Why not a second "moon mission" to prove they did it once?

Every time mention of another moon mission comes up there are a bunch of posters who talk about the cost. Couldn't the money be used for this and that. But there is mention of a Mars mission.


The people who are in charge (it rotates) don't care about their credibility. They can pay for advertising and experts of any kind. Let's go back to the moon, show we can really do it and move on.

reply to post by chorizo4


do you mean go to the moon a 7th time? we've already been there 6 times.

reply to post by chorizo4

Why not a second "moon mission" to prove they did it once?

That's really stupid to expect NASA to return to the Moon just to satisfy a bigotted opinion. NASA wen't to the Moon 6 times for science and exploration (and to beat the Soviets), and the purpose of future missions to the Moon or Mars will be the same - for the enhancement of mankind.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by john124]

John Carmack
is not waiting for Them

21 October 2006
People look at Armadillo Aerospace hardware and see that they can work on rocketry, too, Carmack explained: “It’s not like the [NASA] space shuttle and all this ‘shock and awe’ of national pride.”


His company’s suite of rocket hardware shows that non-government groups can advance the state of available space technology. “It’s now approachable and can be brought to a level that people can think: ‘Hey, this is something I want to do.’”

He invented the "Doom" 3d engine, and "Quake."
Now he is also advancing space technology.
I agree with him. De-mythologizing
is the best approach for now.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
reply to post by chorizo4

 

do you mean go to the moon a 7th time? we've already been there 6 times.

The belief is that all 6 of the moon landings were faked, and there have been some reasonable arguments that we haven't been there.

The biggest reason I hold a skeptical view on whether or not we've been there is that no one has gone to the moon since.

And don't say it has no uses or it's barren. On the moon lies huge quanities of a HUGE energy source and it could also act as a launch pad to the asteroid built and Mars.

NASA would if they could, they currently don't have the technology or have anyone in their employment that can duplicate the hardware used in the alleged 7 previous moon landings.

I think if I wanted to invest in another round of space travel, i'd rather invest it in trying to send man to Mars instead of the Moon again.

Hell, we know about the Moon than we do our own Oceans - So why not invest the time and money in our own backyard studying the Oceans more in depth?


[edit on 14-5-2010 by -Blackout-]

reply to post by SpectreDC

On the moon lies huge quanities of a HUGE energy source and it could also act as a launch pad to the asteroid built and Mars.

They still have to build a base first, and figure out how to survive their for long durations of time. Take into account all of this and the expenditures & fuel to get their and back, is it yet worth the cost when we can mine resources on Earth for a million times cheaper cost.

The belief is that all 6 of the moon landings were faked, and there have been some reasonable arguments that we haven't been there.

Why bother faking more than one, why take the risk? The Soviets would have been the first to notice that radio signals were transmitting from the surface of the Moon.

The biggest reason I hold a skeptical view on whether or not we've been there is that no one has gone to the moon since.

TV ratings went down after Apollo 17, so Apollo 18 was scrapped. NASA beat the Soviets, people lost interest and funding was cut. Certain facts such as these are ignored by the moan hoax proponents.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by john124]

reply to post by SpectreDC


Possibly the worst pro-hoax argument I've ever heard.

If they went again the people who think the original was a hoax would also assume the new mission was a hoax. There's no reasoning with someone who adamantly religiously believes the first six were a hoax even when you point out how impossibly difficult it would be to fake six moon landings and fool every single scientist in the world at the time and since.

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Why bother faking more than one, why take the risk? The Soviets would have been the first to notice that radio signals were transmitting from the surface of the Moon.

What risk? Even at the time they aired, nearly 30% of the population of the US didn't believe it actually happened.

It was a convenient distration from the war going on, considering at nearly every time the landings occured, major expansion of the war was going on.

TV ratings went down after Apollo 17, so Apollo 18 was scrapped. NASA beat the Soviets, people lost interest and funding was cut. Certain facts such as these are ignored by the moan hoax proponents.

How about the fact that ANY country would still love to make it to the moon?

Or the fact that conveniently, nearly every document, tape, and file related to the moon landings disapeered from NASA during the 70's?

Or how about the fact that the Soviets prior to the moon landing had ten times the amount of accomplishments and experience in face compared to the USA?

Or the fact that the guy who made the rockets that brought us up there is on record saying that it is pragmatically impossible to go to the moon considering the amount of fuel they would need to bring?




While I've never been a hoaxer proponent persay, what was one conspiracy I thought I'd never accept has led me down a rabbit hole that is quite complexing indeed. Like I've said, there are many arguments out there that aren't discussed publically to any great length when it comes to "debunking hoaxers" that lend credibility to the possibility that it was hoaxed. Which is why I'm skeptical on the matter.

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
reply to post by chorizo4

 

do you mean go to the moon a 7th time? we've already been there 6 times.

I have little to add, just wanted to kudos this post for it's simplicity.