Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

The reusable shuttle was space on a poor mans budget. The shuttles no where near the cost of the Apollo program in man hours and money. This was NASAs idea to stay in the satellite business since the days of expendable resources ended.Only draw back was maintenance cost were higher then expected as fleet aged final solution cancel the shuttle program without an alternative in place. So now where begging for rides from the Russians.And thanks to budget cuts probably for the next decade. But its not about money now we just have a space agency that cant get into space i guess you figure thats the way they wanted it right?

edit on 9/7/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

These excuses don't work, no way, no how.

It is important to know their stated goals. These goals have not changed at all.

We want to explore our universe, so the moon is the obvious place to start.

They said it was the plan, and it still is today. .

If we really have achieved the first goal, a manned moon landing, they'd keep it going.

The technology would be most important, right?


Not so, because there was a lack of money, rendering it all completely worthless!! .


Money, my butt .

Originally posted by choos

no you havent considered the expenses of running ALL THE PROGRAMS.. not just the shuttle missions, but all of them and on top of that you want to launch apollo missions as well?? the shuttle missions are already expensive and you want to run the apollo missions on top of that??

The money spent on the Shuttle could have gone ttowards the real goal. There's no excuse for it, anyway.

Originally posted by choos

how is it a step backwards?? please explain?? how is the ISS technology and engineering backwards from apollo??

because your uninformed self says so??

Come on, now.

I'm talking about the specific ACHIEVEMENT here! To achieve a manned moon landing, and then just LEO,flights, this is going backwards.

Originally posted by choos

building the ISS helps further studies in space.. flying equipment to the ISS is cheaper than flying equipment to the moon.. flying man to the ISS is cheaper than flying man to the moon.. flying man to the ISS is safer than flying man to the moon.. do you deny these??

how is it reasonable to study effects of space on the moon than in the ISS considering the above points?

and if you want them to run both programs at the same time.. then say good bye to every single other space program that NASA finances.. actually say goodbye to the US economy.

It isn't any excuse, as I said before.

Originally posted by choos

double standards.. my saying so doesnt cut it.. but your saying so apparently is solid proof of everything.. just like the GCR's making someone sick or maybe killing someone in an aluminium shell within a week right? apparently now you "saying so" is proof.

edit on 7-9-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

p.s. going backwards would be to stop space exploration completely.

edit on 7-9-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

I have cited quotes from the report, so who has a double standard here? Are you going to avoid it or what?

Perhaps you are confused about something........

In general, a better technology will allow for a greater achievement,

But not with Apollo, being followed by the Shuttle. It's off-kilter.

To recap...

Apollo had the technology required for maaned moon landings because there was enough money to develop such technology.

Soon after, however, a lack of money immediately rendered the technology worthless, and it became obsolete, forever after

The End

btw - it's just like how Apollo's data is treated, too!

Originally posted by turbonium1
To recap...

Apollo had the technology required for maaned moon landings because there was enough money to develop such technology.

So far, so good. There was an immense amount of money and manpower devoted to very specialized hardware and infrastructure built in support of the lunar landings. A few quick, expensive, and visually obvious examples would be the entire Saturn family of launch vehicles, the Vehicle Assembly Building, the crawler-transporters, the world-wide network of tracking / communications stations, and Launch Complex 39. There were plenty of others.

Soon after, however, a lack of money immediately rendered the technology worthless, and it became obsolete, forever after

The End

Presumably you're referring to the Saturn V, since just about everything else was eventually reused or modified for use in later programs. Unfortunately for the Saturn V, once the Apollo program ended, it had no real use. It was far to expensive to build and launch to be used to support permanent bases on the Moon, far to small to be used in a reasonably efficient mission to Mars, and too large to have any use as an orbital launcher once the Skylab module was in orbit. It was a machine without a mission.

This problem was exaggerated by a lack of money...any follow-up program that went beyond LEO was going to be absolute murder on the budget, and NASA couldn't even get Congress to maintain then-current funding, never mind stepping up the cash flow to allow missions to Mars or a permanent Lunar base. NASA made the (fiscally sound) decision to plan for what could be afforded, not what they wanted...if LEO was all they could afford, they decided to make the best of it. Unfortunately for NASA, the general public just couldn't get behind orbital work...it didn't have the 'wow' factor of landing on the Moon (or Mars). Without public support, Congress did what they always do...they put the money where they thought it would bring the most votes...and now NASA found itself with no money and no mission.

btw - it's just like how Apollo's data is treated, too!

I'm not sure I follow this...Apollo's data isn't treated as worthless (except by the folks who have to totally ignore it in order to sustain their belief that we never made it to the Moon), and it certainly isn't obsolete.

Now, don't get me wrong, to land men on the moon iwas quite a feat, but it pales in comparison to the images with little blobs and dots of it we've got, hey?

