Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[vincent]

on an unrelated subject, i do find it odd that computers of the 50s were able to send american into the moon for 3 years within 5 years of planning. would love to see someone else or america go to moon.

You are right....it seems odd.
Why don't guys land onto moon nowadays?

There is no need. You can send satellites, probes and robots to the moon which Russians have done. There is not much sight seeing to be done on the moon.

On the note of computers, yes those computers of 60ies (not 50ies) were amazing if you consider computer on the Apollo had a tiny fraction of the power of todays cheapest laptops.

[dextrous]

on an unrelated subject, i do find it odd that computers of the 50s were able to send american into the moon for 3 years within 5 years of planning. would love to see someone else or america go to moon.

You are right....it seems odd.
Why don't guys land onto moon nowadays?

There is no need. You can send satellites, probes and robots to the moon which Russians have done. There is not much sight seeing to be done on the moon.

On the note of computers, yes those computers of 60ies (not 50ies) were amazing if you consider computer on the Apollo had a tiny fraction of the power of todays cheapest laptops.

those things are quite different than landing on the moon. russians would give everything to stick a russian flag there.
there is no need? russians, chinese, indians have all failed. obama's plan for moon is to get back in 2020.

i am not a big conspiracy theorist, but i do want to see someone other than america actually get there. america may have been (debatable) ahead of russia in the 60s but america of 60s was not ahead of china in 2011.

[Blwe_torch]

on an unrelated subject, i do find it odd that computers of the 50s were able to send american into the moon for 3 years within 5 years of planning. would love to see someone else or america go to moon.

You are right....it seems odd.
Why don't guys land onto moon nowadays?

There is no need. You can send satellites, probes and robots to the moon which Russians have done. There is not much sight seeing to be done on the moon.

On the note of computers, yes those computers of 60ies (not 50ies) were amazing if you consider computer on the Apollo had a tiny fraction of the power of todays cheapest laptops.

those things are quite different than landing on the moon. russians would give everything to stick a russian flag there.
there is no need? russians, chinese, indians have all failed. obama's plan for moon is to get back in 2020.

i am not a big conspiracy theorist, but i do want to see someone other than america actually get there. america may have been (debatable) ahead of russia in the 60s but america of 60s was not ahead of china in 2011.

same here....i am no conspiracy theorist either ( the tendulkar century-india losing bit is an exception though)
why are they having such 2020 plans( most countries, not just the USA).....for an expedition which they have already accomplished in the 60s?

[Blwe_torch]

on an unrelated subject, i do find it odd that computers of the 50s were able to send american into the moon for 3 years within 5 years of planning. would love to see someone else or america go to moon.

You are right....it seems odd.
Why don't guys land onto moon nowadays?

There is no need. You can send satellites, probes and robots to the moon which Russians have done. There is not much sight seeing to be done on the moon.

On the note of computers, yes those computers of 60ies (not 50ies) were amazing if you consider computer on the Apollo had a tiny fraction of the power of todays cheapest laptops.

There is no need?!!
I believe, we earthlings find every inch of go-able real-estate worthy of a visit......whether on earth or in space....
Otherwise, what ever was the point of climbing to the top of Mt. Everest  or exploring below seas?

[RicePlateReddy]

on an unrelated subject, i do find it odd that computers of the 50s were able to send american into the moon for 3 years within 5 years of planning. would love to see someone else or america go to moon.

You are right....it seems odd.
Why don't guys land onto moon nowadays?

There is no need. You can send satellites, probes and robots to the moon which Russians have done. There is not much sight seeing to be done on the moon.

On the note of computers, yes those computers of 60ies (not 50ies) were amazing if you consider computer on the Apollo had a tiny fraction of the power of todays cheapest laptops.

There is no need?!!
I believe, we earthlings find every inch of go-able real-estate worthy of a visit......whether on earth or in space....
Otherwise, what ever was the point of climbing to the top of Mt. Everest  or exploring below seas?

There is absolutely no need for the government of India to burn all that money, use a whole bunch of imported * at the end of the day, and then attempt to put someone on the moon. It is far more important for India at this point to solve water, power and hunger issues - and since this thread is about Pakistan - to develop a pair of you know what and secure borders and affairs better, than spend the mountains of money required to put a person on the moon. Build your own aircraft, aircraft engines, spy satellites, custom microprocessors etc. and improve military sophistication to minimize jawan deaths and freezing in the cold first, before trying to put someone on the moon.

[dextrous]

on an unrelated subject, i do find it odd that computers of the 50s were able to send american into the moon for 3 years within 5 years of planning. would love to see someone else or america go to moon.

