Why Are We Orbiting Earth Instead of Landing on the Moon Again?

[russ_watters]

and by the way, almost everybody in europe thinks the whole thing was a fake.

I don't buy that - do you have a source?

 

[Integral]

I am amazed that anyone can have a realistic doubt that the landings occurred. I can say this based purely on a POLITICAL argument. Perhaps some you remember reading in your history books about the Cold War. As a reminder the cold was was a 30yr period of extreme political tension were the US and the USSR (check your history book for the meaning of that acronym!) following a doctrine call MAD. Which meant that a war would mean the end of civilization as we know it. To most of you kids this is all ancient history and is probably associated with WWII (more ancient history... Which means it all happened at the same time right? ) In reality the Cold War lasted from 1945-1990 (plus or minus a few years) Notice that the entire Apollo program happen right smack in the middle of the Cold war. The USSR had an advanced technology which enabled it to have a space program of its own. This means that it had the ability to monitor signals transmitted from space, further they had the ability to know WHERE in space the signals were coming from. The would not have been fooled for even a second by a Earth based hoax. The fact that the USSR never ONCE suggested that these missions were faked is testimony to the reality of the moon landing. Given the political atmosphere of the day had they NOT been monitoring signals from the MOON they would have screamed bloody murder. The Moon landings occurred as surely as the sun rose yesterday.

 

[Janus]

Just to add to what Integral has already said. If the Soviet Union could have raised even a shadow of a doubt that the moon landings were real, they would have. IOW, if they thought that any of the so-called evidence that the moon landings were fake would hold up in the court of international scientific opinion, they would have been the first to point it out. (And don't believe for one minute that they were less capable of finding said evidence than those who go around today claiming hoax). The fact that they didn't shows that they could not find any such evidence.


Another point is that much of the so-called evidence assumes that NASA was very sloppy in its fakery.

We are talking about experts here. If there were supposed to be stars in the lunar sky, they would have made sure that they were in the photos. If there should have been dust on the landing pads, they would have thown dust on them (How hard could that be?) etc.

If they were going to fake it, they would have made sure that they got all the details right (and not leave all kinds of clues for people to find).

 

[TALewis]

Unless--the Soviets were in on the hoax too! OMG, global conspiracy!

 

[Phobos]

We had the technology & drive to get there.
Our competitor/adversary/enemy at the time agreed that we got there.
We planted mirrors on the moon that you can still "see" by bouncing lasers off them.
We brought back moon rocks which are unlike anything to be found on Earth.
And each of the lines of argument for a "moon landing hoax" don't stand up to scrutiny.
We got there several times (for a hoax, once would be a safer bet).
Most of the thousands of people involved in the landing are still alive and are not indicating a hoax.

 

[Artman]

Forgive me if this has been said already (I have not read the entire thread). I just finished reading the book "October Sky" (great book. i highly recommend it!) a story about Rocket Engineer Homer Hickam's life in the coal mining area of West Virginia in the late 1950's.

In the book it talks about Senetor John F. Kennedy visiting the area during a very troubled economic period. He was campaigning and was speaking about bringing in government assitance to help the people. This was not what they wanted. They wanted to work and they were quickly losing interest in his speech.

Homer Hickam happened to be at the location where the future president was speaking and Kennedy asked for questions. Homer had been experimenting with rockets for a couple of years and was interested in knowing whether Kennedy had any interest in sending an astronaut to the moon. Kennedy saw the interest this question generated in all of the people and turned it to his favor by saying that we could work together as a nation to make it happen, yes he would pursue sending a man to the moon.

Kennedy saw then that this as a way of putting government money into the economy without it being a handout, as well as the feeling of national pride such a project could create.

 

[bozo the clown]

Was wondering the purpose of putting mirrors on the moon and why didnt they build a machine with solar pannels for energy supply. And do diff kind of experiments ( don't know what ) we could still be talking to this machine today.

 

[neutroncount]

The mirror was used to determine the changing distance from the Earth to the moon very accurately. I don't know about power supplies.

 

[Integral]

Was wondering the purpose of putting mirrors on the moon and why didn't they build a machine with solar pannels for energy supply. And do diff kind of experiments ( don't know what ) we could still be talking to this machine today.

