this idiot believes we never went to the moon

Heh. Nope, still missing it.

Please, fellows, don't spoil it yet...but I know there are several other people on this thread who know what I mean by saying LEO is 70% of the way to the Moon, and can probably duplicate my math in it as well. As well as, you know, agree with the statement!

Can we spoil it yet? I know what you're talking about, but did you calculate it for a simple hohmann transfer or for an apollo-style free return trajectory complete with TEI? I thought the number would be closer to 50-60% for the latter but that's just off the top of my head so I could be wrong about that.

Heh. Nope, still missing it.

Please, fellows, don't spoil it yet...but I know there are several other people on this thread who know what I mean by saying LEO is 70% of the way to the Moon, and can probably duplicate my math in it as well. As well as, you know, agree with the statement!

Can we spoil it yet? I know what you're talking about, but did you calculate it for a simple hohmann transfer or for an apollo-style free return trajectory complete with TEI? I thought the number would be closer to 50-60% for the latter but that's just off the top of my head so I could be wrong about that.



Well...I assumed the shuttle made GEO, and I only added the difference to lunar orbit; no circularization, no de-orbit burn, and of course no return.

Since we can't do the job without staging anyhow, figuring out the d-v for the surface excursion would be kinda arbitrary.

Heh. Nope, still missing it.

Please, fellows, don't spoil it yet...but I know there are several other people on this thread who know what I mean by saying LEO is 70% of the way to the Moon, and can probably duplicate my math in it as well. As well as, you know, agree with the statement!

Can we spoil it yet? I know what you're talking about, but did you calculate it for a simple hohmann transfer or for an apollo-style free return trajectory complete with TEI? I thought the number would be closer to 50-60% for the latter but that's just off the top of my head so I could be wrong about that.



Well...I assumed the shuttle made GEO, and I only added the difference to lunar orbit; no circularization, no de-orbit burn, and of course no return.

Since we can't do the job without staging anyhow, figuring out the d-v for the surface excursion would be kinda arbitrary.

So you all agree then....no manned craft has successfully left the earth orbit which includes the Van Allen Belts, since the alleged Apollo Moon landings...now proven by dozens of detailed flaws to have been a hoax.
The Van Allen Belts are less than one percent of the total distance to the moon.
All you're doing is trying cloud the issue. No one has gone 50 or 60% of the distance to the moon since these amazing mythical "landings".
No one has even gone 2% of the distance to the moon.
DISTANCE has nothing to do with how difficult it is or how much fuel it takes or how long it takes etc etc...which is all theoretical since no one has done it anyway--
DISTANCE is an objective measurement of space.
Now please stop being such phony highbrow jackasses dressing yourself up in a lot of "scientific" jargon....
Admit you are fucked. You're covering for liars, thieves and worse.
We never landed on the moon and won't for a very long time.
We didn't have the technology then and we still don't, despite all your fancy talk and 2$ words.

AMEN!...And I Still Want to slap the living fuck out of those two.ty!


Heh. Nope, still missing it.

Please, fellows, don't spoil it yet...but I know there are several other people on this thread who know what I mean by saying LEO is 70% of the way to the Moon, and can probably duplicate my math in it as well. As well as, you know, agree with the statement!

Can we spoil it yet? I know what you're talking about, but did you calculate it for a simple hohmann transfer or for an apollo-style free return trajectory complete with TEI? I thought the number would be closer to 50-60% for the latter but that's just off the top of my head so I could be wrong about that.



Well...I assumed the shuttle made GEO, and I only added the difference to lunar orbit; no circularization, no de-orbit burn, and of course no return.

Since we can't do the job without staging anyhow, figuring out the d-v for the surface excursion would be kinda arbitrary.

