Moon Landing

[WISD0MTREE]

Moores law huh? So does that mean immortality and flying unicorns that shoot laser beams are inevitable? 

I'm doubting that the military would develop unicorns. I mean, in theory, yes, but nobody would develop that stuff. Powering a car with stuff aside from oil that is produced by the sun would be more useful and more likely to be produced. 

[Lan]

I'm doubting that the military would develop unicorns. I mean, in theory, yes, but nobody would develop that stuff. Powering a car with stuff aside from oil that is produced by the sun would be more useful and more likely to be produced. 

But only if it's affordable. Space travel is a multi billion dollar business and mining anything as a regular energy source from anywhere but Earth is not in the foreseeable future. 

[Braunsberg]

Did we land on the moon? Discuss. 

Just to offer a counter point show me conclusive evidence that we did. (BTW there is)

1). Yes we did.

 

2). Well, for one, powerful telescopes on Earth can see the landing pieces that remain on the moon. Second, later astronauts (if I remember correctly) walked to the first Apollo site. Third, we have physical samples of moon dust that I don't think can be replicated by terrestrial minerals and the like.

[WISD0MTREE]

"forseeable future." And we most likely won't need that technology in the foreseeable future. We have electric cars. Wind, nuclear, and solar will still be around for a long time. 

[Braunsberg]

So where are all the stars in the background? Total stage setups......we never made it. If we had, we probably would have had a small base up there already. If we have gone from room sized computers that could barely add 2+2 in 50s to todays smartphones that have about a million times the computing power of those old computers, why haven't we figured out a way to make sustainable living on the moon?

Wow.

 

To answer that first bit, there are no stars in the background because the lunar surface is highly reflective, meaning the light pollution is enough to make the stars invisible from the surface. It's the same reason why, in bright city neighborhoods, the sky still looks black, but there are few, if any, stars visible.

 

And in case the handful of other responses haven't convinced you, we can't make a lunar colony because space programs don't have the funding to construct and support an establishment that far away (maybe we would if the US government gave more money to NASA instead of lining Congress' pockets or expanding the military, but that's another issue). We have the technology to do it, but it would take a lot of resources and maintenance.

 

Also, it's a bit foolish to claim that we haven't been to the moon when we now have robotic probes that are outside the solar system. Lunar landings are well within the capabilities of modern technology and science.

[LordRahl2]

OWA forums: more MENSA than MENSA

[Braunsberg]

But only if it's affordable. Space travel is a multi billion dollar business and mining anything as a regular energy source from anywhere but Earth is not in the foreseeable future. 

Who knows? We went from not even flying on Earth to landing on the moon in just 60 years. In only 30 years or so we've gone from believing planets are rare to finding that planets are more common than not. And in the past 20 years we've gone from insisting that earthly life is all there is to insisting that life is probably sprinkled all over the galaxy (and the universe for that matter). Science and technology move quickly if supported by society, and given that space mining doesn't require any special imagination, I think it's very reasonable to believe things like that are right around the corner.

 

In addition, don't forget that breakthroughs are always possible. Even far-reaching concepts like interstellar travel could suddenly be revealed as quite feasible. To put things in perspective, scientists have even successfully teleported a few particles at a time over a short distance, and we're currently trying to make quantum computers (which would use quantum entanglement to "teleport" data across a chip) that would be millions of times faster than our best supercomputers now. There are lots of things that could change very quickly thanks to the introduction of new discoveries and technologies, and especially given our modern communication and information networks, scientific progress now moves many times faster than it ever has in the past.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Roma

[naTia]

If we can't develop unicorns how can we trust that humanity has a purpose

[Adama]

The moon was built by aliens.

[Jefferson Davis III]

So where are all the stars in the background? Total stage setups......we never made it. If we had, we probably would have had a small base up there already. If we have gone from room sized computers that could barely add 2+2 in 50s to todays smartphones that have about a million times the computing power of those old computers, why haven't we figured out a way to make sustainable living on the moon?

The stars are not visible because of the lack of Atmospheric Magnification, the cameras at the time were so low grade, that they could not distinguish the stars because of the light from the sun, you know how you can't see stars in the day time, same thing on the moon. They couldn't land on the dark side because it was too dang dark to navigate. "Why have we not built a base yet?" one simple reason, money. it cost the US BILLIONS of dollars to get 17 men and a few small ships to the moon and back. to build a base to store a few dozen people would cost us trillions, and that is a small station. To get a station the size of ISS to the moon, would cost triple what it does now, possible more. Because the ISS is still protected by Earth's magnetic field, which does not stretch to the moon. This field protects the station from solar flares, on the moon, no such protection exists, so any astronauts would be killed. On top of that, we would have to make our own shielding which means more weight, which means more money. Also, Humans could not survive on the the moons gravity for more than 3 years, because our bones would begin to fall apart do to the lack of gravity. And if someone was up on the moon for just one year, their legs would break as soon as they stood up here on earth, we know this because of a russian who was sent up right before the fall of the soviet union, it took 13 months to get him down from space. His legs and several ribs were broken as soon as he stood up. ISS astronauts are rotated every three months to prevent this effect, but since the moon has 1/6 earth gravity apposed to near zero, we will assume they could be rotated every 6 months. still, that means more trips, more personnel, more money than our economy can spare. And yes, we could easily go back with our level of technology, but we won't, because, we have no way of safely and economically transporting the valuable materials on the moon back to earth. And it is not easy to work in those suits, and very dangerous to be digging up rocks when a single puncture to your suit means death.

