2 nasa employees admitting people can't go to the moon yet....

a reply to: webstra

I think you embrace ignorance by supporting this twisting and taking the comments out of context.

And into the Skunkworks hoaxbin we go...

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: webstra
2 nasa employees admitting people can't go to the moon yet....

So, when I look through my telescope and see the trash and beer bottles littering the moon, was it alien teenagers that drink the Budweiser, that left mechanical crap behind?

Remember and take a pic next time you look at this through your 'scope then come and share it with us...

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: webstra
I can't bring it more clearly to you then what these nasa employees have to say.

Nasa engineer Kelly Smith, talking about the Van Allen belt :

"We must solve this challenge before we send people through this region of space"

ISS Commander Terry Virts is saying :

"Right now we only can fly in earth orbit"

I think this will bring the apollo fairytale to an end.

What do you think ?

They did solve it, they flew through the weakest point really fast.

Did they lose the directions ? one Shuttle could of easily gone there compared to the 1960's tech the Apollo lander had. So your basically saying no the Shuttles weren't kitted out to fly there but some patchy looking box with legs could ? Don't give me the "No Motive" crap either, one cargo bay full of Helium 3 is a couple of billion dollars worth of ore.

originally posted by: mazzroth

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: webstra
I can't bring it more clearly to you then what these nasa employees have to say.

Nasa engineer Kelly Smith, talking about the Van Allen belt :

"We must solve this challenge before we send people through this region of space"

ISS Commander Terry Virts is saying :

"Right now we only can fly in earth orbit"

I think this will bring the apollo fairytale to an end.

What do you think ?

They did solve it, they flew through the weakest point really fast.

Did they lose the directions ? one Shuttle could of easily gone there compared to the 1960's tech the Apollo lander had. So your basically saying no the Shuttles weren't kitted out to fly there but some patchy looking box with legs could ? Don't give me the "No Motive" crap either, one cargo bay full of Helium 3 is a couple of billion dollars worth of ore.

Well, you did just describe two completely different crafts built with 2 completely different purposes.

The shuttle wasn't designed to be anything other than a LEO craft.

The Apollo landers were designed to leave LEO, travel fast, and with the bare efficiency needed make a trip to the moon and back survivable.

originally posted by: mazzroth

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: webstra
I can't bring it more clearly to you then what these nasa employees have to say.

Nasa engineer Kelly Smith, talking about the Van Allen belt :

"We must solve this challenge before we send people through this region of space"

ISS Commander Terry Virts is saying :

"Right now we only can fly in earth orbit"

I think this will bring the apollo fairytale to an end.

What do you think ?

They did solve it, they flew through the weakest point really fast.

one Shuttle could of easily gone there compared to the 1960's tech the Apollo lander had.

No, you should actually do a little bit of research before making wild claims. The shuttle could NEVER have gone to the moon.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

For future space missions to be efficient enough to take large manned payloads beyond earth orbit, it is essential that they would not need to take this fuel-sucking trajectory.

Why?

I know what you are saying...but it doesn't have to be the case, at all.

We fly hundreds of missions to launch satellites and perform experimental or ISS related missions..yet it's somehow beyond Human ability to simply create an orbiting fuel depot?

I mean, nothing could be simpler..launch the fuel needed for this roundabout trajectory BEFORE the mission to the the Moon or wherever, rendezvous with the fuel depot, take on required fuel and the fuel sucking trajectory is no longer a problem.

If we can launch hundreds of satellites, we can surely launch hundreds of fuel pods for onward trips?

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: muSSang

The first video, in the first 10 seconds, shows how manipulative it is.

It's fun taking things out of context to make fiction.

So what was the proper context of the comment then?

So far 5 people or so, have said that it is taken out of context, yet noone even tries to explain what the context was......

a reply to: webstra

I think you're

a) putting words in people's mouths by taking them out of context and trying to make those words say things other than was intended

and

b) Desperately clutching at straws because you have absolutely nothing to counter the photographic, video, TV and scientific evidence that have all stood up to the feeble scrutiny of the intellectually stunted attempts to discredit them for decades.

a reply to: mazzroth

Did they lose the directions ? one Shuttle could of easily gone there compared to the 1960's tech the Apollo lander had

You don't understand, in the 60s and 70s USA was prepared to risk the lives of the Apollo astronauts, in this day and age that is unacceptable!

It's a shame we don't take the risk and chances as the hero explorers of the past.

a reply to: namelesss

that left mechanical crap behind?

You can see mechanical crap left behind on the moon, through your telescope?