So you all agree then....no manned craft has successfully left the earth orbit which includes the Van Allen Belts, since the alleged Apollo Moon landings...now proven by dozens of detailed flaws to have been a hoax.
The Van Allen Belts are less than one percent of the total distance to the moon.
All you're doing is trying cloud the issue. No one has gone 50 or 60% of the distance to the moon since these amazing mythical "landings".
No one has even gone 2% of the distance to the moon.
DISTANCE has nothing to do with how difficult it is or how much fuel it takes or how long it takes etc etc...which is all theoretical since no one has done it anyway--
DISTANCE is an objective measurement of space.
Now please stop being such phony highbrow jackasses dressing yourself up in a lot of "scientific" jargon....
Admit you are fucked. You're covering for liars, thieves and worse.
We never landed on the moon and won't for a very long time.
We didn't have the technology then and we still don't, despite all your fancy talk and 2$ words.

Heh. Nope, still missing it.

Please, fellows, don't spoil it yet...but I know there are several other people on this thread who know what I mean by saying LEO is 70% of the way to the Moon, and can probably duplicate my math in it as well. As well as, you know, agree with the statement!

Can we spoil it yet? I know what you're talking about, but did you calculate it for a simple hohmann transfer or for an apollo-style free return trajectory complete with TEI? I thought the number would be closer to 50-60% for the latter but that's just off the top of my head so I could be wrong about that.



Well...I assumed the shuttle made GEO, and I only added the difference to lunar orbit; no circularization, no de-orbit burn, and of course no return.

Since we can't do the job without staging anyhow, figuring out the d-v for the surface excursion would be kinda arbitrary.

So you all agree then....no manned craft has successfully left the earth orbit which includes the Van Allen Belts, since the alleged Apollo Moon landings...now proven by dozens of detailed flaws to have been a hoax.
The Van Allen Belts are less than one percent of the total distance to the moon.
All you're doing is trying cloud the issue. No one has gone 50 or 60% of the distance to the moon since these amazing mythical "landings".
No one has even gone 2% of the distance to the moon.
DISTANCE has nothing to do with how difficult it is or how much fuel it takes or how long it takes etc etc...which is all theoretical since no one has done it anyway--
DISTANCE is an objective measurement of space.
Now please stop being such phony highbrow jackasses dressing yourself up in a lot of "scientific" jargon....
Admit you are fucked. You're covering for liars, thieves and worse.
We never landed on the moon and won't for a very long time.
We didn't have the technology then and we still don't, despite all your fancy talk and 2$ words.

This guy is such a whackjob. How could they have faked all that on tv?

