Ok, you pro moon landers. I want to see you bullshit your way out of this one. As you know Russia has recently stated the United States is refusing to cooperate with them in a joint moon landing venture. Today the Telegraph reported that Russia is accusing the USA of denying them access to Helium 3.


The plot, says Erik Galimov, an academic with the Russian Academy of Sciences, would "enable the US to establish its control of the energy market 20 years from now and put the rest of the world on its knees as hydrocarbons run out."



My question is this? How come the Russians can't go to the moon in 2007, but we did in 1969? The nieve mindset of the pro-moon landers is staggering to say the least. This is a check mate. If Russia can't go now, we never went then PERIOD.

So the Russians are still 30 years behind us in Space Technology(Is that so Dragon?) I don't think so. They put the first satalite into space, the first man into space, the first woman into space, the first space-station into space. And despite them being ahead of us, you all are gullable enough to believe that the Russians can't make anything better or equivelant to Apollo space shuttle? LOL LOL LOL, Oh boy, this has turned into pure unadulturated comedy. :D


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/01/wmoon01.xml

....you mean the huge-cost-overrun space station that kept threatening to fall out of the sky?

And, by comparison, the Yanks spent millions to develop a space pen that could work in zero gravity. But the Russians used pencils. Are you all gullible enough to believe that the Americans, who are so far ahead in office stationary technology, couldn't develop the pencil? I don't think so. If Americans can't develop pencils now, then they never were invented PERIOD.

My question is this? How come the Russians can't go to the moon in 2007, but we did in 1969? The nieve mindset of the pro-moon landers is staggering to say the least. This is a check mate. If Russia can't go now, we never went then PERIOD. [

I explained this before. It's not that they CAN'T. Prior moon landing missions were conducted by completely blind luck. Nasa has since realized this, and other space stations in turn refuse to return to the moon until it's impossible to fail.

In case you didn't know, the prior US moon landing had so many difficulties that it was a bloody miracle they even landed (the computer was inches away from imploding. Not literally of course).

....you mean the huge-cost-overrun space station that kept threatening to fall out of the sky?

Yep, we've had Shuttles fall out of the Sky was well. Multiple launches have been delayed, from a myriad of complications.

And, by comparison, the Yanks spent millions to develop a space pen that could work in zero gravity. But the Russians used pencils. Are you all gullible enough to believe that the Americans, who are so far ahead in office stationary technology, couldn't develop the pencil? I don't think so. If Americans can't develop pencils now, then they never were invented PERIOD.

That was a mornic retort.

Russian has undergone severe financial difficulty in recent times. our own space programs are underfunded. In the 60's, the political will was different. There was almost no program that had better funding than the moon shot, we had to beat the Russians there at all costs.

There is no technical limitation now on reaching the moon. However, concerns about safety have increased costs and development time. There would also have to be real scientific reasons for going there this time. I wonder if the costs make what knowledge we can gain there worth it.

I explained this before. It's not that they CAN'T. Prior moon landing missions were conducted by completely blind luck.

Bullshit, no responsible cheap-scape government agency would invest billions upon billions into a Blink Luck project. Can you give any other examples of the US government spending that kind of Money on Blind Luck? Didn't think so.


Nasa has since realized this, and other space stations in turn refuse to return to the moon until it's impossible to fail.

Ha Ha, space is the most hostile enviorment imaginable. There's zero guarantee's in space. ZERO! We fail all them time with our Shuttle program. And that hasn't stop Nasa from sending more bodies up in space. But nice try though.

In case you didn't know, the prior US moon landing had so many difficulties that it was a bloody miracle they even landed (the computer was inches away from imploding. Not literally of course).

That's what they've lead you to believe. The odds were less then one percent of us having a sucsessful mission. And when I apply occam's razor to this subject, the simpilist explanation is we never made it. And it was actually easier to fake it then it was to actually land. Less then one percent chance of sucsessfully landing, VS a 50% chance to dupe the public. Nasa/cia figured it was a safer bet to go with the latter.

