| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/17/2007 1:56 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What a load of crap got posted to this thread in the past hour. Same old same old.How many times have I told you, extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. WHo is making the extraordinary claim?
I presented my disqualification of the Apollo hoax systematically, covering each component of my arguement thoroughly ,and to date no proof has been presented that I am wrong. The burden of proof does not lie with NASA's critics, but with NASA. Quoting: IDW 313289
I think that is what some here do not get. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313441
10/17/2007 1:57 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
hey IDw. I notice the PTH aren't selectively hiding this thread...are they asleep or were you just WRONG again? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313441
10/17/2007 2:02 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
on btw. By your reasoning the Wright Brothers never flew... |
| IDW
User ID: 313289
10/17/2007 2:03 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
People would have seen it, IDW. There were many people who tracked the capsules optically. Do you want a list of them as well? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Not if they had no idea where to look they wouldnt. Most would simple assume the larger section was the whole spacecraft. They werent looking for it in orbit. I've personally seen many spacecraft in orbit from the surface, and in no case except the ISS was I able to make a visual ID as to what I was looking at. The CSM wasnt that big. It would be indistiguisable from the debris from the second stage seperation. |
| IDW
User ID: 313289
10/17/2007 2:10 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
hey IDw. I notice the PTH aren't selectively hiding this thread...are they asleep or were you just WRONG again? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313441
Apparently you have no idea who youre dealing with. Your fantasies about 'debunking' this and 'proving' that are just a lot of hot air. All youve proved is that an organized campaign of dishonesty is being financed by taxpayer dollars. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313280
10/17/2007 2:26 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
People would have seen it, IDW. There were many people who tracked the capsules optically. Do you want a list of them as well?
Not if they had no idea where to look they wouldnt. Most would simple assume the larger section was the whole spacecraft. They werent looking for it in orbit. I've personally seen many spacecraft in orbit from the surface, and in no case except the ISS was I able to make a visual ID as to what I was looking at. The CSM wasnt that big. It would be indistiguisable from the debris from the second stage seperation. Quoting: IDW 313289
Please ignore the double object. Right. Like people have always ignored double stars. Like Garth and Mizar weren't a test of good eyesight among certain desert tribes. Like counting all seven of the "seven sisters" wasn't a common exercise from classical times up until smog and light pollution made it difficult -- and even then it was useful as an indicator of just how bad visibility had gotten. Like no-one noticed or cared when Saturn in early telescopes had suspicious lumps on it. Like no-one noticed or cared that there were some additional flecks of light around Jupiter. Like no-one today aims an eyepiece and tries to resolve visual binaries. Like no-one watched during the last shuttle mission to the ISS to see if they could detect when Atlantis was docked, and when it has separated again.
And like none of this would show up in telescope and photographs taken through telescope, either. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313280
10/17/2007 2:27 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
hey IDw. I notice the PTH aren't selectively hiding this thread...are they asleep or were you just WRONG again?
Apparently you have no idea who youre dealing with. Your fantasies about 'debunking' this and 'proving' that are just a lot of hot air. All youve proved is that an organized campaign of dishonesty is being financed by taxpayer dollars. Quoting: IDW 313289
Maybe you could contact them on my behalf, IDW. I seem to be getting behind on my checks. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/17/2007 2:56 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Again, I refer you to the last 29 pages. I wont do your research for you. That would lazy. (On your part) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
And I refer you to page 17 of this thread where I once and for all put all hoax claims to bed.
See how easy it is to just make stuff up?
Troll. Get back to me when you have something real to offer.
If you really believe it, you wouldnt be here defending this nonsense. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
If you really believed the hoax claims you wouldn't be here defending them.
See how stupid that sounds? Puh-leeze.
Troll. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/17/2007 2:58 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
WWHo is making the extraordinary claim? Quoting: IDW 313289
You are, IDW. Constantly. Just about every post of your contains completely unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of scientific consensus. |
| IDW
User ID: 313464
10/17/2007 3:33 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
WWHo is making the extraordinary claim?