You are right....it seems odd.
Why don't guys land onto moon nowadays?

There is no need. You can send satellites, probes and robots to the moon which Russians have done. There is not much sight seeing to be done on the moon.

On the note of computers, yes those computers of 60ies (not 50ies) were amazing if you consider computer on the Apollo had a tiny fraction of the power of todays cheapest laptops.

There is no need?!!
I believe, we earthlings find every inch of go-able real-estate worthy of a visit......whether on earth or in space....
Otherwise, what ever was the point of climbing to the top of Mt. Everest  or exploring below seas?

exactly...for god's sake there are Guinness book of world record museums in every city in America for the most pointless things. if there was no need, NASA would have shut down a long time ago instead of spending billions on space missions.

[adhunikbarbarian]

on an unrelated subject, i do find it odd that computers of the 50s were able to send american into the moon for 3 years within 5 years of planning. would love to see someone else or america go to moon.

You are right....it seems odd.
Why don't guys land onto moon nowadays?

because there is no one to bully there. imagine this, it took them decades to figure this out. stupid twats.

[WicketView]

exactly...for god's sake there are Guinness book of world record museums in every city in America for the most pointless things. if there was no need, NASA would have shut down a long time ago instead of spending billions on space missions.

What do you think should be used to prioritize NASA's activities? I hope you would agree scientific value of its activities. So, why is the moon so interesting?

[dextrous]

exactly...for god's sake there are Guinness book of world record museums in every city in America for the most pointless things. if there was no need, NASA would have shut down a long time ago instead of spending billions on space missions.

What do you think should be used to prioritize NASA's activities? I hope you would agree scientific value of its activities. So, why is the moon so interesting?

i could care less what the priorities are but the fact is numerous reports by nasa/government show that funded at 1960s levels (adjusted0, a moon trip take around 20 years to ready for with current technology. the farthest man has gone besides those 3 heavenly nasa years is 400 miles in outer space. moon is around 30 times the distance of the earth's diameter.

but you know, it could all be true. i am just waiting for the chinese or the russian or obama to end up in moon yet again. it isn't for lack of trying that we are not getting there tomorrow. it isn't as if nasa has decided moon need not ever be visited again. moon is always a priority!

[WicketView]

i could care less what the priorities are but the fact is numerous reports by nasa/government show that funded at 1960s levels (adjusted0, a moon trip take around 20 years to ready for with current technology.

I am unaware of any such resource ... I was under the impression that Kennedy was willing to foot a huge bill for the moon. It is true that moon projects that are drawn up now are many years in the future. The catch is none of these projects have to do with just putting man on the moon.

the farthest man has gone besides those 3 heavenly nasa years is 400 miles in outer space. moon is around 30 times the distance of the earth's diameter.

but you know, it could all be true. i am just waiting for the chinese or the russian or obama to end up in moon yet again. it isn't for lack of trying that we are not getting there tomorrow. it isn't as if nasa has decided moon need not ever be visited again. moon is always a priority!

Well George Bush made it a "priority" and accordingly, such a program was drawn up for 2020 I believe. Obama has scratched that program. You could always go to the NASA websites to find out what the current funding is for. Surely that would available.

[Blwe_torch]

Nitty gritties of space policies aside....what we are discussing here is whether those manned moon-missions of the 60s were genuine or not?
Ofcourse, the subtext here was about Pakistan....which we have ignored on the way

( the great diversion started from reply no. 38)

[WicketView]

Nitty gritties of space policies aside....what we are discussing here is whether those manned moon-missions of the 60s were genuine or not?

I get that. Obviously many people have alleged that these were hoaxes. And I believe those allegations have been rebutted. It seems that Dex was coming up with a particular (I don't know if new) question that he found unsettling relating to space policy. Hence the posts.

Ofcourse, the subtext here was about Pakistan....which we have ignored on the way

( the great diversion started from reply no. 38)

I suppose this is the conspiracy theory thread, when one died, another was picked up?

[dextrous]

"And I believe those allegations have been rebutted."
Haha. No they haven't. Forget about nit-picking each detail, the main one that has never been addressed is since the technology is there, the second time around should be much cheaper and easier. All defenders uhm and ah at this point and say "research was lost" "not saved" etc. 10 years of NASA work not saved. Yeah right. Unless you're someone who believes that only America can be great, you can certainly hope that the Chinese could one day land on moon in 2020...that maybe 50 years later someone else has the technology to rival American technology of the 60s! Of course, if you believe only in the American greatness, such a thing is improbable...because Kennedy's will put humans on moon *applause*

[WicketView]

"And I believe those allegations have been rebutted."
Haha. No they haven't. Forget about nit-picking each detail, the main one that has never been addressed is since the technology is there, the second time around should be much cheaper and easier. All defenders uhm and ah at this point and say "research was lost" "not saved" etc. 10 years of NASA work not saved. Yeah right.

