Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

ive told you many times already, if you want to track something you need to have constant updates on its position. you cant track an object with absolutely precise accuracy.. ICBM's constantly update their position and corrects itself.. tracking of asteroids require thousands of observations in order to accurately plot its trajectory, and even then it still has a large margin of error talking about several hundred kilometres here.

you cant track an object with absolutely precise accuracy..

No, you are wrong choos.

He doesnt understand how satellites are tracked and doesnt understand hard enough to track something in earths orbit but then add the distance to the moon and wow. The reason they lost the craftt is simple they were not telling us where they were at and no visual observation made like they will do from the international space station for example. Hey look at the window do you see something yeah its crossing about a half mile above us ok thanks.Not to mention oblect picked up by observatories as they cross while there observing stars for example. We dont have any on the moon yet but that would be cool.

Are you talking about tracking an object passively (such as the observation of an asteroid), OR are you talking about receiving and reading the active telemetry from a spacecraft?

If you are talking about tracking a spacecraft from a signal being sent by that craft, then tracking very very precise, but if you are talking about tracking an object that is not sending a signal, then the tracking has a large margin of error.

Originally posted by choos

you say it like i believe it?? i already told you i dont believe the KGB done it.. im pointing out the fact that you do not know who was really behind it.. you only believe its the US Gov.. im just pointing out that the KGB is also a possibility.

Don't you get it? By speculating about JFK, you've made my point about Apollo!

Arguing about the USSR being whistleblowers for an Apollo hoax is simply speculation, as well.

Originally posted by choos

wow... if we dont have newer technology we use existing ones??? just wow...

have you even heard of the term research and development???? are you even aware of how newer technology comes about??

p.s. it most definitey does matter what technology we us to achieve the goal.. look at the guidance computer inside the apollo craft.. and tell me you want to use that over something more modern.. look at how the apollo crew used the toilets and tell me that you dont want to use something more modern.

i mean heck why did they even bothering developing space suits to what they are today?? why didnt they just use the gemini suits. according to you theres no reason to develop the spacesuits anymore than the gemini suits.

edit on 25-8-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

You're missing the point here.

It isn't about wanting better, newer technology. We'd all prefer that to be the case, obviously.

And it isn't about trying to develop better, newer technology, which is (as noted) what we all want, and prefer to have.

Why? Because it doesn't exist (not yet anyway).


And so, that's where Apollo comes in.

You claim the required technology existed over 40 years ago.

We can use it again, yes?

Of course, we'd prefer to use newer technologies.

But nothing else exists yet, right?


As if....



.







.

reply to post by turbonium1


Im not sure where your going with this given enough money we could be there in about 18 months if our lives depended on around 9. We have the technology to get there just not the funds and money makes the world go around. Or at the very least needed to leave it. Let me ask you why you believe we dont have the technology thats kinda weird look at deep space 1 and smart 1 using ion drives.They are starting testing on positron drive basically anti matter. We have some really cool tech we just dont have the funds to put it all together.

.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by choos

 

Wow you guys strayed way off course. Let me see if i can help as technology advances by its ver nature its incorporated in are designs. Example If they were going to try to rebuild the lunar lander today by specs they would need vacuum tubes. But vacuum tubes are no longer made anywhere they are simply out dated. So obviously when building the lander they would use microprocessors correct everyone agree? So then they have to program them and then they realize darn we cant get it to talk to the engine we might as well so astronauts dont have to look out the window to see if it fired.So they redesign the engine. Heres another example suppose we were wanting a TV again we could build one like the original but it would cost far more because again we would have to make vacuum tubes.Then we would have to create a plant to build cathode ray tubes again even though cheaper and better tech is out there.

So when you say something like why dont we use technology we all ready had used to go to the moon is stupid. It would cost us more to reproduce that technology then just redesigning it now So in short saying why dont we go back to the moon using the technology we had in the 60s is all most laughable we have had 50 years of advancement since then i have a cell phone my galaxy cell phone has more computing power then Houston had on hand during the apollo missions. My god they would have killed to be able to do scientific calculations on my cell phone instead of a slide rule and a couple of hours. So since are technology has increased and we can do things faster and cheaper we have to have people redesign the the vehicles to todays standards. And if your going to spend the money to do that your going to do research to make sure the vehicle you build is safer because we have the technology to do it!!!!!!!!!

You missed the point, so please follow along here....

