Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?

As to why not now just look at the numbers.
In 1967 NASA was getting over 6% of the total federal budget to get to the Moon before the Russians.
If NASA received 6% now they would be getting over 8 times as much as they currently do. But that's a fat cow congress carved up for their pork projects.

Will private enterprise go to the Moon? Nope. You can't make a profit out of it.
Look up how much (in pounds) each Apollo carried back in rocks. Then calculate the dollar mount it would be in gold. Finished bars that is, not ore to be processed. The numbers don't even get close to break even.

When the Chinese get there they will do much the same as Apollo. A few days, a few rocks, then back home.

We landed on the moon in 1969, and we're supposed to believe there wasn't enough funding for more missions beyond Apollo 17. What a joke, we all know a massive amount of money is funneled into black projects. Skylab was a joke and so is the I.S.S. for that matter.

A moon base would have much more value in many ways compared to orbiting stations. Eventually a moon base could have been utilized for future space missions to other planets taking into account that the gravity is 1/6th. that of earth or put another way about 83 percent less than earth. The amount of fuel needed to break free from the moon's gravitational pull would be far less than a launch from earth.

Another point to consider is we only took surface samples of rock, and dust, no substantial subsurface drilling was done to find out what the moon is really made up of. Once again this makes one question why there wasn't any serious attempt at doing this considering the vast amount of minerals and raw materials the moon could offer.

Is there already a base there? Who knows, but the possibility that one exists on the far side is intriguing especially when one takes into account the incredible amount of money invested into black projects. With that in mind we all know there wasn't a lack of funding, only a lack of money when the public is involved.

C.S.Lewis called Earth the Silent Planet others call it Prison Planet.

Essentially we are in quarantine until everything is put to rights.

Originally posted by spaceg0at
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

well it looks like you have just settled the debate. no more questions to ask and we should not see any more threads about the matter because you know exactly what you are talking about.

you should write coast to coast and tell them not to do any more shows on the matter.
its been figured out right here by some guy in the internet.


mystery solved... spread the word everybody

Hope so cause - I am sooooo fricken sick of stupid people who like nothing more than to argue make believe conspiracy theory points that have no validation, logic or even substance.

Click here for more information.

OK, Folks. Let's keep it friendly.

Please refrain from the Personal Sniping and Off Topic remarks.


TIA

Originally posted by spaceg0at
the thing that bothers me is the lack of moon missions in MY lifetime.

It bothers you? What bothers me is that I can't get a ticket to John Lennon's concerts, hippies are almost never seen in the US in the 21st century, and days of unprotected sex are over. All of this bothers me a lot, and I heard all of that was common in the 60s. I just don't see why you fret over some pesky "moon" when all the important stuff is gone.

Come on, YOUR lifetime is not that important.

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
A moon base would have much more value in many ways compared to orbiting stations.

This gets the "most ridiculous and random statement of the month" award.

Seriously.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Originally posted by Nucleardoom
A moon base would have much more value in many ways compared to orbiting stations.

This gets the "most ridiculous and random statement of the month" award. Seriously.

Really, well lets consider just one point. What would be the safer option an orbiting station or a land base? I know the distance involved is much greater, but the chance of space debris alone damaging the orbiting station must be taken into account.

A land base would be a much more stable environment for long term usage and missions. The ISS is a floating derelict, without the shuttle it's basically game over for that outdated hunk of unsafe space junk. The investment of a land base makes more sense. Is it easier to repair something in orbit or would it be easier to repair something land based?

You need to think past your first asinine thought to realize what could have been if real visionaries were involved in our exploration of space. Narrow minded people like you are the reason why we have the I.S.S. space junk instead of a colony on the moon. Your stuck in the 60's, try and take the leap into the 21st century thinking.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

Here ya go man www.scientificamerican.com...

It was a cjple of years ago, I don't believe you missed it, it was kinda anticlimactic.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


You gave an article talking about what I referenced in my post. No mention of "nukes" in your article like you said there were in your previous post.

This did nothing but to prove my memory was correct (they hit it with a collision in search of water) and your statement of them "nuking" the moon was incorrect.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
C.S.Lewis called Earth the Silent Planet others call it Prison Planet.

Essentially we are in quarantine until everything is put to rights.

Thank you, I have seen the connection between C.S.Lewis and the Silent planet trilogy and the spiritual state we reside in, again, thank you for such a cool post!

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
We landed on the moon in 1969, and we're supposed to believe there wasn't enough funding for more missions beyond Apollo 17. What a joke, we all know a massive amount of money is funneled into black projects. Skylab was a joke and so is the I.S.S. for that matter.

A moon base would have much more value in many ways compared to orbiting stations. Eventually a moon base could have been utilized for future space missions to other planets taking into account that the gravity is 1/6th. that of earth or put another way about 83 percent less than earth. The amount of fuel needed to break free from the moon's gravitational pull would be far less than a launch from earth.