Wowww

Originally posted by turbonium1
I have cited quotes from the report, so who has a double standard here? Are you going to avoid it or what?

Then where are the quotes that say that for a short term mission aluminum is too dangerous to use as a shield? Where are their numbers to prove that aluminum would have at the very least made the astronauts sick?

Oh wait, I forgot, there are no numbers, because NASA never went, so you can't prove that it would make them sick or kill them.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

[
Presumably you're referring to the Saturn V, since just about everything else was eventually reused or modified for use in later programs. Unfortunately for the Saturn V, once the Apollo program ended, it had no real use. It was far to expensive to build and launch to be used to support permanent bases on the Moon, far to small to be used in a reasonably efficient mission to Mars, and too large to have any use as an orbital launcher once the Skylab module was in orbit. It was a machine without a mission.

This problem was exaggerated by a lack of money...any follow-up program that went beyond LEO was going to be absolute murder on the budget, and NASA couldn't even get Congress to maintain then-current funding, never mind stepping up the cash flow to allow missions to Mars or a permanent Lunar base. NASA made the (fiscally sound) decision to plan for what could be afforded, not what they wanted...if LEO was all they could afford, they decided to make the best of it. Unfortunately for NASA, the general public just couldn't get behind orbital work...it didn't have the 'wow' factor of landing on the Moon (or Mars). Without public support, Congress did what they always do...they put the money where they thought it would bring the most votes...and now NASA found itself with no money and no mission.

The one goal was to land men on the moon, stay for a few days at most, and return to Earth. And that was it.

No moon bases were involved, or a Mars flight, etc.

It was the same goal as Apollo, essentially a short stay on the moon.

Saturn V supposedly did it, so no excuse here.

Why have Shuttles for 40 years, if we went to the moon? Because we didn't go to the moon, clearly. The Shuttle was the best we could do - no other reason makes any sense.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

I'm not sure I follow this...Apollo's data isn't treated as worthless (except by the folks who have to totally ignore it in order to sustain their belief that we never made it to the Moon), and it certainly isn't obsolete.

I've posted reports that ignore it, or it's merely a footnote. The data is not used, or not as valid data,

They say aluminum is a poor shield beyond LEO. - period.

You make a spin on it, right?

reply to post by turbonium1


Why have the Shuttle for 40 years if we went to the moon?

That's rather like asking "Why does Dominos Pizza use small cars and pickup trucks when we have semi-trailer trucks?" or "Why do commuter flights use 30 passenger turboprops when they could have Boeing 747s or Airbus A380s?".

Using the Saturn V to launch payloads to Earth orbit is, to put it mildly, overkill. I can only think of *one* payload in the last 40 years that comes close to needing a Saturn V's lift capacity, and that would be the International Space Station. NASA and the USAF developed the Space Shuttle to do a specific set of jobs (putting payloads of around 53,000 lbs into orbit).

In the aerospace business, companies don't usually build a piece of hardware and then try to find a mission for it. They develop and build hardware to fit missions. That's true whether we're discussing missiles, fighters, bombers, tanker aircraft, or orbital / lunar launch vehicles. Is that really so hard a concept to understand? No mission, no hardware.

You (and others) also seem to have problems separating the Apollo program (the lunar landing program) and NASA as a whole...You mention repeatedly that "The only goal was to land on the Moon" and "There were no plans for permanent Lunar bases or Mars flights" (the quotes may not be exact, apologies as needed). Both statements are true of Project Apollo , but are demonstrably untrue of NASA as a whole. There were extensive studies done on post-Lunar uses of Apollo hardware (the Apollo Applications Program), as well as Lunar bases and missions to Mars (the studies of the NERVA and M-1 engines are evidence of that).

As for the Apollo data not being used, or being regarded as invalid, I can't seem to find anyone who regards it as invalid except (as I noted) the "we never went there" crowd, who pretty much have to ignore it outright.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the logic of "We don't build something today, so it obviously wasn't built (or didn't perform its job) back in the day." By that logic, steam locomotives and zeppelins never flew, vacuum tube computers never worked, and steel battleships can't float (much to the chagrin of the crews aboard the Iowa, Tirpitz, Richelieu, Warspite, and Yamato). Technology marches on, and eventually, even moon rockets become 'yestertech'.

reply to post by turbonium1


As has been pointed out to you many times, the initial return to the moon would be a two week stay on the moon. Apollo was sufficient for the length of the mission not for a longer stay.

reply to post by turbonium1


They also say radiation is deadly, but you are constantly exposed and don't die. Radiation doesn't magically become more deadly I'm space. Nothing has been shown that proves that a short stay is impossible even with an aluminum shield.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

The reusable shuttle was space on a poor mans budget. The shuttles no where near the cost of the Apollo program in man hours and money. This was NASAs idea to stay in the satellite business since the days of expendable resources ended.Only draw back was maintenance cost were higher then expected as fleet aged final solution cancel the shuttle program without an alternative in place. So now where begging for rides from the Russians.And thanks to budget cuts probably for the next decade. But its not about money now we just have a space agency that cant get into space i guess you figure thats the way they wanted it right?

edit on 9/7/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

These excuses don't work, no way, no how.