A technology is used for 'X' period of time, until something better comes along, which then replaces it. And so it goes, on and on..

You think it's stupid to use old technology, like Apollo's? So then...

How stupid is it to claim this old technology can't even be matched today?

See the point now?

Originally posted by turbonium1

Don't you get it? By speculating about JFK, you've made my point about Apollo!

Arguing about the USSR being whistleblowers for an Apollo hoax is simply speculation, as well.

turbo, thank you for your tireless effort to educate choos, et al., on the topic of Apollo. We all have to remember, if JFK hadn't made that stupid speech in the summer of 1962, Lyndon Johnson wouldn't have to spend all that money building Nazi rockets for the legacy of Camelot... LBJ letting the treasonous Richard Nixon get all the glory as the #1 Bomber in Viet Nam _and_ the winner of the space race to the Moon!

It's true. The JFK conspiracy has several thousand details and yet we may not know them all even in our most valiant pursuit of due diligence. The Apollo moon landing conspiracy (I will not use the word 'hoax') is exactly the same phenomenon. RFK. MLK. Roswell. Operation Paperclip, and Apollo. All the same deep, deep conspiracies.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Im not sure where your going with this given enough money we could be there in about 18 months if our lives depended on around 9. We have the technology to get there just not the funds and money makes the world go around. Or at the very least needed to leave it. Let me ask you why you believe we dont have the technology thats kinda weird look at deep space 1 and smart 1 using ion drives.They are starting testing on positron drive basically anti matter. We have some really cool tech we just dont have the funds to put it all together.

.

Just like my 'Time Machine' would've been built, if I was only "given enough money" !!.

Money can be the basic excuse for almost anything, as shown in my example above.

It may be true, or it may be a lame excuse.

So what about the 'return' to the moon? Is it all about getting 'enough money'?

It is not all about money, not a chance.

I posted a report which states it is a severe lack of required technologies. Not a lack of money.

Read the report if you doubt me, though/

And then you'll know it's not all about money,

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Im not sure where your going with this given enough money we could be there in about 18 months if our lives depended on around 9. We have the technology to get there just not the funds and money makes the world go around. Or at the very least needed to leave it. Let me ask you why you believe we dont have the technology thats kinda weird look at deep space 1 and smart 1 using ion drives.They are starting testing on positron drive basically anti matter. We have some really cool tech we just dont have the funds to put it all together.

.

Just like my 'Time Machine' would've been built, if I was only "given enough money" !!.

Money can be the basic excuse for almost anything, as shown in my example above.

It may be true, or it may be a lame excuse.

So what about the 'return' to the moon? Is it all about getting 'enough money'?

It is not all about money, not a chance.

I posted a report which states it is a severe lack of required technologies. Not a lack of money.

Read the report if you doubt me, though/

And then you'll know it's not all about money,

Could you repost the link to this report - I can't find it?

In the mean time it is about the money, The money and the political will to supply that money. The political will to supply that money existed in the 1960s because of the particular circumstances of the time. At the moment a government sponsored effort to return does not have any money. This does not mean that the technology to get to the moon does not exist, The huge number of objects on and orbiting the moon proves that the technology exists for things to get there, and it takes very little extra effort for some of those things to be people.

Your time machine will never be built because it is impossible. Launching things into space is not impossible.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Don't you get it? By speculating about JFK, you've made my point about Apollo!

Arguing about the USSR being whistleblowers for an Apollo hoax is simply speculation, as well.

and the chinese?? japanese?? india?? ESA??

and clearly you still dont understand my point.. it doesnt take many people to order and execute an assassination.. its easy to hide.. if the KGB were really behind it and they manage to get away with it then they obviously would not make a fuss over the US blaming a lone mad man.. this is what you are failing to understand about this speculation..

but with your theory, you saying its the US gov who assassinated JFK is also easy to hide why?? because it involves a very small amount of people.. an assassination is not a country effort that involves thousands upon thousand of people and thousands of scientists who need to be added into the conspiracy in order to hide it. the apollo manned lunar missionsdo involve thousands of people, and they do need to have new scientists added into the conspiracy yearly in order to hide it..

if you think that is possible you are not living in reality anymore.

