It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it even possible to go to the Moon?

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:
Dae

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

All of the lunar landings took place in early morning, local lunar time, so your objection is irrelevant (as well as off topic). The electrostatic levitation of lunar dust does become an issue for long term habitation, so have a star for at least doing some basic research.


My objection is not irrelevant or off topic at all! (let the Mods mod eh?) You said " Is it even possible to send human beings to the Moon and return them safely to the Earth? " Well I think the moon dust will pose a terrible safety concern. And yes I know the landings were day landings - they couldn't stay past day into night because of what I posted - the dust and electrical activity!

To reiterate - moon dust and electrical activity (day and night) will cause safety concerns for a moon landing of any length of time.




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dae
Well I think the moon dust will pose a terrible safety concern. And yes I know the landings were day landings - they couldn't stay past day into night because of what I posted - the dust and electrical activity!

To reiterate - moon dust and electrical activity (day and night) will cause safety concerns for a moon landing of any length of time.


In deserts, they have sand storms that are real safety concern. On high seas, they have severe storms that can actually sink ships. Actually, when you navigate the Horn of Africa, there is a fair chance that your ship will be attacked by the pirates.

Does this mean that it's impossible to sail in the Indian Ocean anymore?
Bleh.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Dae
 



Well I think the moon dust will pose a terrible safety concern.


Yes, in the future. I actually gave you a star because you are correct. Straying off topic, the longest Apollo mission was only on the lunar surface for about two hours in the early morning, local lunar time.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Straying off topic slightly....

Does anyone have a great Lunar Rover (as seen CLEARLY from space) photographs? they apparently took a rover three times? I can't find much, but then again I'm clearly crazy.

I have found one with a few "tracks" but are there any good photo's hanging around?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



The Contra-Historicists reject one or more aspect of this evidence, and claim that the historical account is false.


Contra-Historicists?


What I am proposing to do in this thread is open up a debate, not upon the historical record , but upon the fundamental disagreement between the various sides. Is it even possible to send human beings to the Moon and return them safely to the Earth?


The fundamental disagreements exist because you introduced three straw man camps in your OP. I can think of a few other examples.

There is a fundamental disagreement with regard to the terminology called "N.A.S.A.". I know that I'm guilty of saying "NASA this" or "NASA that" sometimes but my intent is never to impugn every single employee that ever worked at NASA as a member of any conspiracy to defraud and fleece the American taxpayer of 1$ Trillion dollars.

It becomes problematic for other reasons. Anyone can make this mistake. It's called a misnomer. When we sometimes say "NASA" what we really mean to say "a NASA contractor like Westinghouse or North American Aviation" or, dum dum dum... Bellcomm.

It seems almost superficial at first but it's the simplest mistakes which can lead into the wrong conclusions.
I identified two problem areas that plague the Apollo/Moon discussions, conceptual straw man and misnomers.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Allow me to begin. The logistics of sending human beings to the Moon is straightforward. All that is required is an off the shelf spacecraft; a Soyuz would do nicely. This must be given a high enough impulse to achieve an elliptical orbit with a perigee of, say, 300 kilometers and an apogee of 400,000 kilometers. This can be provided by any number of extant upper stages. The passage through the Electromagnetic Radiation Belts can be minimized by inclining the the flight path to an angle of 30 degrees relative to the Earth's equator and passing through them as quickly as possible. Once outside the ERBs, the ambient radiation will be greater than in low Earth orbit, but studies show that the cumulative effects are negligible during the course of a few weeks. Our current solar observatory infrastructure guarantees that the astronauts would have ample warning to re-orient their craft in the event of a dangerous solar event. Although there are obviously risks involved, such a mission could easily be undertaken with existing technology. All that is required is money.

Now... does anyone care to disagree?


I have two objections.
1. You asked a speculative question "Is it even possible to go to the Moon?" and provided a rhetorical response to your own question. In your response, quoted above, you have disclosed that "such a mission could easily be undertaken with existing technology." So you are using 2012 technologies but Apollo appeared during the ~1968/69 timeframe. A good lawyer would immediately object to your question on the grounds that it is blatant provocation for a speculative response.

2. "All that is required is money." Not quite. It takes political willpower to spend that kind of money. If Obama came out tomorrow and said "We are going to put a man in moon orbit in the next 30 days" how much would that cost? $25 billion? What I'm trying to convey is that political willpower is 50% and money is the other 50%.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


[quote[Straying off topic slightly....

No, YOU are "straying" well off topic....hate to be so blunt,



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Going to the Moon in the late 60's and early 70's was a huge acomplishment but as far as the topic of this post...YES! Of course going to the Moon is possible because we already did!

Going to the Moon nowdays would be a cakewalk...it is just an issue of Money and for what purpose? We have robotic probes all over our Solar System and have had several rovers on Mars as well as we will soon visit PLUTO.

