Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by choos


NASA set those goals, btw. Your efforts to twist it as merely what I 'expected' don't wash.

Same goal as Apollo.

If it took 7-8 years to do it the very first time, it's simple logic we'd be able do it again, and probably in less than 7-8 years.

But it's just the opposite. 'Anti-logic' is a common feature of Apollo, it seems.

And a lunar lander contest, oh please!

reply to post by turbonium1


It's simple logic that we could do it again faster if all we wanted to do is recreate Apollo. If that's what they were after then they could do it quickly, but it's not. They want to stay for longer, which means Apollo type systems won't work.

turbonium1
reply to post by choos

 

NASA set those goals, btw. Your efforts to twist it as merely what I 'expected' don't wash.

Same goal as Apollo.

If it took 7-8 years to do it the very first time, it's simple logic we'd be able do it again, and probably in less than 7-8 years.

But it's just the opposite. 'Anti-logic' is a common feature of Apollo, it seems.

And a lunar lander contest, oh please!

I really think you have problems understanding English. You have been told over and over the mission to return to the moon is not like Apollo. Apollos mission was to be the first to put boots on the ground nothing more. Now there looking into long term stays building a moon base and basically establishing a permanent presence on the moon.Seeing if there is water so they can become self sufficient etc. Your trying to compare landing a couple of marines in a landing craft on the beach to the Normandy invasion.Lets look at the goals constellation was to establish flights to the Iss and using that to help build moon base and using that to push on to mars.They were talking 18 month rotations for astronauts on the moon not 3 weeks. Think of the supplies the planning the shear magnitude. Astronauts couldn't live in an Apollo command module for 18 months its interior wasnt much bigger then a Volkswagen.However no worries Obama cancelled it do to budget issues hmmm sounds alot like what happened before doesnt it. Nasa will not be returning to the moon they decided there pushing on to mars and do not have the budget to do both. I guess Japan will be the first ones to return to the moon.

Zaphod58

The 1973 Apollo Experience Report- Protection Against Radiation found here clearly said at the top:

The MSC Director waived the use of the International System of Units (SI) for this
Apollo Experience Report because, in his judgment, the use of SI units would impair
the usefulness of the report or result ~ in excessive cost.

So even as far back as Apollo the SI units were in use.

I object to your interpretation of this source material. The MSC Director waived and rejected the use of SI units for Apollo on the basis of cost.

Was his decision based on "For All Mankind" or for something else, like a scientific cover up? Hmmmm.

reply to post by dragonridr

I really think you have problems understanding English.

You should cease, immediately, the gratuitous ad hominem attacks. You are simply embarrassing yourself on ATS.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


The fact that he rejected them is irrelevant. It proves that they were in use, even then. If they weren't in use, how could he have rejected them?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I really think you have problems understanding English.

You should cease, immediately, the gratuitous ad hominem attacks. You are simply embarrassing yourself on ATS.

Once again you cherry pick comments why didnt you put the rest of the coment ? Oh wait because you couldnt deliver your one line zinger if you did you clever boy you. See you proved once again context means nothing to you thats why when you post things you believe to be facts other people look at it and laugh. lol:

reply to post by Zaphod58


The same goal, as proven by their own documents.

Simple as that.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

Let's discuss how they did live broadcasts from the moon that shows rocks and craters that were completely unknown and would not be shown again until the LRO photographed them.

That would be like asking Uri Geller to bend a spoon and then asking him again to prove he can bend a spoon.

No, it's like finding someone else can bend a spoon in exactly the same way after denying for years that a spoon can be bent.

Again you've ducked out of a chance to discuss hard facts.

I have posted several photographs in this thread that show concrete evidence in support of the Apollo missions and every time you have had an attack of thread blindness.

Why is that I wonder?

reply to post by turbonium1


No it is not. It's the same goal in the sense that they want to get back to the moon, but you have been shown repeatedly that they're looking at a long stay on the moon.

The $104 billion plan calls for an Apollo-like vehicle to carry crews of up to four astronauts to the moon for seven-day stays on the lunar surface. The spacecraft, known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle or CEV, could even carry six-astronaut crews to the international space station or fly automated resupply shipments as needed, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said.

www.nbcnews.com...

Apollo 17 stayed on the moon for 75 hours.

The Obama administration has laid out its most detailed ambitions yet for a return of U.S. astronauts to the moon, including the prospects of a lunar outpost where explorers could live for months at a time.

online.wsj.com...

