If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?

Oh dear! No atmosphere. Low gravity. Less energy required!

The sheeps eyes glaze over whenever I try to have a rational conversation about subjects like this one. Its really weird to see it happen, its like they go into a trance.

there is no rational explanations to it. The trance is real. Only way to break the trance is to deprogram, and in order to do that we have to use words that don't have suggested meanings in contemporary ways. It's a hard thing because we don't know the associations people have with certain words so you really don't know what words trance which sheep.

It's like living in the Matrix really...

Yeah, the hoax believers do need to get out of their group think and start trying to understand how Apollo was accomplished vs just making up ignorant scenarios based on "it looks like"...it gets silly when you look at it from a realistic viewpoint. ;)
I'm guessing the vast majority of HBs weren't around/aware in the late 60s. And none of them have any apparent science education.

Officially, as you might know, it has to do with $$$.

yeah, because millitary has a big budget but has NOTHING to do with Space right LOL.

I get ya :)

The problem i have is we supposedly went back 6 times. 6 timed. Like it was going to grsndmas. Thats the lies to cover the first big one. The dis info agents here try as they might. But facts dont lie. We never ever went. It was a great show

Only 3 letters of the alphabet missing from the list of those that walked on the moon.....

Q F X....



Funny that!

The Shuttle was the only program that (rarely) directly supported DoD with a few satellite launches. DoD paid NASA for rhose missions (yes, they have different budget lines). NASA provides support facilities at the Cape, but the military launches are controlled and launched by military folks with military $$ (Canaveral AFS). There's also Vandenberg AFS for launching polar missions.

DoD gave up on Shuttle as it was not really available on demand and after Challenger, the DoD pulled out all together.

Needless to say, DoD did get some technology from the program, as seen by the Atlas V-launched unmanned orbiter they've been testing.

For what it's worth, the Saturn rockets were the first manned missions that didn't use military boosters...both the Saturn 1B and Saturn V were clean sheet designs (though the -1B did use a cluster of Redstone tanks surrounding a Jupiter tank as the core of the 1st stage). Neither booster had any military capability.

so the space program has not given more than rockets and satellites to the military??

Last Edited by acegotflows on 08/28/2012 02:03 PM

Depends on what you call "the program." NASA, directly -- not so much.

However the ACG developed at MIT for Apollo came out of -- and contributed back to -- guidance systems on ICBMs. There is at least one surface-to-air missile that made use of the same engine developed for the LM. And so forth. But these are actions by the contractors working for NASA, who took some of what they learned and contracted to do something similar for DoD.

LoL aerodynamics without an atmosphere.

Retard.

That's not the stunner. It's the idea of setting down three astronauts with advanced degrees and, one presumes, a complete machine shop to design and build a rocket that would work on the Moon.

I think this wacky idea comes from the fairly common belief that engineering is nothing but empiricism; that you can't possibly calculate, model, or otherwise predict how something will work unless you actually do it. And that includes having no idea how something will work in "space" until you've been in "space."

(Since mere vacuum isn't enough; there might be, in the fuzzy thinking of these people, something else mysterious about "space" that you would not think of including in your tests.)

Sheep may safely glaze, eh?





(Homer) "Glazed sheep's eyes. Grrrgllll." (/Homer)

Actually, they're test pilots. Glorified adrenaline junkies.

Have you noticed that none of these Rovers ever come back to Earth? You'd think 50 years after being able to bring humans home in a tin can we could make a supercomputer robot rover collect samples, terabytes of data and then simply blast off and come back to earth? But no, we don't do they. It's always one way once they land. Think.

Log in, astronutsack.

$$$ my ass... we are sending shit to mars and spending billions of dollars on space while the american people are poorer by the second... the USA really has you people figured out... they could totally stop this space exploration shit and save the economy but obviously it is all planned and somehow this is a loophole they didn't think of what i just explained.

Think what?

What would you use it for on Earth?

Every time a Proton rocket makes a milk run to the ISS, it is destroyed in re-entry. This is standard; you aren't designing it to be brought home, brushed off, upgraded, and sent out again. You are designing it to be as light as possible, function as well as needed, and be as cheap as possible as well. To be successful in the task it is designed for; no less, and no more.

Incidentally, there are several probes that have returned samples to Earth. A rover is a poor design for that, tho! The sample returns tend to be a single vehicle that soft-lands, scoops a trench where it is, and takes off again.

If only! NASA's budget is under a half a percent of the total Federal budget (and here in America we also have state and local budgets -- not inconsiderable ones). And NASA does quite a bit more with that budget than just the big flashy projects like Curiosity.

They're BOTH.

Pretty much Buckaroo Banzai, minus the rock band and the comic book.

Most of the astronauts had advanced degrees -- usually in the space sciences, although Harrison Schmidt had one in Geology.

They could not only understand the gear they were flying, they'd help to design it.

You're clapping for his total dismissal of the atmosphere?

Yeah that was quite an impressive feat of stupidity.

sure, that is what they want you to believe.. with all the secret spacecrafts that are produced... i guess i wont blame NASA but the GOVT itself.. we all know area 51 exists.. we know that they got saucers and shit... imagine the $$$$ spent there... the point is... this economy is EASILY curable if they just dropped all secret funding... i imagine they would have enough to actually bail out themselves and europe

Not to mention the fact that increases in weight or the gravity constant mean an exponential increase in fuel required (because the fuel itself needs to accelerate as well) and probably several other factors...

Asking questions is always good, but saying "I don't understand it therefore it isn't possible" is just weird.


I am, and ever will be, a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer, born under the second law of thermodynamics, steeped in steam tables, in love with free-body diagrams, transformed by Laplace and propelled by compressible flow. — Neil Armstrong

Aldrin's nickname was 'Dr. Rendezvous'.



I'm sure he still does.

And that for this

[link to dspace.mit.edu]

And the fact that launching the LM ascent stage into lunar orbit is just a wee tad different than putting a loaded SIVB, and LM, and CSM into Earth orbit. Check the on-orbit weights (mass) and recalculate.
All that clapping seems to have jarred your brain loose.

So let me get this straight. You want me to get angry at the visible space program because an invisible conspiracy is spending unaccountable money?

Tell me why I shouldn't get angry at the invisible pink unicorns from stealing all the chocolate bars that magically appear every night at exactly 4:40 AM?