Another point to consider is we only took surface samples of rock, and dust, no substantial subsurface drilling was done to find out what the moon is really made up of. Once again this makes one question why there wasn't any serious attempt at doing this considering the vast amount of minerals and raw materials the moon could offer.

Is there already a base there? Who knows, but the possibility that one exists on the far side is intriguing especially when one takes into account the incredible amount of money invested into black projects. With that in mind we all know there wasn't a lack of funding, only a lack of money when the public is involved.

You really don't understand the complrxities involved. Or the cost.
6% of the total budget to land a few landers for a couple of days each. Can you imagine the cost to put a much larger hab unit? Not to mention where would the oxygen come from? You realize we have to ship it up to the ISS every so often don't you?

While the ISS does have to dodge space junk now and then, They could have put it in an orbit of about 500 miles and not have to reboost several times a year. That low orbit was chose for a very specific reason. Radiation. At that altitude the Earths magnetic belts still offer a good amount of protection.
The Moon has no protection at all.

Just what good is the surface of the Moon for launching other mission? There in no manufacturing infrastructure.
Do you plan on launching that stuff too? Sorry it's still cheaper to build rockets down here, and will be for another hundred years.

You have to think beyond the star trek dreams. What is really possible NOW? Not much.

reply to post by samkent

You really don't understand the complexities involved. Or the cost. 6% of the total budget to land a few landers for a couple of days each. Can you imagine the cost to put a much larger hab unit? Not to mention where would the oxygen come from? You realize we have to ship it up to the ISS every so often don't you?

6% of the PUBLICLY KNOWN budget. Money is not the problem, but you are correct on the complexity end of the issue. In the 60's the computer tech used for these missions was roughly what today's pocket calculators are capable of. With the advancements in technology many of the extreme complexities of manned space travel are mitigated.

Just what good is the surface of the Moon for launching other mission? There in no manufacturing infrastructure. Do you plan on launching that stuff too? Sorry it's still cheaper to build rockets down here, and will be for another hundred years. You have to think beyond the star trek dreams. What is really possible NOW? Not much.

An excellent point, but if we didn't scrap our moon program in the early 70's we would have had 40 years of potential lunar development. Who knows what we could have up there now if people would have allowed it. As you know a lot can happen in 40 years. What is really possible NOW? More than you can even imagine. Think for a moment what the general public thought was possible in 1963. I can guarantee they sure didn't think a SR-71 Blackbird was a possibility, but in reality they were flying them a year later. The SR-71 was in development since the late 50's. Now fast forward to today and the technology that's available.
It really boils down to either a complete waste of 40 years in regards to potential moon development or it's all gone the way of black budget projects and we'll find out someday...maybe.

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
A moon base would have much more value in many ways compared to orbiting stations.

Not only is traveling back and forth between the Earth and moon infeasible for the sake of it, the main reason with the ISS as a research facility is the micro-gravity. How would the Moon be an option?

Eventually a moon base could have been utilized for future space missions to other planets taking into account that the gravity is 1/6th. that of earth or put another way about 83 percent less than earth. The amount of fuel needed to break free from the moon's gravitational pull would be far less than a launch from earth.

So according to you, it is more economical to ship a lot of junk from Earth to the moon (which is very expensive as you stated yourself), and then only, with an addition of doing the same thing but with 1/6th of the resistance. Not to mention the actual fuel that also needs to be first launched from Earth just to do another launch. Not to mention all the extra junk that needs to be launched from Earth just to support this extra launch from the Moon.

Good thinking.

Another point to consider is we only took surface samples of rock, and dust, no substantial subsurface drilling was done to find out what the moon is really made up of. Once again this makes one question why there wasn't any serious attempt at doing this considering the vast amount of minerals and raw materials the moon could offer.

Because it is a major operation. Of course we want to drill around on the Moon.
You just put your own thoughts into perspective. Drilling around is a major operation, and you think we should have built a base already. Think about it.

Is there already a base there?

No, there isn't.

..but the possibility that one exists on the far side is intriguing especially when one takes into account the incredible amount of money invested into black projects.

How much money? And which black projects are you aware of? And if you are, are they really black projects?
If not, did you just make this up?

With that in mind we all know there wasn't a lack of funding, only a lack of money when the public is involved.

See above. Just making things up does not make them real.

reply to post by laughingdog

Some on this board are very well versed with regards to the moon landing hoax. I am not.

Its something that never really interested me unlike 9/11.

Based on the little research Ive done, it would seem that the US never went to the moon.

The footage is just one aspect: the shadows, the crosses on the lens, the differences between photos and movies of the exact same images etc. Its funny because when you hear the experts analyze the movies and photos, theyre almost laughing at the absurdity of the images.

The technology required to travel back and forth to the moon, just the fuel for example. The Space Shuttle travels just 250 miles above the Earth. The moon is 1,000 times further, one way...

The idea that a space program which was plagued with constant failures got its act together within two years? In 1967, three astronauts were killed on the ground but by 1969 we successfully got men back and forth?