The missions to the moon were planed to the ounce they took EVERYTHING they could. Of course since most of the payload (thats the total mass that could be carried by the rocket) was devoted to men and life support systems they had little room for meaningful science equipment. This is the trouble with sending men into space. The limited payload available is devoted to the men and keeping them alive, not to useful equipment.

Certain things have not changed and no amount of technology will over come them. It requires a certain amount of energy to transport a kg of mass into space, the more mass lifted the more energy required, this is a physical fact which cannot be altered. If we wish to put man into space we must sacrifice the scientific equipment needed to obtain the data that should be the primary objective of the mission. Men is space are a wasteful extravagance which impede the true purpose of going to space in the first place.

 

[bozo the clown]

well they made space for a lunar rover, what purpose was that supposed to serve

 

[Integral]

You wonder why they did not plant some complex mechanism in stead of a simple mirror. If you want to know why they took the rover instead of an 18 wheeler...Think about it... As I said every OUNCE was planned, they took what they could. Back then they did not have the remote sensing capability so a robotic mission was not possible. Now we can leave behind the humans and accomplish MORE for less money. Simply because the spacecraft need only be structural enough to survive the trip though the atmosphere, the ENTIRE payload can be devoted to science.

 

[enigma]

They couldn't bring anything which relied on solar power because the moon has a 28 day 'day'. That includes a 14 day night. The batteries to keep that thing powered would weigh almost as much as the Eagle itself.

 

[Nereid]

Let's not forget the rocks and soil brought back from the Moon ... can any 'conspiracy theorist' point to a place on Earth where such are found? (they certainly aren't found on a ranch in Crawford!)

If they're not found on Earth, what are they then?

Personally I feel nonsense about there being no manned US Apollo missions to the Moon partly reflects a disappointing ignorance about rocks/geology/etc.

 

[Chronos]

I don't buy that - do you have a source?

Nenad asserted that most Europeans think the moon landing by USA was a hoax. That is what Russ was responding to. The quote link could otherwise be deceiving. I am attempting to support the reply by Russ.

Europeans have this annoying habit of being 'know it alls'. According to them, they are the cradle of civilization and invented everything. Moon landing a hoax? Patently absurd. Anyone with a decent telescope could have seen the lander crafts orbiting the moon [and many did]. Geologists from all over the world reached a consensus that 'moon rocks' brought back could not have originated from this planet. But, USA is so good at deception that we continued making 'fake' moon landings for another 10 years. European mythology, while annoying, is always amusing.

 

[Nereid]

Europeans have this annoying habit of being 'know it alls'. According to them, they are the cradle of civilization and invented everything.

[nitpick]Some people who live in Europe may have annoying habits, are 'know it alls', etc. Some Europeans are humble, polite, generous, knowledgeable, and so on. :surprise: Just like everyone else? [/nitpick]

 

[Phobos]

Men is space are a wasteful extravagance which impede the true purpose of going to space in the first place.

Now this could make for an interesting debate. Care to start a new topic? (no war-of-the-sexes jokes though)

 

[Entropy]

Europeans have this annoying habit of being 'know it alls'. According to them, they are the cradle of civilization and invented everything.

Yep, but most Americans think they are the rulers of the world.

 

[Chronos]

Yep, but most Americans think they are the rulers of the world.

Hehe, aint easy to slide a little sarcasm by people here. Due to cultural difference some myths play better on the continent and some myths play better in the US. There is no shortage of American mythology and it is no less amusing or annoying than the continental variety.

 

[Phobos]

Was wondering the purpose of putting mirrors on the moon and why didnt they build a machine with solar pannels for energy supply. And do diff kind of experiments ( don't know what ) we could still be talking to this machine today.

Here's one such experiment they left behind...certainly wasn't meant to last 30+ years though.
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ApolloCat/Part1/ALSEP.htm

(the mirrors previously mentioned are still useful though!)

 

[Phobos]

Let's keep the cultural/nationalism mudslinging to a minimum. Unless it's moon-mud.

 

[russ_watters]

Now this could make for an interesting debate. Care to start a new topic?