Going to the Moon which is very close to Earth is not a huge challenge anymore. We would just have to justify the expenditure on doing something with little return. Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Well if it's not a huge challenge then why don't we go there for $1 billion. That is the same cost of the average shuttle mission, am I right?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Oh no! no, apparently it's boring to go to the moon.......didn't you hear?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Dae
 


I believe you have that backwards, its the mornings on the moon that cause outgassing. Things cool slowly because of the lack of a carrier, air. Things heat up quickly in direct solar exposure, thus the outgassing is in the mornings at first exposure to the sun, not at night. But things like surface regolith don't go blowing around like sand storms on Mars because there is no atmosphere.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
NO we didn't go to fu#cking moon because it is impossible now and was back then.
The moon landing crap is just as fake as 9/11.
And dumb people believe it.
For heavens sake do some research, the proof is out there.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
At last.............



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Very convincing rhetoric we get from the other side that can't even stay on topic. One has to wonder what other things challenge them in life, to apply the logic they use on them.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Once eliminating Apollo from history, we are faced with the fact that nobody has even come close
to trying to land even a monkey on the moon. So then historically, it seems pretty impossible.


Not a valid line of reasoning. This would be like arguing, in 1491, that it is impossible to cross the ocean because no-one has ever done it historically.


1. people had crossed the oceans prior to 1491. So your analogy is flawed.
2. it depends on which people, nation, tribe you are talking about.


jra

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MissingRonnieR
How hard would it have been, sometime in the last fourty years, to send the Space Shuttle (five times the size of a Lunar Lander), just ONE orbit around the moon, just ONCE.Just to prove that we could do it


I know this question was kind of answered already, but just to add some more information. The Shuttle was designed to only orbit the Earth. It is not meant to travel beyond Earth orbit, nor would you want to. As you pointed out, the Shuttle is 5 times the size of the LM and thus much heavier. The more mass you have, the more fuel you'll need to push all that mass around. And the Shuttle has a lot of useless mass to carry around in space (wings, tail, landing gear etc).

A capsule is what you want for traveling to the Moon and beyond. It's a much more efficient design for such things.


Originally posted by DJW001
...the longest Apollo mission was only on the lunar surface for about two hours in the early morning, local lunar time.


Just to clarify, you're speaking in Lunar hours?


Originally posted by ROBthaBANK
For heavens sake do some research, the proof is out there.


Feel free to post some of that evidence so that it can be discussed. Lets talk about why you think it's impossible. Rather than just calling people dumb.


Dae

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Dae
 


I believe you have that backwards, its the mornings on the moon that cause outgassing. Things cool slowly because of the lack of a carrier, air. Things heat up quickly in direct solar exposure, thus the outgassing is in the mornings at first exposure to the sun, not at night. But things like surface regolith don't go blowing around like sand storms on Mars because there is no atmosphere.


I have that backwards? lol Heat and outgassing? I was talking about electrified dust. Heat? You need an atmosphere for heat hun, or its just plain radiation. Oh and *sighs* the articles I posted showed how the dust "blows" about.

Sooooo the main argument against mine is... WE SAILED IN SHIPS IN INDIAN OCEAN SO THERE! OK buddhasystem (you know I remember you being a lot nicer...) I dont know how you can compare the two?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



Just to clarify, you're speaking in Lunar hours?


Of course.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ROBthaBANK
 



NO we didn't go to fu#cking moon because it is impossible now and was back then.
The moon landing crap is just as fake as 9/11.
And dumb people believe it.
For heavens sake do some research, the proof is out there.


A perfect demonstration of the "America lies" camp. It is self evident, no further investigation is required. "Wake up sheeple."



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I have two objections.
1. You asked a speculative question "Is it even possible to go to the Moon?" and provided a rhetorical response to your own question. In your response, quoted above, you have disclosed that "such a mission could easily be undertaken with existing technology." So you are using 2012 technologies but Apollo appeared during the ~1968/69 timeframe. A good lawyer would immediately object to your question on the grounds that it is blatant provocation for a speculative response.


Yes, I thought I made it clear that I was trying to provoke a discussion. The question is not whether or not the Apollo missions went to the Moon, it is about whether it is possible to go there at all. If someone can prove that it is impossible even with today's technology, the historical record of the Apollo missions would be invalidated as a by-product.


2. "All that is required is money." Not quite. It takes political willpower to spend that kind of money. If Obama came out tomorrow and said "We are going to put a man in moon orbit in the next 30 days" how much would that cost? $25 billion? What I'm trying to convey is that political willpower is 50% and money is the other 50%.


I agree with you 100%. This is precisely why the "Why haven't we gone back?" argument that certain "Apollo Skeptics" use is invalid.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join