BoneDog Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I was not and am not aware that NASA claim to be unable to make a space suit for the moon. Nor am I aware that they had lost the design so would be grateful if you could direct me to a verified source for these stories. I believe the delay in returning to the moon is due in no small part to the finances involved. I assume that NASA are unwilling to build another Saturn V because the infrastructure to build such a machine no longer exists, therefore they will need to redesign the whole project from the boosters to the computer software. As you are so keen on these sorts of things did the Conchord exist? I mean that was a supersonic passenger jet built in 1969 yet no other supersonic passenger jets exist today. Spooky. I believe in the Conchord yes! I'm still blummin fuming that they stopped it from running. I used to love seeing it fly overhead in the summer. I'll have a look tomorrow for the spacesuit info, just had a quick look through but couldn't find it.
Rincewind Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 They had the techno;ogy to send a man to the moon but not to make a decent recording of the event. Don't forget VCR's and digital recoring ability is relatively recent invention. Many TV programs in the 60's are lost as they were not recorded or damaged. Perhaps Mission Control had not thought at the time that they would have to defend and show proof of the landing to conspiracy theorists argueing over the internet a source of communication not ithen in nexistance, 40 plus years later.
Zingari Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Of course it isn't currently possible, there is no current space programme. It's also not currently possible to build the Titanic but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. He raises no interesting points because none of his points are factually accurate (aside from his recent post that a recording of the live feed from the moon was wiped which again has nothing to do with actually landing on the moon as it was/is merely a recording of a live stream). You may like to acknowledge that there has been no evidence provided to show the moon landings didn't happen. There are many pieces of evidence which irrefuatbly show we have been to the moon on multiple occasions. stop talking absolute rubbish http://gawker.com/59...e-minus-sinking
fleckneymike Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I'm fairly sure we didn't watch a direct link . I think it was a second generation link from Australia Indeed it was. Now if you are conspiracy theorist this is where the conspiracy gets a bit tricky, for some reason the US scheduled the walk (actually I am being disingenuous here, the moon walk was early as the astronauts were too excited to sleep) to take place at such a time that the signal had to go via Australia, and via a station that didn't belong to them. If the footage came from a TV studio NASA would have to beam the footage to the moon, then back from the moon to Earth. Now the conspiracy seems to involve the US, the USSR and Australia.
BoneDog Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Forgotten how to make spacesuits for the Moon? Where has that story come from? If anything they have designs that are an improvement so would not need the original ones. Anyone with the right figures and the knowledge on how to imput them onto a computer could come up with something. They could be working on suits for landing on other planets like Mars. They have better suits now for humans to be a couple of hundred miles up in space but not for going out past the Van Allen Belts and stepping onto the moon. Temperatures on the moon go from -250 degrees to +250 degrees 'ish. No inbetween, it's one or the other depending on whether you are in the sun or out of the sun. An astronaut on the moons surface would either instantly boil or instantly freeze because we can't make a spacesuit that can protect an astronaut in either temperature, let alone both at different times of the day. And yet in the 1960's and 1970's they apparantly had such a suit.
The People's Hero Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I'm fairly sure we didn't watch a direct link . I think it was a second generation link from Australia I had always thought so too, but I might well be wrong.
The People's Hero Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 They have better suits now for humans to be a couple of hundred miles up in space but not for going out past the Van Allen Belts and stepping onto the moon. Temperatures on the moon go from -250 degrees to +250 degrees 'ish. No inbetween, it's one or the other depending on whether you are in the sun or out of the sun. An astronaut on the moons surface would either instantly boil or instantly freeze because we can't make a spacesuit that can protect an astronaut in either temperature, let alone both at different times of the day. And yet in the 1960's and 1970's they apparantly had such a suit. This is the biggest question mark for me, personally. Forget the moon's surface part - the radiation of the Van Allen Belts would overcome most (any??) modern suit!