If not, then what is your comment supposed to back up?

originally posted by: muSSang
a reply to: mazzroth

Did they lose the directions ? one Shuttle could of easily gone there compared to the 1960's tech the Apollo lander had

You don't understand, in the 60s and 70s USA was prepared to risk the lives of the Apollo astronauts, in this day and age that is unacceptable!

It's a shame we don't take the risk and chances as the hero explorers of the past.

Which is just a plain silly excuse when you think about it.

The USA doesn't mind risking the lives of their pilots in war theatres.

They don't mind risking the lives of military personnel.

Nor the lives of their Police Officers, Firefighters, Emergency people or just about anyone else who performs a dangerous activity.

But a small group of people strapped to a giant firework dying during that dangerous activity is somehow different and unacceptable?

It doesn't wash with me...the lives of astronauts riding a rocket into space are no more valuable or their deaths no more horrendous and tragic than the lives or untimely deaths of anyone else doing dangerous things are.

dbl

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: muSSang
a reply to: mazzroth

Did they lose the directions ? one Shuttle could of easily gone there compared to the 1960's tech the Apollo lander had

You don't understand, in the 60s and 70s USA was prepared to risk the lives of the Apollo astronauts, in this day and age that is unacceptable!

It's a shame we don't take the risk and chances as the hero explorers of the past.

Which is just a plain silly excuse when you think about it.

The USA doesn't mind risking the lives of their pilots in war theatres.

They don't mind risking the lives of military personnel.

Nor the lives of their Police Officers, Firefighters, Emergency people or just about anyone else who performs a dangerous activity.

But a small group of people strapped to a giant firework dying during that dangerous activity is somehow different and unacceptable?

It doesn't wash with me...the lives of astronauts riding a rocket into space are no more valuable or their deaths no more horrendous and tragic than the lives or untimely deaths of anyone else doing dangerous things are.

UAV pilots? F22 pilots?

I agree our spending is backwards, but honestly, when was the last time an American pilot was actually threatened? I do mean a legitimate threat.

a reply to: webstra

I think this will bring the apollo fairytale to an end.

I'm not surprised because it's always just thst simple.
( sarc )

a reply to: Vector99

Strictly speaking, every time they fire up their aircraft engines and fly a sortie. (literally thousands of military aircraft have had non-combat related crashes and deaths of crew in recent decades)

The flying of very complicated, very fast aircraft is a life threatening risk in and of itself.

The threat to life doesn't necessarily depend on people firing G2A missiles at them, although of course, this does ramp up the danger significantly.

The point i'm making is that, just being alive is risky. Most endeavours into areas we are not intimately familiar with carries a risk to life and limb, for anyone who is involved..and this does include those involved at the sharp end of pioneering space activities.

Pilots know the risks, Police know the risks, Firefighters know the risks and of course, Astronauts also know the risks..and they all accept them as part of what they do.

If we seriously try to sell personnel safety as the primary reason not to do certain actions, no firefighter would ever enter a burning or fragile building, no pilot would ever take to the skies and no Police Officer would ever chase down an armed criminal..and no astronaut would ever be strapped to a massive liquid fuelled rocket engine to go into space.

There comes a point where the rewards outweigh the apparent risks.

a reply to: MysterX

I agree there, however the safety is pretty steadfast in current tech.

It's not the willingness of our country to sacrifice the individuals in the name of technology, but rather a combination of those willing to sacrifice themselves vs the tech available vs the resources put into advancing those techs.

I signed up for Mars one knowing damn well if I was picked it was one way. Unfortunately I wasn't chosen, and if I was, my only looking back would be to photograph Earth as a big blue marble.

a reply to: Vector99

Shame you didn't get picked to go to Mars...i mean, breaking it right down - we all die, some sooner some later, but go we all will.

To be among the first to set foot on Mars...what a way to go.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Vector99

Shame you didn't get picked to go to Mars...i mean, breaking it right down - we all die, some sooner some later, but go we all will.

To be among the first to set foot on Mars...what a way to go.

Oh, I do plan on dying on Mars, just because this group wouldn't take me hasn't hindered my plan

a reply to: RogueWave

If you watched the vid... does it really need explaining??
We do not have a current platform to take us to the moon and/or beyond.
We stopped all production on this back in the early 70's.
The shuttle was never meant to go to the moon..ever.
Van Allen Belt: see wiki and scroll down for "Implications for space travel"
Sorry not gonna do all your work for you.

Give us time and the desire we once had to do great things and it will get done.
Not by this current adminacastration...

PS. was this meant to be a rhetorical question?

a reply to: hknudzkknexnt

Did you know everyone in America is actually a robot?

God, you nutty Conspiracy people, I'm no Robot, I'm an Android!