from Dave Mcgowan....
I should probably preface this piece by noting that until fairly recently, had I heard anyone putting forth the drug-addled notion that the moon landings were faked I would have been among the first to offer said person a ride down to the grip store. However, while conducting research into various other topics, it has become increasingly apparent that there is almost always a few morsels of truth in any 'conspiracy theory,' no matter how outlandish that theory may initially appear to be.
With that in mind (and with a few hours to kill) I ventured onto a couple of websites that fearlessly claimed that the moon landings were indeed faked. And to be perfectly honest, I have no idea if much of the information presented was scientifically valid. Lacking a background in astronomy and rocket science, the explanations as to why the flights were technologically impossible went right over my head.
[For the scientifically minded, the theory seems to be that it is not possible for man to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt. If any attempt were made to do so, the astronauts would run the risk of returning to a planet occupied by apes speaking with British accents, lobotomized humans, and Charleton Heston screaming "it's a madhouse." But here I digress.]
Many of the arguments seemed convincing, though loading on the technical jargon can frequently convert a dung heap of disinformation into a convincing argument, or at least one that discourages dissenting views, lest the dissenter reveal his ignorance. There was, however, at least one rather provocative anomaly of the moon landings that doesn't require an advanced degree in aeronautics to understand.
This concerns the condition of the lunar surface directly beneath the landing module, also known as the Eagle. As was clearly visible in the photos and videotape beamed back to Earth, the moon's surface beneath the module was in pristine condition, as was the module itself. To which you may well respond: Duh ... why shouldn't the surface be undisturbed?
Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets. Otherwise it would have made a landing roughly comparable to a piano falling out of a high-rise apartment building.
But, you say, isn't the gravitational pull of the moon considerably less than that of the Earth? Of course it is, though this doesn't render objects weightless. A massive metal structure still has a considerable amount of weight, even on the moon. Enough so that it cannot make a cat-like landing without the use of rockets to slow its descent. It would actually make more of a splat-like landing.
That is why in the artists' renderings of the landings (which obviously couldn't be filmed), an enormous blast of flame and fire is seen shooting out of the bottom of the module. This massive reverse force serves to counteract the effects of the moon's gravitational pull, thereby allowing the module to gently set down in the lunar dust unharmed and intact.
The problem is that - unless the landing surface was paved with say, concrete - an inordinate amount of material should have been displaced by the force of the rocket blasts as the module was setting down. You can easily verify this yourself. All you have to do is get hold of a Saturn V rocket (you know - the kind Werner von Braun and his team of fellow Nazi war criminals designed to power the Apollo missions), and head out to the desert.
Once you get there, hold the rocket aloft (you might want to wear gloves and an asbestos suit for this part) and fire that bad boy up, directing the blast towards the desert floor (you might also want to grab hold of a stationary object with your free hand and hold on real tight). The result should be, if you've done this correctly, a=2 0rather large crater and a blinding dust storm.
This will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. The intense heat may even have fused the sand into something resembling a large sheet of glass.
The point here is that nothing of the sort was evident in the pictures beamed back from the moon. The lunar surface was, as noted, undisturbed and the module itself was as clean as if it had just rolled off the assembly line. It appears as though it did not land at all, but was rather set in place with a crane or other such device. And of course we all know that there were very few crane operators on the moon at that time.
How then did the module get there? Perhaps, you say, the surface was so compact that even the massive thrusts of the rockets could not dislodge it. That might be a reasonable explanation were it not for the fact that the astronauts themselves - who with the moon's reduced gravitational pull weighed in at about 20 pounds apiece (OK, so I just made that figure up, but you get the point) - made readily identifiable footprints from the moment their feet hit the ground.
It appeared, in fact, as though the lunar soil had roughly the same consistency as baby powder. And yet, amazingly en ough, not a single grain of this soil was displaced by the landing of the module. Despite my initial skepticism, I had to admit that I had no logical explanation for this phenomenon, and was compelled to take a closer look at the Apollo program.
The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union - prior to the time that we up and landed on the moon - was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. They launched the first satellite, sent the first man into space, sent the first woman into space, performed the first docking maneuver in space, performed the first space walk, and landed the first unmanned rocket on the moon - a full decade before the Apollo 11 flight.
Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually landing on the moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch Nazi team. The smart money clearly was on the Soviets to make it first to the moon, if anyone was to do so. They had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and national pride riding on that goal.
And yet, despite the long odds, the Americans made it first. Not only did we make it first, but after thirty-one long years the Soviets apparently still haven't figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is: why? Why, even if we grant that the U.S. made it first, did the Soviets never m atch this feat?
Is it just that they were really poor losers? Perhaps the conversation went something like this:
Boris: Comrade, the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the moon. What should we do?
Ivan: Let's just shit-can our entire space program.
Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success. And we have so much invested in the effort.
Ivan: Fuck it; if we can't be first, we aren't going.
Boris: But I beg of you comrade. The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share the knowledge they have gained with us.
Ivan: Nyet!
In truth, the entire space program has been from its inception little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the moon, simply for the sake of their own national defense.
In fact, while we're on the subject, why has America not returned to the moon in nearly thirty years? Following the alleged landings, there was considerable talk of establishing a space station on the moon, and of possibly even colonizing Earth's satellite. Yet all such talk was quickly forgotten, and for twenty-eight years now not a single human has left the Earth's orbit.
Not a single human, that is, from any country on the planet. Again, the ques tion that comes to mind is: why? Why has no nation ever duplicated this miraculous feat? Clearly, the technology is there. Technology has advanced to such a degree in the last three decades that virtually any industrialized nation currently has technology that is light-years beyond what the United States had in 1969.
And yet no one has made an attempt to once again land a man on the moon. Is this because we already learned everything we need to know about the moon? Of course not. That is an absurd supposition. Would it be possible to make six random landings on the surface of the Earth and come away with a complete and thorough understanding of this heavenly body? Again, of course not.
And are we to believe that the scientific community has come up with no new questions in the intervening decades that beg for answers? I should think not. Why then has not France, or Germany, England, Japan, or any of a number of other technologically advanced nations made any effort to reach the moon?
Why, for that matter, has not private industry made any effort to reach the moon. In this age of the mega-corporation, there are any number of private firms that have the financial resources to mount such an effort. And quite a profitable one it could be. There are, no doubt, any number of minerals, compounds, etc. that could be mined from the moon that are unavailable here on planet Earth. With the proper marketing, and of course a built-in monopoly, there are vast fortunes to be made, new frontiers to exploit.