It is important to know their stated goals. These goals have not changed at all.

We want to explore our universe, so the moon is the obvious place to start.

They said it was the plan, and it still is today. .

If we really have achieved the first goal, a manned moon landing, they'd keep it going.

The technology would be most important, right?


Not so, because there was a lack of money, rendering it all completely worthless!! .


Money, my butt .

The reason they didnt go back is well unimportant really. You'll make up what ever you choose to believe from aliens alternate dimensions etc. Bottom line is your opinion means nothing in a debate to win an argument you need proof. So prove people wrong show them Apollo wasnt cancelled because of budgets. Do you have any evidence to back your opinion?

The money spent on the Shuttle could have gone ttowards the real goal. There's no excuse for it, anyway.

ummm... the money spent on the shuttle was money spent building the ISS predominantly.. the ISS has furthered research in space.. it has furthered space exploration cheaper and safer than a lab on the moon.. seriously what do you think the ISS does anyway?? circle the earth taking purty pictures?

Come on, now.

I'm talking about the specific ACHIEVEMENT here! To achieve a manned moon landing, and then just LEO,flights, this is going backwards.

no its not going backwards.. going backwards is to stop space exploration completely!! the ISS has furthered research in space science and medicine.. it has done so cheaper, more efficient and safer than a lab on the moon.. the manned lunar missions was to further space exploration and science.. the ISS was to further space exploration and science.. they serve the same purpose with different methods.

It isn't any excuse, as I said before.

ofcourse not.. even though NASA's budget had been declining yearly, even though NASA wants to continue space exploration, even though NASA needs funding to continue running its programs..

money is not an excuse.. because you say so.

I have cited quotes from the report, so who has a double standard here? Are you going to avoid it or what?

oh yes.. just like how you saying that GCR will make someone sick or even kill them within a week without any sources whatsoever.. all because you say so.. like i said double standards.

have you even looked past the first two pages?? have you even looked at the technology issues that you are claiming?? most of the technology issues are related to reducing the costs of manufacturing..

for example the heatshield.. whereas apollo made it by hand, the contractor wants to automate the process.. as yet the automated process doesnt exist.. is this the technology that you have been referring to?? and yes this is one of the problems in the report.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by choos

no you havent considered the expenses of running ALL THE PROGRAMS.. not just the shuttle missions, but all of them and on top of that you want to launch apollo missions as well?? the shuttle missions are already expensive and you want to run the apollo missions on top of that??

The money spent on the Shuttle could have gone ttowards the real goal. There's no excuse for it, anyway.

Originally posted by choos

how is it a step backwards?? please explain?? how is the ISS technology and engineering backwards from apollo??

because your uninformed self says so??

Come on, now.

I'm talking about the specific ACHIEVEMENT here! To achieve a manned moon landing, and then just LEO,flights, this is going backwards.

Originally posted by choos

building the ISS helps further studies in space.. flying equipment to the ISS is cheaper than flying equipment to the moon.. flying man to the ISS is cheaper than flying man to the moon.. flying man to the ISS is safer than flying man to the moon.. do you deny these??

how is it reasonable to study effects of space on the moon than in the ISS considering the above points?

and if you want them to run both programs at the same time.. then say good bye to every single other space program that NASA finances.. actually say goodbye to the US economy.

It isn't any excuse, as I said before.

Originally posted by choos

double standards.. my saying so doesnt cut it.. but your saying so apparently is solid proof of everything.. just like the GCR's making someone sick or maybe killing someone in an aluminium shell within a week right? apparently now you "saying so" is proof.

edit on 7-9-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

p.s. going backwards would be to stop space exploration completely.

edit on 7-9-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

I have cited quotes from the report, so who has a double standard here? Are you going to avoid it or what?

Sorry the world doesnt work the way you think it does must be very disheartening. And as for proof you die being enclosed in aluminum in space please let me see the data and the experiments ran.

Originally posted by turbonium1
Come on, now.