Such a thing would be fishy indeed. So, I looked up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Conspiracists_and_their_main_proposals they strangely don't mention your "main one" in the list of conspiracies. So, since wikipedia is free for anyone to edit you could also put up this idea there.  It would be interesting to see the "lost research" excuse or a quantitative assessment of the statement that the second time putting a man on the moon is not cheaper (assuming adjustment for inflation, and the fact that you are actually accounting for research hours of the first time). In case you have references and wikipedia turns out to stop you from posting, you could always post here - there are some luxuries of having your own site .

Unless you're someone who believes that only America can be great, you can certainly hope that the Chinese could one day land on moon in 2020...that maybe 50 years later someone else has the technology to rival American technology of the 60s! Of course, if you believe only in the American greatness, such a thing is improbable...because Kennedy's will put humans on moon *applause*

[dextrous]

Wow, now we are using wikipedia as a source of authority.

Good job.

[WicketView]

Wow, now we are using wikipedia as a source of authority.

Good job.

No one is using wikipedia as a source of authority here (though I rank it well above rants and blogs by many individuals, A lot of books (often by self proclaimed experts who really are not that spicing up their books to sell), op-ed columns on well known newspapers.

Anyway, to get back to the point, I am professing ignorance of the point you are making. By linking to the wikipedia page (I don't know where I can find peer reviewed research articles), I am showing that most moon landing conspiracy theorists referred to in wikipedia, who have come up with various issues have not put this point up (of course if a point is not put up, it will not be addressed). Most of all, I am suggesting that you back your assertion with some source of authority (Higher than wikipedia is most welcome), and I am expecting many sources since this is the main point of moon landing conspiracy theorists.

[dextrous]

Wow, now we are using wikipedia as a source of authority.

Good job.

No one is using wikipedia as a source of authority here (though I rank it well above rants and blogs by many individuals, A lot of books (often by self proclaimed experts who really are not that spicing up their books to sell), op-ed columns on well known newspapers.

Anyway, to get back to the point, I am professing ignorance of the point you are making. By linking to the wikipedia page (I don't know where I can find peer reviewed research articles), I am showing that most moon landing conspiracy theorists referred to in wikipedia, who have come up with various issues have not put this point up (of course if a point is not put up, it will not be addressed). Most of all, I am suggesting that you back your assertion with some source of authority (Higher than wikipedia is most welcome), and I am expecting many sources since this is the main point of moon landing conspiracy theorists.

I am asking you a simple question--why can't other countries get to the moon sooner in 2011 than America did in 1960?

[WicketView]

Wow, now we are using wikipedia as a source of authority.

Good job.

No one is using wikipedia as a source of authority here (though I rank it well above rants and blogs by many individuals, A lot of books (often by self proclaimed experts who really are not that spicing up their books to sell), op-ed columns on well known newspapers.

Anyway, to get back to the point, I am professing ignorance of the point you are making. By linking to the wikipedia page (I don't know where I can find peer reviewed research articles), I am showing that most moon landing conspiracy theorists referred to in wikipedia, who have come up with various issues have not put this point up (of course if a point is not put up, it will not be addressed). Most of all, I am suggesting that you back your assertion with some source of authority (Higher than wikipedia is most welcome), and I am expecting many sources since this is the main point of moon landing conspiracy theorists.

I am asking you a simple question--why can't other countries get to the moon sooner in 2011 than America did in 1960?

Two reasons : they need to spend a lot of money and it has few returns.

[Cernunnos]

I am asking you a simple question--why can't other countries get to the moon sooner in 2011 than America did in 1960?

Space tech is not something you can just look at the drawings and reverse engineer overnight. The time scales of the learning curve are much longer than with other technologies. NASA had several missions leading up to Apollo. ISRO is also doing it step by step, with Chandrayaan being the most recent.

[dextrous]

I am asking you a simple question--why can't other countries get to the moon sooner in 2011 than America did in 1960?

Space tech is not something you can just look at the drawings and reverse engineer overnight. The time scales of the learning curve are much longer than with other technologies. NASA had several missions leading up to Apollo. ISRO is also doing it step by step, with Chandrayaan being the most recent.

yes, and all of them were failures. other than the myth about american fantasy and kennedy's legacy, there's no logical explanation as to how america certainly did not jsut get past russia at a time when russian space program was much superior but how it left russia so far behind in 5 years that russia was never able to catch up.

anyway, i have no problem believing it if someone within my lifetime can go back to moon. but first let's see a manned mission make it past 400 miles in the space.

