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.

 

Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

page: 14
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




In other words, you think manned spaceflight is a waste of money, but you can't understand why no-one has returned to the Moon. That's why you think the Apollo missions were faked. I see.


I do not know how you could read it like that but to clear the point I will reiterate in simpler terms so you can understand properly.

Manned spaceflight is only worth the money already spent up an until the end of the Apollo program had it lead to something more, the status we find ourselves today in space technology and presence as a species disregard whatever nation budget we are talking about (I see it as a joint venture, international law makes it so) is almost criminal. I would bitch about cities under the sea and kelp farms etc if we had invested one fifth of the money (~$23.9 billions) and effort that was already spent on space by the claimed end of the Apollo tale, whatever outcome one accepts.

I agree that the Apollo program is up in the top of the greatest technological achievement in human history, but we have to equate all factors and contextualize the feat. We have few things that could easily compare but in general the European exploration of the sea, especially the crossing of the capes and the race for India in many aspects matches the feat, and has in general terms had more returns.



A single lunar mission in 1970 cost up to $375 million; by contrast, the US National Science Foundation's entire budget for fiscal year 1970 was $440 million.

NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion.

The Space Review estimated in 2010 the cost of Apollo from 1959 to 1973 as $20.4 billion, or $109 billion in 2010 dollars, averaged over the six landings as $18 billion each.

(from Wikipedia)


The general space efforts we have made so far are truly a joke and waste of money in the aspect that there has not been enough return to the people of earth. I grant you that it was wonderful for the development of ICBM and other military technology and to fill the pockets of a select few. But not so the advancement that such investment, especially on manned space flight, should and sill comes short of realizing for mankind...

It boggles my mind that the American public accepts the viability of the US dream of a manned mission to Mars in face of past experience or today's reality and priorities...




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
One thing i find rather amusing is the need by the hoaxers to avoid our evidence ..
They cannot dispute the evidence so they say "what i wanna know is how this blah de blah

For any neutrals observing this thread, you can guarantee my and others evidence will
not be challenged - but by passed.

This is such typical behaviour of the moon hoaxers unable to dispute the evidence in front
of them.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Well the following and not a full list have been developed from or had the benefit of technology used in the space program.

360 Degree Camera
3-D Synthetic Vision Flight Displays
Advanced Hydrogen Sensors
Advanced Lubricants
Advanced Welding Torch
Aerodynamic Bicycle Wheels
Air Catalysts for Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
Aircraft Collision Avoidance
Aircraft Design Analysis
Airline Wheelchairs
Airliner TV Transmission Via Satellite
AiroCide TiO2 Air Purifier
Anthrax Smoke Detector
Arteriosclerosis Detection
Artificial Heart
Astronaut Plant Bag
Athletic Shoes
Audiometric System for Hearing Assessment
Automated Urinalysis
Automatic Insulin Pump
Automotive Design
Automotive Insulation
BAFCO Linear Actuators
Balance Evaluation System
Biomass Production System for Education
Bioreactor Demonstration System
Bioreactor Human Tissue Growth
Bone Analyzer
Breast Biopsy
Breast Cancer Screening
Bridge Safety Improvements
Cabin Pressure Altitude Monitor and Warning System
Camera on a Chip
Cardiac Pacemaker
Cataract Surgery Tools
Chemical Warfare Hood
Chromosome Analysis
Clean Room Apparel
Clean Water for Homes
Coastal Zone Color Scanner
Compact Blood Diagnostic Equipment
Compact Fire and Rescue Extraction Devices
Composite Forceps
Composite Materials Development – Golf Clubs
Computer Joysticks
Computer-Aided Tomography (CAT Scanner)
Computer Reader for the Blind
Convection Oven
Cool Vest Therapeutic Suits
Cordless Power Tools and Appliances
Corporate Jet Wing Designs
Corrosion Protection Coating
Crop Dusting Improvements
Crop Growing Improvements
DeBakey Heart Pump
Dental Arch Wire
Digital Mammography
Diving Optical Profiler
DMI Remote Sensing Fish-Finding Service
Doppler Radar
Ear Thermometer
Edible Toothpaste
Electric Car
Emission Testing
Emulsified Zero-Valent Iron Remediation
Energy Storage Systems
Engine Coatings
Engine Design
Engine Lubricant
Failsafe Flashlight
Fetal Heart Monitor
Fire Detection Systems
Firefighter Breathing System
Firefighter Radios
Firefighting Equipment
Fireman’s Air Tanks
Fitness Equipment
Flame Detector
Foam-In-Place Seating Technology
Freeze Drying Technologies
Gas Detector
Gasoline Vapor Recovery
Geosynchronous Orbiting
Golf Ball Aerodynamics
GPS Navigation
Helmet Padding
High Temperature Soldering Blocks
High-Pressure Waterstripping
Historical Document Condition Analysis
Home Insulation
Human Tissue Stimulator
Implantable Heart Aid
Improved Aircraft Engines
Inertial Motion-Tracking for Virtual Reality
Infrared Camera
Infrared Thermometer
Insulation
Insulin Pumps
Interactive Computer Training
InTime Agricultural Remote Sensing
Invisible Braces
Kidney Dialysis
Land Mine Removal Device
Laser Angioplasty
Laser Heart Surgery
Laser Wire Stripper
Lead Poison Detection
Lifeshears – Emergency Rescue Cutters
Lightning Protection
Low Vision Enhancement System (LVES)
Lubricant Coating Process