You are, IDW. Constantly. Just about every post of your contains completely unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of scientific consensus. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Lets get this straight. YOU are making the claim extrordinary claim!. men flew to the moon 40 years before this date, even though it is NOT possible today, with existing technology!That IS a fact, Deny it all you like, the evidence is well established as fact in this case.
I am not the one claiming men flew to the moon on a spacecraft with almost non existant shielding, no possible way to maintain a comfortable temperature, in a configuration the real expert Von Braun said could nver work, using an untested and unproved two stage landing vehicle that was to do something never before acomplished before , or since. The vehicle was never tested. No successful test has ever been demonstrated. This is not how things are actually accomplished, they are how it is pretended that the were.
The moon landing was a hoax. The proof is on the moons surface, and this is why NASA waffles when saked about the exact location of the vehicle. It just boggles the mind how they can claim they dont know exactly!
NASA means never a straight answer, and nowhere is that more evident than with NASAs PR representatives/propagndists |
| IDW
User ID: 313464
10/17/2007 3:43 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Maybe you could contact them on my behalf, IDW. I seem to be getting behind on my checks. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313280
NoUse, in your case it could be argued that you are actually on my side , pretending to defend the Apollo hoax while actually sabataging its dishonest propronents with a dishonest tactic of your own. I say this because you have been an ally to my cause of truth, since all you ever present is weak arguements that have no merit, nonsensical, rediculous and ignorant stupidity that makes no sense to anyone, in any context. You're not a scientist, a writer or a machinist even, I doubt you could pour piss out of aboot. Unless I am right an you ARE on my side, in that case your a dishonest individual just a bit more intelligent than your alter ego. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/17/2007 3:47 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Whatever, IDW. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313464
10/17/2007 3:54 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Whatever, IDW. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Wew, what a comeback! Youre a real GENIUS. |
| IDW
User ID: 313464
10/17/2007 3:59 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If NASA had to rely on individuals with the intelligence of thier representatives here , repeateded failure would be assured. None of you know anything about science, youre hopelessly lost in a twisted false reality.
What you think you know and what you know are two different things. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/17/2007 4:12 AM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hey boys arn't you on the wrong thread arguing together like this,
 <---- Barls
:bushnose: <----Hazzard
 <----IDW
 <----nomuse-hairgel(NIL)
 <----Me
[link to i230.photobucket.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313469
10/17/2007 4:19 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
None of you know anything about science,... Quoting: IDW 313464
No one else gets to pick and choose what science they accept and what science they make up, the same way IDW does.
Makes it hard to come to any sort of conclusion when IDW can simply say "but in my system of physics...". |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311719
10/17/2007 5:23 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So Knarls is trying to tell us that you CAN see the lunar surface thats been disturbed by the LM but you CAN NOT see the lunar surface that's been disturbed by the Rover wheels? Even when those Lunar wheels have trawled for more than 30KM ?
To summarise, the lunar surface under the LM magical & so diferent in color that it can be seen from Clementine taking photos from lunar orbit, lunar surface every where else, none marking magical surface, that is invisible(even though its 35km's big)
Knarls, please explain. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313176
this is where Knarls & Co lost the argument for me, (if clementine could photgraf the lander's, then it sure as hell could see the Apollo 17 site, with its 35km of Lunar rover tracks) but since then they just keep contradicting themselves. Now the lunar dust is radioactive, but the LM was protected against it with plastic's( which will stop certain types of radiation) yet no one takes into account that, if lunar soil is radioactive, then the Astro's would have had a real hard time keeping their hair.After the EVA's they were covered in dust(especially Conrad & Bean) & when they returned to the very small confines of the LM, they would have breathed alot of that radioactive moon dust into their lungs! Once inside your body, type of radiation doesn't matter, your fucked. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/17/2007 7:28 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
this is where Knarls & Co lost the argument for me, (if clementine could photgraf the lander's, then it sure as hell could see the Apollo 17 site, with its 35km of Lunar rover tracks) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311719
It's not just the length of something that matters, it's the width. If I hold up a 1 meter wide beachball and a 1 meter long human hair at 200 meters, which one will you be able to see? What if I made the hair two meters long? Three? Angular resolution depends on all the dimensions of the object, you can't just isolate the length and claim that it will be as easily visible as an object that is as wide as it is long.