They are not recreating Apollo, as there is no point. The next missions will stay longer than three days.

reply to post by dragonridr


Did you look at their documents? Try it....

reply to post by turbonium1


Their documents show a 7-14 day mission, on the lunar surface. How is that the same as Apollo?

If you bothered to read past the initial flights, which would be similar to Apollo, you will find that the goals of later missions are for longer stays, using the same vehicles.

As listed in the Con Ops, this mission – based on just SLS related hardware – would involve two Block 1A SLS vehicles, launching 121 days apart. The first SLS would launch the Lunar Lander, with a Block 1 CPS, followed by the second SLS launching a crew of four on Orion for a 19 day mission, with seven days on the Moon.

www.nasaspaceflight.com...

It also includes a mission to L2 and eventually to Mars, using similar vehicles.

reply to post by Zaphod58


The article is not correct - their goal is to stay UP TO seven days on the moon. It is their maximum planned. As a best case scenario. (Again, please see their actual documents on this.)

No minimum stay is mentioned. Only a maximum.

So it could be a few days, or a few minutes.

Same as Apollo, then...

turbonium1
If it took 7-8 years to do it the very first time, it's simple logic we'd be able do it again, and probably in less than 7-8 years.

this line here proves you have a serious lacking knowledge of history economics politics and a bit of science..

NASA does not have the budget that it had in the 60's when will you realise this?

NASA set those goals, btw. Your efforts to twist it as merely what I 'expected' don't wash.

you are the one saying the achievements must be more grander than previous in order for something to be proven as true.. and if those goals are not reached it proves the achievements are going backwards and thusly it proves it is faked..

NASA set the goals for apollo and it achieved it.. NASA set the goals for the ISS and shuttle flights and it achieved it.. NASA has set goals for orion and is currently working on it, but with lacking funds it is difficult.. but somehow this proves that apollo was a hoax..

so now is it if you set a goal and unable to achieve the goal it proves it was a hoax all along? have you moved the goal posts yet again?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Why do you think they set a maximum stay of 7 days, but did not set any minimum?

The goal was to land men on the moon, and safely return them to Earth. Period.

To stay UP TO seven days is ideal, but certainly not a requirement.

Building moon bases is just a dream, a distant goal. Only if step one (a moon landing) is first accomplished.

And it makes sense - we can't make Apollo-size leaps in the real world. That's just fantasy.

reply to post by choos


They did get some money, as you know.

Was pissing most of that money away in near-record time what convinced you the most?

Or when they finally admitted they had no clue about the total amount of money needed, or how long it would take?

What supports your case, anything at all?

reply to post by turbonium1


NASA itself has said, in their own documents, the first landings will be for two or three days, then seven days, then longer, all using the same lander.

It's amazing how when NASA says something that you think supports your point it's believable, but otherwise they're not. That article you said was wrong took the information directly from NASA sources.

They plan to eventually put a station of sorts, probably based on the same ship they would use to get to the moon at the L2 point. So even if they never go back to the surface they need something that can stay in deep space a long time with human presence, which means recreating Apollo is stupid.

And yet again, you have been down repeatedly that they have a fraction of the budget they did in the 60s to do all their missions and build a new ship.

NASA's project is given money,

This money is wasted by NASA.

So NASA gets more money...

..and wastes this money, too.


It is a lack of money, of course!!

reply to post by Zaphod58


Any sources?

I can't reply if nothing is given me, right?

turbonium1

They did get some money, as you know.

Was pissing most of that money away in near-record time what convinced you the most?

Or when they finally admitted they had no clue about the total amount of money needed, or how long it would take?

What supports your case, anything at all?

so you are comparing the budget NASA had during 2005+ with the budget NASA had in the 60's?? is that what you are trying to get at??

are you trying to say that with the small grant a fraction of what NASA received in the 60's and they are supposed to design build and test a rocket on the scale of saturn V if not larger, build orion a multi-purpose craft which can trasport 4 to the moon or upto 6 to the ISS. and yet since they were not able to that it proves apollo was faked? burj khalifa cost about 1.5 billion.. and your argument is basically saying that they should be able to build burj khalifa for maybe 500 million, with newer and better material and manufacturing processes that need to be developed.

you obviously have no idea the lengths companies go to in developing new technology, ive said it before and ill say it again.. look up what research and developement is and look up the % companies spend in R&D..