Page 2 next.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Machine Tool Software
Magnetic Bearing System
Magnetic Liquids
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Medical Gas Analyzer
Methane-Powered Vehicles
Microelectromechanical Systems
Microlasers
Miniature Accelerometers
Modified Carbon Nanotube Materials
Ocean Fluorometer
Ocular Screening
Oil Spill Control
PackBot Tactical Mobile Robot
Palate Surgery Technology
Personal Storm Warning System
Pesticide-Free Mosquito Killing System
Phenotype MicroArray
Photodynamic Therapy
Physical Therapy
Pill Sized Transmitter
Plantronics Wireless Communications Devices
Portable X-Ray Device
Precision Lightning Strike Location System
Programmable Pacemaker
PRO-SAN Non-Toxic Microbicidal Santizer
Prosthesis Material
Protective Clothing
PureSense Water and Air Purification Systems
Quartz Clock
Radiant Barrier Technology
Radiation Hazard Detector
Real-Time Emergency Action Coordination Tool
Remote Controlled Light Switch
Remote Command and Control Appliances
Ribbed Swimsuit
Robotic Arms
Robotic Hands
Satellite Computer Data Transmission
Satellite Computer Image Transmission
Satellite Crop Growth & Monitoring
Satellite Fishing Technology
Satellite Stabilization
Satellite Telephone Signal Transmission
Satellite TV Transmission
School Bus Improvements
Secure Mobile Router System
Self-Locking Fasteners
Self-Righting Life Raft
Ski Boots
Skin Care Product Effectiveness Technology
Smoke Detector Improvements
Smoke Penetrating Forest Fire Analysis
Solar Power Technologies
Solid State High-Power Transmitters
Space Pens
SpiraFlex Resistance Exercise Device
Stadium Roofing Fabric
Standing Wave Reflectometer Wire Analyzer
Studless Winter Tires
Sunglasses Blocking Harmful Rays
Surgical Brain Tumor Probe
Temper Foam Technology
Temperature Pill
Thermal Gloves and Boots
Thermal Protection Insulation
Three-dimensional Thermal Tomography in Radiation Oncology
Tire Deflating Devices – MagnumSpike
Tollbooth Air Purification
Ultrasound Scanners
Ultrasound Skin Damage Assesment
VEGGIE – Deployable Vegetable System
Vehicle Brake Improvements
Vehicle Tracking
Velcro
Video Stabilization
Virtual Reality
Vision Screening System
Voice Controlled Wheelchair
Warfighter Accelerated Recovery
Waste Heat Energy Conversion
Waste Water Purification
Water Purification
Weight Saving Composite Materials
Welding Sensor System
Whale Tracking Technologies
Windshear Prediction
WindTracer for Tracking Aircraft Wake Vortices
Wireless Communications
ZipNut


Plus all the experiments that benefit from zero gravity!