Now the lunar dust is radioactive, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311719
Well, I think it is somewhat sloppy writing to call the lunar regolith "radioactive". I would say, rather, that it emits secondary radiation. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is important. I'll discuss why in a moment.
but the LM was protected against it with plastic's( which will stop certain types of radiation) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311719
That's right. Particle radiation, as opposed to EM radiation, is best stopped by substances rich in hydrogen, such as plastics, as this restricts the amount of secondary radiation emission that is caused by heavier nuclei.
yet no one takes into account that, if lunar soil is radioactive, then the Astro's would have had a real hard time keeping their hair.After the EVA's they were covered in dust(especially Conrad & Bean) & when they returned to the very small confines of the LM, they would have breathed alot of that radioactive moon dust into their lungs! Once inside your body, type of radiation doesn't matter, your fucked. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311719
Aha! This is where the difference between radioactive and secondary radiation emitter becomes important.
Look up radioactivity in a dictionary or on Wikipedia, and one of the standard phrases you will encounter is spontaneous emission. In other words, a radioactive element is emitting radiation when it is just sitting there, with no external help. A secondary radiation emitter, on the other hand, only emits radiation in response to radiation it absorbs from an external source. It's like a fluorescent tube - when it is pumped with energy, it emits light. But that light stops being emitted the instant that the energy supply is removed.
Truly radioactive dust is dust that contains spontaneous radiation emitters like uranium or plutonium. The lunar dust, once it is not being stuck by cosmic rays, is no longer a radiation hazard. The reason secondary emission from the lunar surface is a problem is that cosmic rays that do not directly hit the astronauts can hit the much larger target of the lunar surface and produce secondary sprays. But any dust that is breathed in, while evidence would suggest it might trigger allergic reactions and exposure should certainly be limited where possible, is not going to add to the amount of radiation that is hitting the astronaut.
Yes, that linked article from NASA says the ground is radioactive. That is very sloppy writing, and the author should be ashamed. Look up any independent definition of radioactivity to see how the writer got that one point wrong. I assume it was phrased that way for dramatic effect, at the presumably inadvertent expense of accuracy. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/17/2007 7:52 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hazzard, as the host of a thread, your manners could use some fine-tuning. How about a thoughtful, polite response to some of the thoughtful, polite questions asked of you ? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 216563
Im sorry if I missed of your "thoughtful and polite questions", it somewhat of a slugfest right now.
IDW sure sounds like an angry little kid, thats for sure.
But please, what was the question again?
And if I might ask you one...What would it take to convince you that the Apollo moonlandings happend, just like the world wide scientific community agrees on? |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/17/2007 8:16 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There are several, absolutely compelling reasons for the nation that had the wealth and the technology, to establish permanent bases on the Moon.
HAZZARD, Barls, et al.
Why WOULDN'T the USA do this? According to you guys, it was a piece of cake for the USA to land men and equipment on the Moon in 1969-72. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 132975
Despite the apparent "ease" with which NASA landed six crews on the lunar surface between 1969 and 1972, traveling to the Moon was extremly difficult, dangerous and VERY, VERY expensive.
The advanced planning and preparation of the spacecraft and astronauts resulted in spectacularly successful missions that succeeded despite the inherent difficulties and dangers.
The United States landed men on the Moon while the Soviet Union failed in its attempt to do the same. Once the U.S. succeeded, the Soviets reason for going to the Moon was eliminated. The space race was won. The public lost interest and fundings were cut.
To put people on the moon today would be nearly as difficult and likely more expensive than it was three decades ago.