You're missing the point here.
It isn't about wanting better, newer technology. We'd all prefer that to be the case, obviously.
And it isn't about trying to develop better, newer technology, which is (as noted) what we all want, and prefer to have.
Why? Because it doesn't exist (not yet anyway).
And so, that's where Apollo comes in.
You claim the required technology existed over 40 years ago.
We can use it again, yes?
Of course, we'd prefer to use newer technologies.
But nothing else exists yet, right?
As if....

so let me get this straight.. you want NASA to use the saturn V rockets to send the orion craft to the moon again??

in case you havent heard the saturn V rockets have not been used in a long time probably de-commissioned by now.. just like they have decommissioned the p-51 mustang a long time ago.. they will not be using the p-51 mustang to defend the airspace anymore.. and even if they were to use the saturn v rockets to launch the orion craft, there is still the issue of integration.. which requires new technology since saturn V was never designed to support the orion craft..

i think this is what you dont understand.. the concepts will be re-used but improved upon ie. rendezvous methods.. the technology however will be entirely new ie. flight guidance computers.. concepts and technology are not the same thing.

but seriously look up what research and development is.. i have a feeling you have never ever heard of that term before because this is where new technology comes from.

Originally posted by onebigmonkey

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Im not sure where your going with this given enough money we could be there in about 18 months if our lives depended on around 9. We have the technology to get there just not the funds and money makes the world go around. Or at the very least needed to leave it. Let me ask you why you believe we dont have the technology thats kinda weird look at deep space 1 and smart 1 using ion drives.They are starting testing on positron drive basically anti matter. We have some really cool tech we just dont have the funds to put it all together.

.

Just like my 'Time Machine' would've been built, if I was only "given enough money" !!.

Money can be the basic excuse for almost anything, as shown in my example above.

It may be true, or it may be a lame excuse.

So what about the 'return' to the moon? Is it all about getting 'enough money'?

It is not all about money, not a chance.

I posted a report which states it is a severe lack of required technologies. Not a lack of money.

Read the report if you doubt me, though/

And then you'll know it's not all about money,

Could you repost the link to this report - I can't find it?

In the mean time it is about the money, The money and the political will to supply that money. The political will to supply that money existed in the 1960s because of the particular circumstances of the time. At the moment a government sponsored effort to return does not have any money. This does not mean that the technology to get to the moon does not exist, The huge number of objects on and orbiting the moon proves that the technology exists for things to get there, and it takes very little extra effort for some of those things to be people.

Your time machine will never be built because it is impossible. Launching things into space is not impossible.

edit on 31-8-2013 by onebigmonkey because: ...and another thing...

Here's the link...

www.gao.gov...



It's titled...

Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain Uncertain Until a Sound Business Case Is Established

The report states..

"Gaps in the business case include

• significant technical and design challenges for the Orion and Ares I vehicles, such as limiting vibration during launch, eliminating the risk of hitting the launch tower during lift off, and reducing the mass of the Orion vehicle, represent considerable hurdles that must be overcome in order to meet safety and performance requirements; and

• a poorly phased funding plan that runs the risk of funding shortfalls in fiscal years 2009 through 2012, resulting in planned work not being completed to support schedules and milestones. This approach has limited NASA’s ability to mitigate technical risks early in development and precludes the orderly ramp up of workforce and developmental activities."


"The Constellation program has not yet developed all of the elements of a sound business case needed to justify entry into implementation. Progress has been made; however, technical and design challenges are still significant and until they are resolved NASA will not be able to reliably estimate the time and money needed to execute the program."


Do you understand the primary problems with Constellation now?

This isn't all about a lack of money. NASA's problem is a significant lack of required technologies

Originally posted by turbonium1
A technology is used for 'X' period of time, until something better comes along, which then replaces it. And so it goes, on and on..

So what has replaced Concorde?

See how silly your claim is now?

Originally posted by turbonium1
Just like my 'Time Machine' would've been built, if I was only "given enough money" !!.
Money can be the basic excuse for almost anything, as shown in my example above.
It may be true, or it may be a lame excuse.
So what about the 'return' to the moon? Is it all about getting 'enough money'?
It is not all about money, not a chance.
I posted a report which states it is a severe lack of required technologies. Not a lack of money.
Read the report if you doubt me, though/
And then you'll know it's not all about money,

your time machine argument is wrong.. because the time machine concept just doesnt exist.. its not even possible..

where as flying man to the moon is possible.. proven by:
we can send man made equipment to the outer reaches of the solar system..
we can send man into LEO..
we can soft land equipment on the lunar surface..
radiation levels have been proven by the mars curiosity flight that radiation will not pose a problem for 12 days beyond LEO..
GCR's are nearly halved when on the lunar surface..