Yes it was a waste of time



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




Hoaxers seem to have to lie to prove there point


In case of the moon landing deniers or NASA detractors and critics (belonging to one groups does not automatically grant affiliation to all). The only ones interested in hyping the "moon conspiracy" are the ones that get direct profit from the controversy. Those that have anything to profit are the ones that may have any interest in lying, to the same effect NASA by default will fall in this class (and as part of the US government, lies and malfeasance should not be excluded as a possibility).

I do not think that hoaxer fully work to classify such type of individual, as they do not create or originate a lie (well all except NASA), they predate inconsistency, errors, lies and general lack of information and knowledge.

A majority of the persons discussing the subject that includes those that defend the official history are NASA supporters or simply seekers or holders of knowledge are only deepening they understanding of history, technology or simply being critical. If no one disagreed, Earth would still be flat, the Sun would turn around the Earth that if there was someone still alive due to the boredom default consensus and the risky business of blind acceptance of "facts".



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 




denver22 on the benifits and costs: “Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering.”

Vernikos on the R.O.I. of space travel: “Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. … Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.”

Cowing on space expenditures relative to other costs: “Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq. And so on.”

Your wars are a waste at the moment pal.

P.S please read my posts and others on the benifts of apollo



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I haven't read the list but the fact that you listed Space Pens proves that you were not attentive enough on the selection and in what I have been saying.

For the record for those that still do not know the space pen was a technology developed by private enterprise (not public funds) and did not require any space traveling. Even if information was exchanged it would be of such a basic nature that it could have been done only based on theory.

I do not protest private enterprise expenditures, nor criticize private enterprise activity on the sector (unless it affects the public good). In fact Space X provides a general overview on how the official accounting of the effort must be skewed especially the economics of it...



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11


The general space efforts we have made so far are truly a joke and waste of money in the aspect that there has not been enough return to the people of earth.


Sweet heavens above :


Is there a price to inspiration and creativity? Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Globally, 43 countries now have their own observing or communication satellites in Earth orbit. Observing Earth has provided G.P.S., meteorological forecasts, predictions and management of hurricanes and other natural disasters, and global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence. Satellite communications have changed life and business practices with computer operations, cell phones, global banking, and TV. Studying humans living in the microgravity of space has expanded our understanding of osteoporosis and balance disorders, and has led to new treatments. Wealth-generating medical devices and instrumentation such as digital mammography and outpatient breast biopsy procedures and the application of telemedicine to emergency care are but a few of the social and economic benefits of manned exploration that we take for granted.

Space exploration is not a drain on the economy; it generates infinitely more than wealth than it spends. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA. I firmly believe that the Life Sciences Research Program would be self-supporting if permitted to receive the return on its investment. NASA has done so much with so little that it has generally been assumed to have had a huge budget. In fact, the 2007 NASA budget of $16.3 billion is a minute fraction of the $13 trillion total G.D.P.

You owe Nasa a big thank you sir




edit on 31-8-2012 by denver22 because: YOU OWE NASA A BIG THANK YOU SIR ADDED



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 



I haven't read the list but the fact that you listed Space Pens proves that you were not attentive enough on the selection and in what I have been saying.

For the record for those that still do not know the space pen was a technology developed by private enterprise (not public funds) and did not require any space traveling. Even if information was exchanged it would be of such a basic nature that it could have been done only based on theory.

I do not protest private enterprise expenditures, nor criticize private enterprise activity on the sector (unless it affects the public good). In fact Space X provides a general overview on how the official accounting of the effort must be skewed especially the economics of it...


The government created a demand for pens that can work in micro-gravity. The private sector developed them for that niche market. It turns out they are useful for writing at awkward angles here on Earth. Ultimately, that was the whole point of the space program. No private corporation would run the risk and expenditure of developing satellites and boosters, so the government stepped in. Once the technology was proven, the private sector ran with it.
edit on 31-8-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11

The only ones interested in hyping the "moon conspiracy" are the ones that get direct profit from the controversy. Those that have anything to profit are the ones that may have any interest in lying.