Until there is sufficient motivation to do so, it is unlikely man will return to the moon any time in the near future. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
10/17/2007 8:20 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What a load of crap got posted to this thread in the past hour. Same old same old.How many times have I told you, extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. WHo is making the extraordinary claim?
I presented my disqualification of the Apollo hoax systematically, covering each component of my arguement thoroughly ,and to date no proof has been presented that I am wrong. The burden of proof does not lie with NASA's critics, but with NASA.
I think that is what some here do not get. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
No, you have it exactly backwards. On the one hand we have the lunar missions, worked on for a decade by over a half million people from many companies around the world, progressing in an ordered and logical way, each launch and mission being covered on live international television with thousands of reporters on site from magazines and newspapers around the world. We have various countries tracking the missions on their own as well as our stanchest competitor, the Russians, agreeing that we went. Then there's the hundreds of pounds of solid evidence that was returned.
Now, on the other hand, we have the HB's making the extraordinary claim that none of this actually happened and that it was all a hoax.
So, who is it that has the extraordinary believe here, and therefore the complete burdon of proof? Clearly, it is the HB's. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313538
10/17/2007 9:04 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yes, that linked article from NASA says the ground is radioactive. That is very sloppy writing, and the author should be ashamed. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
So now nasa is full of shit for disagreeing with you too. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/17/2007 9:21 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So now nasa is full of shit for disagreeing with you too. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313538
I don't believe I said anything that perjorative.
An insistence on extrapolating from the specific to the general is very simplistic and immature. It's like saying that because Nancy Lieder or Matt Marriott are barking mad that therefore everybody who has ever been to this site is similarly barking mad.
The writer of that piece got a little bit carried away in trying to sex up the article. That's all.
I note that you have nothing to say about the actual content of what I wrote, and have to resort to childish trolls for lack of anything better. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313538
10/17/2007 9:28 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yes, that linked article from NASA says the ground is radioactive. That is very sloppy writing, and the author should be ashamed.
So now nasa is full of shit for disagreeing with you too. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313538
yeah yeah, what ever pal, use all the big words you want, your still saying that Nasa was wrong, perhaps they were just making Apollo sound sexier when they said it went to the moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 10:02 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The United States landed men on the Moon while the Soviet Union failed in its attempt to do the same. Once the U.S. succeeded, the Soviets reason for going to the Moon was eliminated. The space race was won. The public lost interest and fundings were cut.
To put people on the moon today would be nearly as difficult and likely more expensive than it was three decades ago.
Until there is sufficient motivation to do so, it is unlikely man will return to the moon any time in the near future. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
That has to be biggest load crap Ive read on this thread. And that says a lot.
Hazzard would have you believe that since the US landed people on the moon, that the Soviets would kind of shrug their shoulders, and say to each other "oh well, we now have to find something else to do, I mean the US landed on the moon, so thats a wrap".
BALONEY T.I.T.S.
Lets say Columbus reached the New World first. Did England, Netherlands, Portugal, etc, stop heading there as someone else got there first? Uh, no.
They all continued heading for the America's , colonizing it. Nobody said "well the Spanish got there first, whats the point?"
Your reasoning is sounding more and more off the wall.
He then tells you that today, "it would be almost as difficult to go to the moon", yet anyone with an ounce of brain knows the huge advances that have been made in computers, rockets, jets, etc.
He goes on to say that "well, until their is motivation to do so blah blah"....Sure. Like no one is motivated to see a manned Mars mission. Or even a real moon mission.
They arent going anywhere, because they cant. The Russians know that, the Chinese know that, and anyone with any common sense can see that. |
| Lt.
User ID: 287683
10/17/2007 12:43 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
We have various countries tracking the missions on their own as well as our stanchest competitor, the Russians, agreeing that we went. Then there's the hundreds of pounds of solid evidence that was returned. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
You evidently did not pay attention to what was said about the "Russian opinion" on this thread - SALT treaty and the
Great Grain Robbery of 1972. You obviously think, like many others here (and this is not your fault) that it would be a very smart political move on behalf of the Soviet Union to tell the truth rather than use it as a powerful bargain chip in battles that you have no idea about.