[dextrous]

of course, NASA conveniently lost the tapes of the actual broadcast so all we are left are ghost-like images that the networks showed which reveal nothing...

---In 2006, news broke that the original taped footage from the Apollo 11 moon landing had been misplaced. The famous dark, hazy images were the result of conversions necessary for broadcast, but clear recordings of the direct transmissions were also made.

In July 2009, days before the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, NASA revealed that an investigation found the magnetic tapes had been mistakenly erased in order to be reused. This revelation was heartbreaking for most people. For hoax theorists, it was more convincing evidence of a cover-up.

[dextrous]

also, i don't think in modern day context it really matters whether america went to the moon or not with the soviet union long gone. for me the interest is more historic and its impact on the cold war as an event in history.

[WicketView]

Please come back to your main point. You said that it takes more money time for the US to go to the moon than in 69, and that this was defended by saying that NASA lost all the years of research. Please provide a source for that statement.

[WicketView]

also, i don't think in modern day context it really matters whether america went to the moon or not with the soviet union long gone. for me the interest is more historic and its impact on the cold war as an event in history.

Actually what matters is credibility of people and organizations involved.

[Cernunnos]

I am asking you a simple question--why can't other countries get to the moon sooner in 2011 than America did in 1960?

Space tech is not something you can just look at the drawings and reverse engineer overnight. The time scales of the learning curve are much longer than with other technologies. NASA had several missions leading up to Apollo. ISRO is also doing it step by step, with Chandrayaan being the most recent.

yes, and all of them were failures. other than the myth about american fantasy and kennedy's legacy, there's no logical explanation as to how america certainly did not jsut get past russia at a time when russian space program was much superior but how it left russia so far behind in 5 years that russia was never able to catch up.

anyway, i have no problem believing it if someone within my lifetime can go back to moon. but first let's see a manned mission make it past 400 miles in the space.

Failures are stepping stones, and also it's subjective what's a failure. And by the way the Soviets had massive failures from which they could never recover. You think if 6 lunar missions were fakes (why would they fake it 6 times, including one aborted one), the Soviets wouldn't bring out any evidence.

[dextrous]

also, i don't think in modern day context it really matters whether america went to the moon or not with the soviet union long gone. for me the interest is more historic and its impact on the cold war as an event in history.

Actually what matters is credibility of people and organizations involved.

Doesn't that support what I said considering American Gov't of the 60s and 70s has no credibility whatsoever--within and outside America? These were not really happy times for America. Kennedy's presidency was the only bright spot in an otherwise disastrous decade of wars, assassinations, gov't topplings, minorities and women demanding equal rights. I mean, sheesh, it makes Bush presidency look like the golden era. I guess Rock n Rock music was good during this time!

[WicketView]

...
Doesn't that support what I said considering American Gov't of the 60s and 70s has no credibility whatsoever--within and outside America? These were not really happy times for America. Kennedy's presidency was the only bright spot in an otherwise disastrous decade of wars, assassinations, gov't topplings, minorities and women demanding equal rights. I mean, sheesh, it makes Bush presidency look like the golden era.

There is much more than the American govt involved here. And you are confusing cause and effect. Just because the govt said a lot of lies does not mean everything they said was a lie.

Indeed, one can argue the other way. The other point is that how do you know about the "no credibility whatsoever" part ? I am assuming that the reason you say this is because of the various things that came to light, essentially because the govt failed to cover up what they would have liked to cover up. This is not because they did not try, but because cover ups are difficult when large numbers of people are involved.

OK. but I am still interested to know:
(a) Where did you come across the fact that the US would need more money/time to go to the moon today that in 1969.
(b) Where did you come across the fact that NASA research was lost

I guess Rock n Rock music was good during this time!

[dextrous]

...
Doesn't that support what I said considering American Gov't of the 60s and 70s has no credibility whatsoever--within and outside America? These were not really happy times for America. Kennedy's presidency was the only bright spot in an otherwise disastrous decade of wars, assassinations, gov't topplings, minorities and women demanding equal rights. I mean, sheesh, it makes Bush presidency look like the golden era.

There is much more than the American govt involved here. And you are confusing cause and effect. Just because the govt said a lot of lies does not mean everything they said was a lie.

Indeed, one can argue the other way. The other point is that how do you know about the "no credibility whatsoever" part ? I am assuming that the reason you say this is because of the various things that came to light, essentially because the govt failed to cover up what they would have liked to cover up. This is not because they did not try, but because cover ups are difficult when large numbers of people are involved.