Russian has undergone severe financial difficulty in recent times. our own space programs are underfunded. In the 60's, the political will was different. There was almost no program that had better funding than the moon shot, we had to beat the Russians there at all costs.

You're correct Spider. Russia was suffering from severe fanicial difficulties. That's why the Mir construction project was privatized.

" Privatized Mir was predictably viewed with jealous hostility by NASA bureaucrats and their government contracting allies, at least in part because Mir's annual operating costs were just 3% of those of NASA's station"

There is no technical limitation now on reaching the moon. However, concerns about safety have increased costs and development time. There would also have to be real scientific reasons for going there this time. I wonder if the costs make what knowledge we can gain there worth it.

So make up your mind spider. Safety wasn't an issue 30 years ago when we allegedly sent Astronauts, with a calculator as a computer. But now it is?

Wow, you guys are giving a government with a history of lies and falcifications every single benefit of the doubt. Like i said It's staggering.

Yes, quite so. Safety was much less of a concern then. That's why we sent brave test pilots rather than studious school teachers.

Bullshit, no responsible cheap-scape government agency would invest billions upon billions into a Blink Luck project. Can you give any other examples of the US government spending that kind of Money on Blind Luck? Didn't think so.

NASA is not fully funded by the US government. The majority of it's funding, I believe, comes from hundreds of other sources.

Similarly, NASA did not at the time have advanced enough technology to make it a 100% success. It was a purely political war, not one of science (NASA was pretty much rushed into it).

Besides, given the technology of the time, they could not even make adequate shielding from radiation and other effects. It comes down to this: The astronauts were lucky.


Ha Ha, space is the most hostile enviorment imaginable. There's zero guarantee's in space. ZERO! We fail all them time with our Shuttle program. And that hasn't stop Nasa from sending more bodies up in space. But nice try though.

People sent to space so far have been well within earths magnetic protection from radiation. This is why astronauts need not as much radiation shielding.

Similarly, NASA is taking almost all precautions. This includes ensuring the ship isn't hit by miniature space rocks going a few thousand MPH.



That's what they've lead you to believe. The odds were less then one percent of us having a sucsessful mission. And when I apply occam's razor to this subject, the simpilist explanation is we never made it. And it was actually easier to fake it then it was to actually land. Less then one percent chance of sucsessfully landing, VS a 50% chance to dupe the public. Nasa/cia figured it was a safer bet to go with the latter.

It would've been easier, and more efficient. And given NASA's technical expertise, I doubt the video would've been able to be "debunked" by armchair logicians claiming to know it all.

I might also add that you've misapplied Occams Razor. It's "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Which is not your statement against NASA.

i dont take either side of this argument yet, i would just like to intercept or a moment to ask a question.

is there actual hard evidence that they made it to the moon and back again? like real hard proof.?

peace.

I touched it. A moon rock at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.

and it is 100% evidence that in 69 we went to the moon? im not saying its not proof im just asking that is real proof right?


peace.

My question is this? How come the Russians can't go to the moon in 2007, but we did in 1969?

they did go to the moon. they are the ones that returned the first pictures of th far side. they also crash landed a few probes.

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

Others can be googled. It's unfortunate, however, that you'll mostly find conspiracy-theory nut jobs when you do. You can also buy a book that NASA wrote on the subject that effectively rebuttals most claims.

Yep, we've had Shuttles fall out of the Sky was well. Multiple launches have been delayed, from a myriad of complications.

That was a mornic retort.

It was illustrated to show you something, and it has.

My question is this? How come the Russians can't go to the moon in 2007, but we did in 1969? The nieve mindset of the pro-moon landers is staggering to say the least. This is a check mate. If Russia can't go now, we never went then PERIOD.
You haven't even read the article you link. Nowhere does it say the Russians can't go, just that they're miffed about having to fund the entire
programme themselves.