Ironically, one of the three men killed in that accident, Virgil Gus Grissom, frustrated by the constant bungling, remarked "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between three buildings?"

Apparently theres much more but I dont know that one has to really look that deeply to realize that the US never sent a man to the moon.

reply to post by gladtobehere


But I bet you they have been there since '69. That flag in the ground pretty much is a title deed to the entire moon in the eyes of the elite who by now could have an entire town or city even on the dark-side of the moon..

reply to post by gladtobehere


OK, how about this (Good Ol Dave's presence got me thinking)

We did NOT go to the moon. Skipping the arguments here...

If this was exposed, it would lead to the masses suddenly questioning other events, such as 9/11. Now there is a clear cut case (if you study evidence rather than hearsay) of inside job and lies. If that was exposed, the world as we know would change rather dramatically.

I think the competing theories about the moon landing other than 'we went' and 'we did not go' are there purely for confusion. There are no aliens on the moon, sorry. And we are not still going. We either went and stopped, or faked it, for various reasons. The evidence is not conclusive either way, but in my mind the evidence is leaning towards we did not go. Combined with what I know for sure, that 9/11 was a 100% inside job, and Good Ol Dave creeping around here, leads me to believe that this is a cover up that must not be exposed, for fear of the awful truth about 9/11 being exposed.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by laughingdog

 

Based on the little research Ive done, it would seem that the US never went to the moon.
The footage is just one aspect: the shadows, the crosses on the lens, the differences between photos and movies of the exact same images etc. Its funny because when you hear the experts analyze the movies and photos, theyre almost laughing at the absurdity of the images.

Your so-called research was to watch some "experts" tell lies? That they are almost laughing makes it a no-brainer?

The technology required to travel back and forth to the moon, just the fuel for example. The Space Shuttle travels just 250 miles above the Earth. The moon is 1,000 times further, one way...

Okay, let's stop right here. I thought that even kids in lower elementary school knew that you don't need to burn rockets in "mid flight". I can't believe I am saying this because it's more or less against my personal beliefs, but, you are clearly lacking enough knowledge on the matter to have an opinion. Please read up on this first.

The idea that a space program which was plagued with constant failures got its act together within two years? In 1967, three astronauts were killed on the ground but by 1969 we successfully got men back and forth?
Ironically, one of the three men killed in that accident, Virgil Gus Grissom, frustrated by the constant bungling, remarked "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between three buildings?"

Not that there's any point in continuing to argue, but this is always the case when breaking new ground, may it be space travel or bridge building.

Apparently theres much more but I dont know that one has to really look that deeply to realize that the US never sent a man to the moon.

This demonstrates why these conspiracy-theories are so "successful". A person who is lacking knowledge watches a TV-program with "experts" explaining things, using scientific terms, and the watcher thinks "oh wow, this is sciency, they must know what they are talking about. Now they are even laughing at those dumb claims. Clearly, the landing is a hoax".
This further requires some more ignorance from the person, like quoted above (..but I don't know that one has to really look that deeply to realize that the US never sent a man to the moon).

Then these people gather around a site like ATS, feeding on each other's ignorance (funnily enough, under a "deny ignorance" flag), creating even more remarkable theories based on nothing.

Thank you for demonstrating how these conspiracy-theories survive.

reply to post by gladtobehere

Some on this board are very well versed with regards to the moon landing hoax. I am not.

Thank you for your candor.

Its something that never really interested me unlike 9/11.

Thank you for resisting the urge to stray off topic.

Based on the little research Ive done, it would seem that the US never went to the moon.

Since you admit you have done little research, it is not surprising that you have reached an erroneous conclusion.

The footage is just one aspect: the shadows, the crosses on the lens, the differences between photos and movies of the exact same images etc. Its funny because when you hear the experts analyze the movies and photos, theyre almost laughing at the absurdity of the images.

All of these "anomalies" have been dealt with in great detail on ATS. Try using the search function. Please provide a link to "experts" laughing at the images. This one is new to me.

The technology required to travel back and forth to the moon, just the fuel for example. The Space Shuttle travels just 250 miles above the Earth. The moon is 1,000 times further, one way...

The Saturn V was the largest booster ever built. It delivered a relatively tiny payload to the Moon. The Shuttle itself was enormous, and could deliver very large payloads to Earth orbit and return essentially intact. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The idea that a space program which was plagued with constant failures got its act together within two years? In 1967, three astronauts were killed on the ground but by 1969 we successfully got men back and forth?

Why not? Progress is the art and science of learning from one's failures.

Ironically, one of the three men killed in that accident, Virgil Gus Grissom, frustrated by the constant bungling, remarked "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between three buildings?"

Bureaucracy can be frustrating, but I suspect you are actually attempting to make some sort of Dark Hint.

Apparently theres much more but I dont know that one has to really look that deeply to realize that the US never sent a man to the moon.

In fact, the less you dig, the more comfortable you can be in your "realization."