OK. but I am still interested to know:
(a) Where did you come across the fact that the US would need more money/time to go to the moon today that in 1969.
(b) Where did you come across the fact that NASA research was lost

I guess Rock n Rock music was good during this time!

(a) i never said more money...more time is a well-publicized fact. i think even you mentioned earlier that going to moon was almost a 30 year target for georgbe bush.
(b) sure will post some links but here's one to start with:

"The amount of rocket energy it takes to accelerate those kinds of payloads away from Earth doesn?t exist anymore," said Jeff Hanley, NASA's Constellation program manager. "It exited in the Apollo era with the Saturn V. Since that time this nation has retired that capability."

Almost everywhere you look, you'll find similar excuses about lost technology.

but will it serve any purpose with you when i give you a dozen quotes from NASA officials about lost technology? or will you just believe it. in the latter's case, please save me the trouble of finding the links.

[WicketView]

...
(a) i never said more money ...more time is a well-publicized fact. i think even you mentioned earlier that going to moon was almost a 30 year target for georgbe bush.

Money and time are related. More money = less time needed. And yes, I did say that the mission to moon by Bush was a fairly long target (I don't remember the exact number). But the thing that you are missing out is that the mission proposed was not just a mission to put man on the moon ... but to do something that would be valuable (the details of which no one had finally agreed upon).  The simple point is the question what do you get out of spending a fortune by putting men on the moon? During the cold war, a big reason was cold war propa*a. What is it today? So, any proposal for putting man on the moon has to be bolstered by an "aim" which everyone would agree was sufficient. Such proposals always involve man staying on the moon for larger lengths of time, setting up equipment etc. This is the part which requires new technology and tends to make these proposals really really expensive. If you look at the article from space.com from which you posted the quote below, you will find an allusion to this point  too.

(b) sure will post some links but here's one to start with:

"The amount of rocket energy it takes to accelerate those kinds of payloads away from Earth doesn?t exist anymore," said Jeff Hanley, NASA's Constellation program manager. "It exited in the Apollo era with the Saturn V. Since that time this nation has retired that capability."

Almost everywhere you look, you'll find similar excuses about lost technology.

Thank you for starting the conversation by posting the quotes that make you feel this is a problem. This quote does NOT say that the technology was lost. What this says is the production line of rockets required for this kind of travel was shut. There is a big difference between the two.

Imagine an automobile factory. As you know they come up with new models all the time and 'retire' old models. Once that is done, you cannot ask them for an old model, even though they obviously have the design and technical knowhow.  Hence if someone like an old Ford, or a a Rolls Royce (there are people with that kind of money and inclinations), they have to go to the vintage car market but try as they like, they can't go and ask Ford to make one of those models for them for the price of the car. This is what is going on here.

You may think that the newer models of cars are probably more powerful in every aspect, so no one bothers to go back to the old ones. But if that is not the case for the rocket industry, why would they not keep the production line open. While I don't know the
details the answer lies in the costs of keeping such lines open which are rather large. If there are no plans of using that product in a forseeable future, it makes economic sense to shut down the line and restart it when there is a decision to use it.  In fact, NASA also discontinued the use of other classes of rockets once the space shuttle program was in place. At the time of the Challenger disaster, where the shuttle program was put on hold for a few years, some satellites launches could not be switched back to the older program immediately for the same reason.

but will it serve any purpose with you when i give you a dozen quotes from NASA officials about lost technology? or will you just believe it. in the latter's case, please save me the trouble of finding the links.

Well, if you get dozen quotes from NASA officials that technology has been lost, it would be very strange and fishy. I am amenable to changes in what I believe as new information becomes available. That really has to be about technology that has been lost (That is they do not know how the moon landing was done, and need to start the research afresh), not the cessation of a production line. The latter has happened, and is normal in a real world.

So, if you have those kinds of links from sources of authority, I would be interested. If you have links which have quotes of the kind you posted, then I am not interested in seeing them for reasons that I have tried to explain.

In short what you are pointing at is not new information, and gives no reason to doubt the reality of moon landings.

[dhruvdeepak]

also, i don't think in modern day context it really matters whether america went to the moon or not with the soviet union long gone. for me the interest is more historic and its impact on the cold war as an event in history.

Actually what matters is credibility of people and organizations involved.

Doesn't that support what I said considering American Gov't of the 60s and 70s has no credibility whatsoever--within and outside America? These were not really happy times for America. Kennedy's presidency was the only bright spot in an otherwise disastrous decade of wars, assassinations, gov't topplings, minorities and women demanding equal rights. I mean, sheesh, it makes Bush presidency look like the golden era. I guess Rock n Rock music was good during this time!

this really was the most disastrous part