Not so, as alot of people tend to believe the likes of sibrel/hoagland/kaysling/percy/ on ATS
And worship them as gods nether questioning them or researching scientific facts/ evidence etc.

Also lunatic fringe groups hell bent on attention or plain trolling will try to push nonsense on
to others too.

These sets of people do not get profit, they sometimes lie to spread their mantra around.
What you have to understand these charlatans like sibrel/hoagland/kaysling/percy/ have brainwashed
so many with their BS the poor guys/girls will lie to put their feelings across on the subject.



edit on 31-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 




Is there a price to inspiration and creativity? Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment.


If you read what I have said you would understand that I'm not belittling the advances gained only criticizing how little has been done since the end of the Apollo program and the continued investment in keeping and ferrying man to LEO. The advances you mentioned were already on the pipeline at the end of the Apollo program.

You also forget the accomplishments of the Soviets and that most of the jump start was due to German technology, as I said before the Soviets with much less support in all fronts managed almost as much (except the landings), I commend NASA for what it gives to the public but I do not believe the official landing story (I'm not denning the artifacts on the moon surface or not even the possibility of human presence there, just doubt that it was done by the technology and knowledge that was presented to us as existing at the time), nothing is really impossible the only problem is to make it feasible...



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 



You also forget the accomplishments of the Soviets and that most of the jump start was due to German technology, as I said before the Soviets with much less support in all fronts managed almost as much (except the landings), I commend NASA for what it gives to the public but I do not believe the official landing story (I'm not denning the artifacts on the moon surface or not even the possibility of human presence there, just doubt that it was done by the technology and knowledge that was presented to us as existing at the time), nothing is really impossible the only problem is to make it feasible...


I don't understand your point. We use the same technology today. Why would it not have worked forty years ago? Oh, and you're forgetting the work of Robert Goddard, the American who pioneered liquid fuel rockets. By a curious coincidence, he tested them at a place called "Roswell."



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


Personally I care little for names or titles, I care about understanding, knowledge and logic. I often believe in things at face value but do not interiorize anything as absolute truth.

I already explained the points that cause me to doubt, and I find anyone that strictly believes on the events as indisputable to be of a poor scientific stock. Science is made by test, observation and repetition. Since only one organization has made the test and there has not been verifiable independent and consistent repetition I old the right to give credit to some (not all) of the points that people have raised almost from the start. As for the independent observation, since we are talking about NASA a geopolitical organization under the military control of the government of the only remaining super power, that has a bad track record for being truthful, respectful of freedoms and is a general bully, I take them all with a grain of salt..

I enjoyed the discussion that happened a while back in regards to why the Soviets validated the history...



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11 just doubt that it was done by the technology and knowledge that was presented to us as existing at the time)


Why is it so hard for you to accept the technology was enough to get us there sir?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 



I already explained the points that cause me to doubt, and I find anyone that strictly believes on the events as indisputable to be of a poor scientific stock. Science is made by test, observation and repetition. Since only one organization has made the test and there has not been verifiable independent and consistent repetition I old the right to give credit to some (not all) of the points that people have raised almost from the start. As for the independent observation, since we are talking about NASA a geopolitical organization under the military control of the government of the only remaining super power, that has a bad track record for being truthful, respectful of freedoms and is a general bully, I take them all with a grain of salt..


This statement contains a number of errors.

1. The Moon landings were not a scientific experiment, they were an engineering feat. They do not need to be repeated any more than the Eiffel Tower needs to be rebuilt. As it is, all of the systems used during the program are still, with much variation, in use.

2. NASA is not under "military control." It is a separate civilian agency within the Executive Branch of the United States government. Each branch of the military has its own space division.

3. Your opinion of any particular nation has nothing to do with its engineering ability. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state famous for its use of propaganda. Nevertheless, it achieved many "firsts" in space exploration. Why do we never see any "Gagarin was a hoax" threads here, do you suppose?
edit on 31-8-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by denver22
 


Personally I care little for names or titles, I care about understanding, knowledge and logic. I often believe in things at face value but do not interiorize anything as absolute truth.