You may even recall that "After the Americans reached the Moon, the Soviets denied that they had ever tried to
compete..."
( [link to www.centennialofflight.gov]
PLease read the following excerpts from a series of articles published in "Quest", 2004, by Peter Pesavento and Charles Vick, the source which I believe is not available on the web for free:
"... the Russian approach to telling "the Truth" was very much like Russia's iconographic Matryoshka nesting doll - as one examined more and more information in depth, the outer shell of the "official story" peeled away, to reveal a related, yet different "official story" about events, that more often than not directly contradicted what was contained in previous information releases. Indeed, these authors have no dependable guess about how manymore "nested dolls" there are to examine before the complete, forth rightly told history of the Soviet Union's manned lunar efforts will be released."
"What space historians have lacked to correctly interprete lunar race events include the following myriad of factors:
unexpurgated and uninfluenced technical notations and commentaries of space engineers, critical and direct examinations of Soviet space hardware; and access to previously classified American intelligence documentation..."
"Furthemore, there has not been a concerted effort of looking at the now available evidence combining the vantage
points of engineering knowledge, investigative journalism perceptivity, and the logical preciseness associated with
science research. All these viewpoint factors are borne out in technology-oriented intelligence reports as well as
National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) that were rendered by analysts in US intelligence agencies, and which were read subsequently by policy makers in the American government. These authors felt that such a document analogue had yet to be written regarding the Moon race by present-day historians, with the information now available."
("The Moon Race "End Game": A new Assessment of Soviet Crewes Lunar Aspirations - Part 1, by P. Pesavento and Ch. P. Vick. "Quest" Vol. 11, N. 1, 2004) |
| Lt.
User ID: 287683
10/17/2007 12:55 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I apologize for typos and misformatting above - had to type these passages manually from the magazine itself, no "copy and past" was available, and I am a bad typist, lol... |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313627
10/17/2007 12:59 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So now nasa is full of shit for disagreeing with you too.
I don't believe I said anything that perjorative.
An insistence on extrapolating from the specific to the general is very simplistic and immature. It's like saying that because Nancy Lieder or Matt Marriott are barking mad that therefore everybody who has ever been to this site is similarly barking mad.
The writer of that piece got a little bit carried away in trying to sex up the article. That's all.
I note that you have nothing to say about the actual content of what I wrote, and have to resort to childish trolls for lack of anything better. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
HAHA! Barls got caught red-handed Bullshitting. |
| IDW
User ID: 313633
10/17/2007 1:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
None of you know anything about science,...
No one else gets to pick and choose what science they accept and what science they make up, the same way IDW does.
Makes it hard to come to any sort of conclusion when IDW can simply say "but in my system of physics...". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313469
...things make sense,have never been argued against with any real force, dont create paradoxes, are based on real facts,, and dont require the continuous making up of new unproved ideas to explain.
The Apollo mission couldnt work by application of anything but fanatasy physics where explainations are made with falaicous arguements.
NOWHERE has any NASA propagandist cast doubt on any of my disqualifications. Claiming you did is not the same as actually doing it. You can claim anything you can dream up. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/17/2007 1:51 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
He goes on to say that "well, until their is motivation to do so blah blah"....Sure. Like no one is motivated to see a manned Mars mission. Or even a real moon mission.
The Russians know that, the Chinese know that, and anyone with any common sense can see that. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313560
"Russias space agency chief said that a manned mission to Mars in the near future is realistic provided funding is adequate.
Perminov, who took over as space agency chief in a government reshuffle in March-04, said the project should be international.
It would be very difficult for one country to carry out such a program. Perminov said the Russian agency has discussed manned Moon and Mars projects with NASA, the U.S. space agency.
Earlier this year, U.S. President George W. Bush proposed a manned mission to Mars but did not set a timeline for such a trip, which American scientists believe would probably remain decades away."
[link to www.space.com] |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