Captain... Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I am a natural sceptic, and I do find a lot of what El Empty says to be quite interesting, but the most logical explanation I have right now, with no research or links or anything other than skimming this thread is this: The reason why we can't now send people to the moon is because we have such a greater understanding of the universe that we realise just how dangerous those manned missions were. The Van Allen radiation being one example of something we didn't fully understand in the past, and naturally any manned space flights would need to be able to withstand all the known dangers, which is much greater now than we knew in the past. The space flights were incredibly dangerous and it is probably more by luck than judgement we haven't lost more astronauts, when asked why we don't use the same plans as before, it is better to say we have lost them, rather than that manned space travel was so incredibly dangerous that it was placing unnecessary risk on the lives of astronauts if they used the same flimsy space suits and poorly designed crafts. It would be admitting that in the past they valued winning the space race higher than the value of the lives of the 3 people they originally sent up, and those that followed. Just a thought, Or they kept all the plans and spacesuits and moon rocks in WTC7.
marko Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 This is the biggest question mark for me, personally. Forget the moon's surface part - the radiation of the Van Allen Belts would overcome most (any??) modern suit! So was Apollo 13 an elaborate hoax as well, because that passed through the Van Allen Belt a couple of times?
Jon the Hat Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Cap Shrap has it right. The reason we are not going to the moon is unwillingness to take risks. There was huge political pressure to succeed in the space race, and that just doesn't exist now. Even China with vast resources and less concern for human life are not willing to risk the humiliation of failure. It is more acceptable not to try than to try and fail. In the West we have more pressing things to spend our money on.
fleckneymike Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Yes, basically all the so called mythbusters have debunked is everything about any possible moon hoax apart from those questions about how to overcome the technical difficulties of actually getting humans there and back safely . If NASA managed to overcome these difficulties 40 odd years ago after only about 8 years planning , it still seems a little odd that the Chinese with all the massive advantantages in engineering and science (and one would imagine almost limitless manpower and budget etc) won't even be attempting it for another 13 years at least . So let's not use the argument there isn't the will to do it or it's too expensive etc The Chinese are desperately trying to achieve it Add to this that it's still not guaranteed to be achieved even then It is too expensive, the one Country who have done it can no longer afford to do so, it cost them £25 BILLION back in the 70's so around £100+ BILLION in todays money. China probably could afford to spend that much but they need to design all their own stuff. Again we're getting sidetracked by whack a mole theories which ignore all the irrefutable evidence that we landed on the moon SIX times.
Zingari Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 here's a little snippet to ponder look at the triangular piece of fabric that has clearly lifted up on the on the pliss ( back pack) this picture is supposed to have been taken at this time no triangular flap rising !! it's not possible that this picture is taken at the same time
The People's Hero Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I absolutely refuse to believe that Forest were champions of Europe.
Langley Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Fake IMO, so many unanswered questions like: 1 in the shots taken when the American flag was erected it was flapping in the wind. How when the moon has no atmosphere? 2 How did they film the landing? Satelite cameras were not that advanced then. 3 why have we not been back there since? 1) Not flapping. Movement. No friction means that it 'looks' like it's flapping. Vibrations through the pole and nothing to stop it. 2)Camera's attached to the lem. 3) it's a massive rock. floating in space. it ain't going to change that much. No point and costs a bomb. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19050795 Now what made that? Also the reflective dishes on the moon HAD to be placed by hand.
Zingari Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 It is too expensive, the one Country who have done it can no longer afford to do so, it cost them £25 BILLION back in the 70's so around £100+ BILLION in todays money. China probably could afford to spend that much but they need to design all their own stuff. Again we're getting sidetracked by whack a mole theories which ignore all the irrefutable evidence that we landed on the moon SIX times. why ? that's like saying they have to reinvent the wheel
Langley Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Also: What was the point in going to the Moon? To beat the Russians. Surely if it was a hoax the Russian's would have been the first ones to pipe up?! Seriously?
fleckneymike Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Also: What was the point in going to the Moon? To beat the Russians. Surely if it was a hoax the Russian's would have been the first ones to pipe up?! Seriously? Please keep up. Apparently the Russians were in on it too!
The People's Hero Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Who shot JFK? Driver? Man on Grassy Knoll? Ray Davies out of the Kinks?
Captain... Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 here's a little snippet to ponder look at the triangular piece of fabric that has clearly lifted up on the on the pliss ( back pack) this picture is supposed to have been taken at this time no triangular flap rising !! it's not possible that this picture is taken at the same time I can see it, it is at the front of the pack on his back, or are you taking the pliss?
Langley Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Questions like these make my hate humanity and hope that we're taken out by one colossal asteroid. Either you're a crack pot who doesn't believe that it happened and deserve to be shot or you believe that it happened and you, well, are normal.
MooseBreath Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I remember watching a movie about that Australian tv station who broadcast the landing. Or something. It was a movie that had something to do with Australia and a television feed of something, so I'm assuming it must have been the moon landing. That's all from me. Good night.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.