Energia says it will start "industrial scale delivery" of helium-3, transported by cargo space ships via the International Space Station, no later than 2020.
Industrial-scale delivery by 2020, but you claim they can't go now?

why would anyone want to go to the moon, for what purpose? furthermore maybe their are things up there that some may not want to be known.

and it is 100% evidence that in 69 we went to the moon? im not saying its not proof im just asking that is real proof right?


peace.

It's good enough for me. Nothing represents 100% proof of this trip, but the accumulation of evidence like this rock, the space suits, the observation shared by millions of the rocket launch, the reports by the astronauts themselves, it all adds up to be quite compelling.

If we can send a rocket into space, which millions observed, what would stop it going to the moon? It's just a matter of pointing it in the right direction and providing adequate thrust. It's not like they are claiming to have travelled through the sun or something.

I touched it. A moon rock at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.


So what, we have rocks from Mars. Doesn't mean man went there.

why would anyone want to go to the moon, for what purpose? furthermore maybe their are things up there that some may not want to be known.
Well duh. They HAVE to go to see if there really ARE things up there that some may not want known... otherwise no-one would know if there were things that others shouldn't know - nobody would know, you know?

If we can send a rocket into space, which millions observed, what would stop it going to the moon? It's just a matter of pointing it in the right direction and providing adequate thrust. It's not like they are claiming to have travelled through the sun or something.


If what you say is true. How come Russia is trying piggyback on the US to get to the Moon?

How come Russia is trying piggyback on the US to get to the Moon?
Because, as has been said, the Russians are slightly strapped for cash. Anyone would rather have someone else share costs than pay for everything themselves.

jeez, do we really need another moon rock?

I believe NASA also isn't doing so wel financial, there to costly the entire manned Chinese space program has costs 19 billion yuan (http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/rare_china_glimpse.htm) or 2.3 billion dollars that's what what the space shuttle program costs every 6 months... 6 months maintenance VS a entire build up from the ground.
NASA is yust to costly...

I am not sure what to think, it's a good point though that we should already have manned the moon, unless it was all a farce.
Just a question: how long was it between the discovery/ first trip to America and the regular colonisation? And how much more costly and difficult would it be to "man the moon"?

I am not sure what to think,

thats why there are peopole here to tell you what to think.

Just a question: how long was it between the discovery/ first trip to America and the regular colonisationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
Asuming we grant Columbus the title of the discovery in 1492... then the first settlement was in 1492, La navidad with a population of 39 men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Navidad). But it was destroyed by natives.
SO he did the right thing and in 1493 he founded la isabella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Isabela)... So afther failing ones it took him abouth a year...

My gues is that later people will see the apollo missions something like the Viking discovery of america and will generally be regarded as not a important event

Please, there difficulty in manning the moon is non-existant.
Money? Lift capability? National will?
I'm sick of hearing all this nonsense about the moon being impossible to live on, it's clearly not
Clearly not? How not?
Hell wouldn't it even be easier launching satalites and such from there considering its gravity, give me a break!
Actually it would, as Heinlein said "once you're on the Moon it's halfway to anywhere in the Solar System". But then there's people like Proxmire and co. that don't want the resources allocated...

Orcot:
Later discoveries proved that the Vikings had established a settlement in the province of Newfoundland, Canada, under the leadership of Leif Erikson in the 11th century.
from the same link you posted.
and I said REGULAR colonisation. Plus which transatlantic is considerably easier than cis-lunar. More air for a start....

anyone see a flag with there telescope?

anyone see a flag with there telescope?
Oh for crying out loud, read the thread on faked moonlandings,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64115
or SciForums Encyclopaedia entry:
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Moon_landing_conspiracy
Do try to keep up. :D

Can't you just look through a very good telescope and see evidence of the moon landing?

Nope.

Shucks.

Because, as has been said, the Russians are slightly strapped for cash. Anyone would rather have someone else share costs than pay for everything themselves.

You're correct. That's why the Mir project was privatized. If we privatized the space industry in America we would be leaps and bounds above NASA.