I'm talking about the specific ACHIEVEMENT here! To achieve a manned moon landing, and then just LEO,flights, this is going backwards.

only just realised.. now you are moving the goal posts.. first it was the technology going backwards and now its achievements going backwards??

but are you seriously saying that because the achievements they have made, to you it has seemingly gone backwards it proves they never went to the moon??

so are you also saying that since no one has ever been able to achieve constructing something similar or greater than the panama canal that it does not exist.. and because the chinese have not constructed a wall greater than the great wall of china that it does not exist??

is this your argument now?? that achievements must always be greater and grander in order to prove something real? what a twisted sense of reality you have

dragonridr
Sorry the world doesnt work the way you think it does must be very disheartening. And as for proof you die being enclosed in aluminum in space please let me see the data and the experiments ran.

You are right about that, Dragon.. The world does not work they way people may think. Don't make the same mistake of thinking you have the answers.

For instance, President Nixon's brother, Ed, was a geologist but couldn't find work in geology. Ed found a job at Bellcomm in the recruitment/hiring division. Ed Nixon hired Farouk El-Baz for a geology job at Bellcomm.

El-Baz worked closely with Lunar Orbiter images, in the early days of L.O., the images were catalogued simply by this desk or that desk, literally, piles of unsorted images on desktops.

It is from Farouk's NASA oral history that he told us how the world works, exactly, how, it, works. Farouk even sat highly on the Landing Site Selection Committee, you know, the Egyptian was selecting landing sites for Apollo.

Also from Farouk's NASA oral history one could read how the CIA had physical control of the Apollo negatives from the very beginning of the "photo development process".

The CIA was also there... at the beginning of NASA... and the beginning of the missile threat programs... and the Communist threat programs... the CIA built the orchestra of Apollo from the remnants of Nazi science.

Why is it so easy to find CIA links in the Apollo narrative? Because they are real, and true. NASA is linked to the CIA and the Nazi's while the Apollo program is the climax of this powerful combination... a TV myth gone wild.

Think about that the next time you hire an Egyptian geologist to pick your landing sites.

SayonaraJupiter

dragonridr
Sorry the world doesnt work the way you think it does must be very disheartening. And as for proof you die being enclosed in aluminum in space please let me see the data and the experiments ran.

You are right about that, Dragon.. The world does not work they way people may think. Don't make the same mistake of thinking you have the answers.

For instance, President Nixon's brother, Ed, was a geologist but couldn't find work in geology. Ed found a job at Bellcomm in the recruitment/hiring division. Ed Nixon hired Farouk El-Baz for a geology job at Bellcomm.

El-Baz worked closely with Lunar Orbiter images, in the early days of L.O., the images were catalogued simply by this desk or that desk, literally, piles of unsorted images on desktops.

It is from Farouk's NASA oral history that he told us how the world works, exactly, how, it, works. Farouk even sat highly on the Landing Site Selection Committee, you know, the Egyptian was selecting landing sites for Apollo.

Also from Farouk's NASA oral history one could read how the CIA had physical control of the Apollo negatives from the very beginning of the "photo development process".

The CIA was also there... at the beginning of NASA... and the beginning of the missile threat programs... and the Communist threat programs... the CIA built the orchestra of Apollo from the remnants of Nazi science.

Why is it so easy to find CIA links in the Apollo narrative? Because they are real, and true. NASA is linked to the CIA and the Nazi's while the Apollo program is the climax of this powerful combination... a TV myth gone wild.

Think about that the next time you hire an Egyptian geologist to pick your landing sites.

edit on 9/9/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/9/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: make it so

Wow when ever you lose an argument you just start over again huh? Every point you made is nothing but accusations and might i add a lot of paranoia. See your supposed to prove we didnt go to the moon not throw out innuendos. See this is called the real world not your fantasy world so im sorry if the real world doesnt conform to your beliefs either change them or prove them but for god sakes pick one.

Oh dear. You knuckleheads. The space shuttle was way more advanced than the apollo era vehicles, and in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin. For a start, it was re-usable. The amount of development that went into that one aspect is mind boggling. Check out the x-plane history if you want details. Navigating at mach 25 is no mean feat. The apollo capsule just fell.

It doesn't matter which system you look at, the shuttle is way ahead of the 60's era technology in every respect.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Wow - "Geologist gets job as geologist" shocker!!

I read Farouk's oral history. The CIA gets 11 mentions. Here are some of them:

espeCIAlly
speCIAL
offiCIAl

Oh, and a guy who used to work for the CIA but joined NASA and helped with developing the photographs from Apollo missions that had already happened. That's it. It is therefore NOT clear from Farouk's interview that the CIA were all over the lunar programme, nor is there any mention of Nazism - unless you count his German education and working with Bruno Sabels, who was German.

Amazingly, a geologist employed to study lunar geology was then asked to help decide where to land - just because he had systematically catalogued the various types of lunar terrain and had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Lunar Orbiter photographs. Clearly employing someone with an understanding of the job he's been asked to do and then asking him to contribute meaningfully on the subject is deeply suspicious.

Here's the thing: your country of origin does not determine whether science or engineering works, neither do your political views.