The most prominent proponent of this is Robert Park, who testified before Congress that "The space station [and by extension, manned spaceflight itself] stands as the greatest single obstacle to the continued exploration of space." The full text: http://www.nasawatch.com/congress/04.09.97.park.html

 

[Integral]

The most prominent proponen of this is Robert Park, who testified before Congress that "The space station [and by extension, manned spaceflight itself] stands as the greatest single obstacle to the continued exploration of space." The full text: http://www.nasawatch.com/congress/04.09.97.park.html

Wow! not only does he substantiate every point I mentioned, he adds more issues. What we need to know, has been learned, there is no advantage to micro gravity, and no economic benefits from MANNED space missions.

The best thing we could do is sell ISS to a commercial developer for a exotic vacation resort. With the extra spice of possibility of major mutation due to excess hard radiation of any children produced. Sounds grand... I'll pass.

 

[bozo the clown]

and no economic benefits from MANNED space missions.

.

no not yet, but there never will be if we do not do anything, from your posts integral would appear your not a big space exploration fan.

Now if we do not spend that money through space endervours where would it go? building more weapons perhaps, billions of dollars policing more of the world, maybe we should; instead of going to Mars invade N.Korea and take their nukes and nerve gas off them.

Of course i would rarther have the money saved from space go into tax refunds, but I know this would never happen so i'd rather see it go into the wonders of space than into the spilling of blood.

 

[Entropy]

no not yet, but there never will be if we do not do anything, from your posts integral would appear your not a big space exploration fan.

Now if we do not spend that money through space endervours where would it go? building more weapons perhaps, billions of dollars policing more of the world, maybe we should; instead of going to Mars invade N.Korea and take their nukes and nerve gas off them.

Of course i would rarther have the money saved from space go into tax refunds, but I know this would never happen so i'd rather see it go into the wonders of space than into the spilling of blood.

You should noticed that Integral said "MANNED" missions. That still leaves robots/probes to do all the data gathering or building or what not in space. Read more carefully before you start a rant.

 

[bozo the clown]

im not starting a rant i just got the feeling from integrals earlier posts that he feels there is too much money being spent on space exploration read more posts entropy before you jump to conclusions.

 

[Chronos]

Probes are clearly more practical and efficient. Forty years ago it was necessary to put people into space simply because the level of understanding and technology was not up to the task to execute those missions. That is no longer true. We can now put robotic explorers on Mars and orbital probes around Saturn for pennies to the millions it would cost to send people there. We should abandon the outdated mindset of manned missions. The quest should be for knowledge, not glory or pride.

 

[bozo the clown]

no man must come first we cannot give into the machines !

 

[Integral]

Bozo,
The way I see it, it is YOU who is not interested in exploring the solar system, you only care about glory and cowboy heroics, not science. Did you read the link given by Russ? Please do. It was written for congressmen so even a grade schooler should be able to read and understand it.

I am all for exploration of the solar system and beyond. But we must do it efficiently and wisely. There is much to learn and many beneficial technological advances will need to be made to achieve even modest goals. The advances will be in remote sensing and controls, this type of technology can have a significant effect on our lives though improved manufacture techniques and vehicle safety. (Just a couple of examples off the top of my head). Sending a man into space is not necessary to accomplish any meaningful science. If you read the link, it is stated that there are a large number of both physical and life scientist who share this opinion. Since we have had men in space nearly continuously for the last 20yrs we are well familiar with low gravity environment. The fact is in the larger scheme of things the surface of the Earth IS A LOW GRAVITY ENVIRONMENT, we gain nothing by going into space.

As I have said before we must use our available resources to learn as much as possible. It is not clear to me that the solution to our major problems lie in outer space. If we waste resources on a wild goose chase (ie man on Mars) we may well fall short of a solution to the real problems.

We need a inexhaustible source of cheap energy, given that all other problems will take care of themselves.

 

[Integral]

no man must come first we cannot give into the machines !

LOL, Perhaps you should trade in your science fiction books for science fact!

 

[Phobos]

One thing to be said for manned missions...it inspires non-scientists' interest in science & the space program (y'know, the folks who are footing much of the bill). In the immortal words of Lockheed Martin (at least, by their new ad execs)..."To be human is to explore."

Of course, I realize/agree that much more can be accomplished with robotic missions at this stage in our space technology. But a little glory & pride can be a great motivator too.