses....you're going to begin to see commercialization of space. When?? Aye, that's the rub......

[edit on 3/7/2009 by weedwhacker]

Its great to hear everyone's opinions on the subject.

Its all just to convenient that the conditions just happened to be such that for 40 years the only way we have been able to tell if anything ever happened on the moon at all is by bouncing a laser off a mirror.. I find it incredible that after 6 moon landings NASA didn't leave a single bit of equipment that continued to send back data of any kind that couldn't have been sent there by an unmanned probe (though i admit this wouldn't be a piece of cake .

Now im thinking about it ..why didn't they send all the equipment to the moon by unmanned probe first and then meet up with it when they got there?
That would have been much safer for the astronauts.




[edit on 4-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
Its all just to convenient that the conditions just happened to be such that for 40 years the only way we have been able to tell if anything ever happened on the moon at all is by bouncing a laser off a mirror..

What about all the samples that were brought back? Especially the larger rocks that could not have been collected by an unmanned probe. I think the 800lbs of Lunar samples makes for some very solid evidence that we've been there.

I find it incredible that after 6 moon landings NASA didn't leave a single bit of equipment that continued to send back data of any kind that couldn't have been sent there by an unmanned probe

The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Packages (ALSEP) that I mentioned previously, continued to send back data 5 years after the last Apollo mission. They required assembly once on the Moon and could not be done by an unmanned probe.

Now im thinking about it ..why didn't they send all the equipment to the moon by unmanned probe first and then meet up with it when they got there? That would have been much safer for the astronauts.

I'm not sure how that makes it safer, but there were several different ideas for Apollo in the early 60's. One of them being a "Lunar Surface Rendezvous", where an automated spacecraft is launched first, carrying extra propellant. Then the manned spacecraft would land and refuel for it's trip back. But then this would require two launches for each mission and that would make costs of the missions much more expensive.

Another important point to consider is that government photoshops the stars out of the sky during the daytime with their spy satellites and chem-trails!

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
Now im thinking about it ..why didn't they send all the equipment to the moon by unmanned probe first and then meet up with it when they got there?
That would have been much safer for the astronauts.

Precision landings were not demonstrated until apollo 12. Failure to land close enough to the supplies would have meant mission failure at best, astronaut death at worst. Apollo 11 landed off course, partly due to rocky terrain and partly due to the unaccounted-for prograde thrust given by the undocking of the LEM from the command module; the last of the atmosphere inside the docking tunnel propelled the LEM forward. Later missions accounted for it by precisely relocating the LEM after undocking but before landing.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by ngchunter]