if you add all these together you can conclude that it is possible to land man on the moon.

but your time machine.. there is no proof at all that the concept is even possible.. so your argument fails.. money can buy technology to fly man to the moon.. money cannot buy technology to build a time machine, unless there is a proven concept for time travelling then the technology will never exist.

reply to post by turbonium1


Actually this report your posting doesnt say we dont have the technology. Its problems with the design such as thrust vectoring in fact i just read an article on that the other day. There testing a new design for the thrusters this is nothing new apollo had the same problems and just like apollo engineers will fix it. Most of this article is yelling at NASA for funding all these companies that come up with ideas and there afraid there wont be a return on investment. And i agree actually may sound good on paper but you need to look at it more like a business is it worth trying to incorporate this technology or go with something we know. Here is the article i read where there working on the thrust vectoring this means this craft doesnt have to spin to make course corrections unlike apollo.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Ps please read the article it will answer alot of questions for you because it explains we are using an engine used on the shuttle so old technology but look what engineers have to do to meet design specs.

One more thing theres an old saying used in cars and planes designers come up with the ideas however its engineers that make them work.

As for technology...

It is vastly different now than it was in the 1960's.

It is better today, of course.

So, whatever we could do in the 1960's, we can generally do it better today.

At least we can do it as good, but probably do it better..


For example, we'd like to build an airplane that can fly from NYC to Paris. That is our goal. So we try and build that plane. We finally do.

About 40 years later, we want to do it again - to fly from NYC to Paris. For some reason, we' didn't go during those 40 years, but anyhoo...

The technologies are better than 40 years ago, right?

But you have the same goal as before - which is, to build a plane that can fly from NYC to Paris - right?

Why would you lack the required technology? You wouldn't.

Why do you need so much money to develop it? You wouldn't

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by turbonium1
A technology is used for 'X' period of time, until something better comes along, which then replaces it. And so it goes, on and on..

So what has replaced Concorde?

See how silly your claim is now?

The Concorde's technologies have been replaced or refined over the years, no?

Do you know why the Concorde itself was permanently grounded? Hint: for the same reason it hasn't been replaced.

Originally posted by turbonium1
As for technology...

It is vastly different now than it was in the 1960's.

It is better today, of course.

So, whatever we could do in the 1960's, we can generally do it better today.

At least we can do it as good, but probably do it better..


For example, we'd like to build an airplane that can fly from NYC to Paris. That is our goal. So we try and build that plane. We finally do.

About 40 years later, we want to do it again - to fly from NYC to Paris. For some reason, we' didn't go during those 40 years, but anyhoo...

The technologies are better than 40 years ago, right?

But you have the same goal as before - which is, to build a plane that can fly from NYC to Paris - right?

Why would you lack the required technology? You wouldn't.

Why do you need so much money to develop it? You wouldn't

In that case maybe you'd like to look at the R&D budgets of the major aircraft manufacturers and see how much they are spending to build new planes to do old jobs. Why should they do that when the old technology worked just fine? Why did we bother developing the jet engine when propellers were just as good? The answer is because it allows us to do the same job faster, or better, or at a bigger scale, or more safely

Thank you for posting the link, I've now had a quick look and what's interesting is that before it even gets to the engineering problems of the space vehicles under discussion it mentions money. In fact most of the report concerns money. It mentions the 'business case' and 'sufficient funding'. it doesn't say " we can't do it" or "it's impossible" it's saying " this is costing a lot of money". It talks about the need for adequate funds, correct phasing of funding and making sure it gets spent on the right stuff. it discusses this more than it does any technical challenges.

What it also doesn't say is "we can't get to the moon" or "it is not possible to get to the moon". It is discussing the current engineering issues related to this specific craft, which has different design and mission aims compared with its Apollo predecessor. Those are the engineering and technological problems to solve. I could build a rocket in my back garden, but if it failed it doesn't mean that all other rockets will fail.

Nowhere in that report does it say "Apollo didn't go to the moon" or "rockets can't get into orbit and beyond", because that is not true. In fact that report mentions Apollo several times as an important contributor to the Constellation program in terms of the experience it gave NASA and the heritage technology' it provides.

As I said earlier, we (as a species) have the capability to put objects on the moon and have done it time and time again. Why is it such a stretch to add people?