Maybe you would like to try the hammer and feather drop sir i guarantee you the hammer falls
first, and that my dear fellow is called logic ..



I already explained the points that cause me to doubt, and I find anyone that strictly believes on the events as indisputable to be of a poor scientific stock.


Irrefutable proof try dropping the hammer and the feather if you honestly think that a feather will
fall first then you sir are of a very poor understanding of gravity .


As for the independent observation, since we are talking about NASA a geopolitical organization under the military control of the government of the only remaining super power,


You jest sir ?





posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11 As for the independent observation, since we are talking about NASA a geopolitical organization under the military control of the government of the only remaining super power.


Sorry panic2k11, your observation-your "independent one", about NASA being controlled by the
"worlds only superpower", is untrue as DJW001 put it.

May i add, your also very wrong about "America being the only superpower too"..
edit on 31-8-2012 by denver22 because: paragraph correction



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


The speed it took to materialize to me is problematic, not that the first satellite took almost a year for the US after the Soviets, but the technology that I find arguable (and others have argued the points better than I) was on the manned missions to the moon. From the problems regarding navigation, to engines and shielding it does not make any sense to even risk the political results of a failure, especially in the context it was done, I would be much more amenable to accept a calculated risk of failure but not a suicide mission (especially taking in consideration the information we had at the time regarding the Sun's.activity). Some people center the effort taken as mostly politically motivated in the face of the risks to me it made no sense, then we have not one but several reproductions of the feat, the probabilities game then becomes absurd in face of the benefits.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


It is well understood today that the Soviet Union was mostly a paper tiger, except for the nuclear capability by the time the events took place it was pretty cowed, the ultimate attempt that ultimately failed due to the American blockade that called out the bluff was the Cuban Missile crisis.

To a point the Soviets were at that point a notch or two above the influence of China today (mostly due to a capable navy) and an historically political influence across the globe. The soviets never had the same level of influence beyond northern Europe (and due to proximity) that the US has had over the rest of the world politically and economically.

To a point the Soviet menace served as a great motivator the expansion of the US influence across the globe. Today we can clearly understand that even in terms of ideology the Soviet block was insulated. In he Korean war the major player was China as well as Vietnam (the Soviets helped but not much), even the communist treat on South America was mostly a US propaganda to control the revolt ageist the "banana republic" policy of the past.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by sprtpilot

Originally posted by miniatus
There are numerous threads about the whole moon landing thing.. I don't buy into any of the hoax theories, especially considering the site of the moon landing has been imaged by russia and china.. they would have nothing to gain by propagating hoax for the united states


The hoax theories tend to ignore those basic facts...


There are no clear images of the landing sites, sorry. Even the Russians managed to put unmanned landers on the moon, and return them carrying samples. No one doubts the US has done so too.


"No clear images" .. so because the images are fuzzy, that means they don't exist? that's kind of silly isn't it? .. the rover tracks are VERY clear and obvious to see .. the details of the actual left behind equipment isn't easy to see.. As for the radiation on the surface, we're talking direct solar radiation.. or even just heat since the surface gets to about 300 degrees.. however, the moon walks were conducted when the sun was low in the sky which minimized radiation ( and heat ) .. the surface at the time of the walks was actually pretty mild.. the suits also offer a lot of protection against radiation.. and they were designed specifically for that... a "child's mind" wouldn't understand the technical aspects or planning behind it


You can see there's no winning this =) there will be an argument every time... this is where logic comes in .. as I said, Russia would have known very clearly if this was hoaxed.. and would have nothing to gain to perpetuate that hoax... that simple fact, you would think, would end it...
edit on 8/26/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)


Russia didn't have the capability to see men or anything on the moon back then. Hell, we can't even now....I find it incredible that the Russians still haven't put a man on the moon. People have been to the poles and antarctica even when they weren't first, why in that sense should the moon any different?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join