 

This is just repeating some other facts that have already been said. Next conspiracy theory please.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Did we land on the moon? Discuss. 

 

I don't care about a flag-waving opportunity, build a moon base or stfu. 

[cjx]

We went, and I like to think we went a lot more times than what is known to the public.

[Hysteria]

ou can look at the Saturn V rocket, which got us to the moon and back, and calculate how much fuel is in there, and watch the thing take off, and ask yourself: where the hell do you think this thing is going? There’s enough fuel to get you to the moon, and stuff left over to come back. It’s not just going down to the grocery store — it is a Saturn V rocket.

 

Since there is no air on the moon, anything set into motion stays in motion— because they set up the flag and he’s holding it and lets go, the flag flips back and forth and it doesn’t slow down because there’s no air to slow it down.

 

 

The funny thing about the moon landing truthers is that they never bring up the fact that four other countries -- the Soviet Union, China, Japan, and India -- all sent unmanned vehicles to the moon. Were they all faking it, too? Or is it just the idea of sending people to the moon that they find so hard to swallow?

 

 

 

What the truthers don't seem to realize is that, once we developed the technology, it wasn't actually that hard to send people to the moon. I mean, it's only three days away, there aren't a lot of obstacles, potential exposure to radiation is minimal, and the moon's behavior is completely predictable. Apart from the Apollo 1 disaster, which happened during a launch rehearsal, there weren't any casualties during the entire program. (By comparison, it took 14 tries to successfully cross the Atlantic in a hot-air balloon, and there were several casualties.) It was a wonderful achievement, but going to any other object in the solar system would be a thousand times harder.

 

 

 

Anyway, if the government really had faked the moon landings, wouldn't they have done a retake when Neil Armstrong blew his famous line? ("One small step for man" rather than "for a man.")

[Doktor Avalanche]

My Grandfather helped design alot of the equipment that went into the Saturn V rocket. If he chuckled at the naysayers for saying we never made it, after he helped get us up there while having the knowledge to know what did get us there, I also believe we made it.

[Stujenske]

No, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin got abducted by aliens. And it's Dubya's fault!

[Moon Man]

No, the moon landing was a false flag to bolster the American spirit, scare the USSR, and acquire massive amounts of funding

[Obongo the Paultifex]

No, it's all a conspiracy from the government, controlled by the Liberals, controlled by the Jews, controlled by the illuminati, controlled by the space lizards, controlled by Lord Xenu.

 

/s

[Sam Hyde]

No, it's all a conspiracy from the government, controlled by the Liberals, controlled by the Jews, controlled by the illuminati, controlled by the space lizards, controlled by Lord Xenu.

 

/s

 

hail xenu

[Red Huxley]

Have any of you heard JFK promote the moon landing by the end of the decade? It's astonishingly brilliant. He goes into cost, labour, and taxes, explains how it needs to be done. Anyways, after listening to many space programs by JFK, i do believe 100% that we went to the moon. Obviously it was to dominate space and encourage militarized the sky itself.

[Moon Man]

I have a pretty kickin McDonalds on the moon, its where I go to play my music. Its nice to be away from all the darkness when the sun hits the moon, you know? Never any fights at my McDonalds or long lines. Gives me lots of time to think, and when I get to thinking I tend to write some pretty based music. Some could say that my music kareer kan kause some folks to lash out. But not in my mcdonalds. We serve all white meat chicken nuggets, and all the astronauts seem to like it. One of those astronaughts left a radio up here for me to use, been listening to some Ben guy from Montana. Very interesting fellow, I think he was a painter or something. The other week he was talking about Baltimore and Ferguson. Wish I was down there. If I was lurking through the street, I would keep those criminals at my feet. I just wish that they would know, that this behavior has got to go.

 

 

But to answer your questions, I landed on the moon during the 80's to film Mac Tonight commercials

[Doktor Avalanche]

No, the moon landing was a false flag to bolster the American spirit, scare the USSR, and acquire massive amounts of funding

If you need a laugh, take a look at NASA's budget throughout the years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Edited September 1, 2015 by VasiliusKonstantinos

[Magicboyd25]

We did make it. I think they have proof but I couldn't cite specific examples. I do know the mythbusters didn't bust that myth though

[Moon Man]

Why do we keep funding NASA so much? Isnt there more important things that we can fund instead of shooting rockets into space that solves absolutely nothing?

[TheNG]

Why do we keep funding NASA so much? Isnt there more important things that we can fund instead of shooting rockets into space that solves absolutely nothing?

The sad thing is that NASA's budget has been shrinking for many decades, and is in reality pathetically tiny comparatively. I find this picture puts the costs of space exploration in a good context.

 

I don't know about you, but I can think of a few better uses of 30 billion. I guess there isn't oil in space though, right? Although, given the destructive power of asteroids, I would say our solar system has more WMDs than Saddam.....

Given the enormous technological advances and incredible leaps in knowledge that have come about as a result of "shooting rockets into space", I would say what little we've spent on space exploration has been well worth it.

But hey, let's be ignorant!

For those interested, here is another exploration mission cost analysis.

[WISD0MTREE]

I don't know about you, but I can think of a few better uses of 30 billion. I guess there isn't oil in space though, right? 

(6th time posting this on PaW)

As far as oil goes, I've cited it before, but Afghanistan has miniscule oil reserves (source: US Geological Survey), and oil imports from Iraq hit their all-time peak before the invasion, and have never come close since, in fact trending downward. (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration). If we invaded "for oil," we did a really crappy job of it, because we were getting more oil from them before the war.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2010/myb3-2010-af.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M