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by turbonium1
A technology is used for 'X' period of time, until something better comes along, which then replaces it. And so it goes, on and on..

So what has replaced Concorde?

See how silly your claim is now?

The Concorde's technologies have been replaced or refined over the years, no?

Do you know why the Concorde itself was permanently grounded? Hint: for the same reason it hasn't been replaced.

no they werent the concorde died because they could no longer afford them and people were not willing to pat extra to fly on them. It was and still would be the most advanced commercial airliner. It was shut down do to money and wont be back until technology finds a way to make supersonic flight cheaper then current airline costs.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Actually this report your posting doesnt say we dont have the technology. Its problems with the design such as thrust vectoring in fact i just read an article on that the other day. There testing a new design for the thrusters this is nothing new apollo had the same problems and just like apollo engineers will fix it. Most of this article is yelling at NASA for funding all these companies that come up with ideas and there afraid there wont be a return on investment. And i agree actually may sound good on paper but you need to look at it more like a business is it worth trying to incorporate this technology or go with something we know.

You aren't serious here, are you?

Where does the report say they DO have the technology?

What are significant technical and desing challenges to you? That isn't about any lack of technology, I suppose? . .

Show me we HAVE developed the new technology we'll use if you can.

Originally posted by turbonium1
As for technology...

It is vastly different now than it was in the 1960's.

It is better today, of course.

So, whatever we could do in the 1960's, we can generally do it better today.

At least we can do it as good, but probably do it better..


For example, we'd like to build an airplane that can fly from NYC to Paris. That is our goal. So we try and build that plane. We finally do.

About 40 years later, we want to do it again - to fly from NYC to Paris. For some reason, we' didn't go during those 40 years, but anyhoo...

The technologies are better than 40 years ago, right?

But you have the same goal as before - which is, to build a plane that can fly from NYC to Paris - right?

Why would you lack the required technology? You wouldn't.

Why do you need so much money to develop it? You wouldn't

well for instance.. the heatshield was made by hand during apollo..

however the contractor wants to automate the process.. but this automated process does not exist..

more money now needs to be spent to find the solution to automate this process..

its unbelievable that you think technology is not reliant on money..

you seriously seriously need to look at how much companies spend on research and development.

Originally posted by onebigmonkey

In that case maybe you'd like to look at the R&D budgets of the major aircraft manufacturers and see how much they are spending to build new planes to do old jobs. Why should they do that when the old technology worked just fine? Why did we bother developing the jet engine when propellers were just as good? The answer is because it allows us to do the same job faster, or better, or at a bigger scale, or more safely

Thank you for posting the link, I've now had a quick look and what's interesting is that before it even gets to the engineering problems of the space vehicles under discussion it mentions money. In fact most of the report concerns money. It mentions the 'business case' and 'sufficient funding'. it doesn't say " we can't do it" or "it's impossible" it's saying " this is costing a lot of money". It talks about the need for adequate funds, correct phasing of funding and making sure it gets spent on the right stuff. it discusses this more than it does any technical challenges.

What it also doesn't say is "we can't get to the moon" or "it is not possible to get to the moon". It is discussing the current engineering issues related to this specific craft, which has different design and mission aims compared with its Apollo predecessor. Those are the engineering and technological problems to solve. I could build a rocket in my back garden, but if it failed it doesn't mean that all other rockets will fail.

Nowhere in that report does it say "Apollo didn't go to the moon" or "rockets can't get into orbit and beyond", because that is not true. In fact that report mentions Apollo several times as an important contributor to the Constellation program in terms of the experience it gave NASA and the heritage technology' it provides.

As I said earlier, we (as a species) have the capability to put objects on the moon and have done it time and time again. Why is it such a stretch to add people?

It is first assumed that there were manned moon landings done so well about 40 years ago, right?

So why would they doubt them now, 40 years later? It should be a cinch in comparison, no?

But it wasn't a cinch, as they realized later on..There were many problems.

What were the problems? Money? No, it wasn't money.

Do you think it's money? Sure you do.

How much money did they need to get, then?

NASA doesn't know, so why would you?

But it's not about money, it was just an excuse for their huge problems..

We aren't going to Mars or something. This is sipposed to be a mission like we did 40+ years ago, several times!

They would do it faster, not slower.

They would know how to do it, which they don't.

They would have better technology, not go backwards to failure.


They can't do the same mission, 40 years later? Bull/ .