Looks more like they were affected by a terrible shame than anything else.



Start watching at 2:30, after three shy (and very tired!) men get warmed up and their talk becomes animated. Just look at his expression as he talks about the Saturn V and tell me he's not proud and excited!

Oh, sorry. I forgot the first rule of hoax believers; never look at any more than five seconds of video at a time. If you did, you might see something your leaders didn't want you to see.

Dear God, this is a great example of why there is no decent discussion of science on g.l.p.

Look, hoax freaks. We went to the moon, in the Apollo craft. Thousands (literally) of the worlds best minds invented the means to get there on slide rules.

Do you believe this multitude of the worlds brightest minds would be fooled by bouncing radio waves off the moon & cheap video filmed on a soundstage?

That the people who had to create the technology to get us there & all the tiny details that only they knew could be distracted by fake data is LUDICROUS. It took the best minds we could find to create systems that only THEY knew how to operate & interpret.
Who could fake data that only 5 people in the world could understand? Smarter people?
There weren't any.

The best example of how hard it was to get there is how hard it is for us to get back.

Chew on that, tards.

Dear God, this is a great example of why there is no decent discussion of science on g.l.p.

Look, hoax freaks. We went to the moon, in the Apollo craft. Thousands (literally) of the worlds best minds invented the means to get there on slide rules.

Do you believe this multitude of the worlds brightest minds would be fooled by bouncing radio waves off the moon & cheap video filmed on a soundstage?

That the people who had to create the technology to get us there & all the tiny details that only they knew could be distracted by fake data is LUDICROUS. It took the best minds we could find to create systems that only THEY knew how to operate & interpret.
Who could fake data that only 5 people in the world could understand? Smarter people?
There weren't any.

The best example of how hard it was to get there is how hard it is for us to get back.

Chew on that, tards.

This guy is such a whackjob. ........

It took the best minds we could find to create systems that only THEY knew how to operate & interpret.

Who could fake data that only 5 people in the world could understand?

HOW DID THEY FAKE IT?

WE NEVER WENT---100% guaranteed!

ALL FAKE

Well, I tried to use some common sense to demonstrate the fact that faking the data from the Apollo misions would be damn near as hard as going.

That didn't work. You cant reason with a fanatic.

Lets try a different tack.

HEY HOAX FREAKS!

HOW DID THEY FAKE IT?

Be specific, no using a handful of iffy photos. How was the telemetry faked? How was the signal lag (data & voice) faked? How was the experiment data faked?

Use examples, with mission numbers & time elapsed to illustrate your thesis.

Or admit you are just yapping without real evidence.

independent reproducability is not lacking here. Soon every advanced nation on earth will be proudly planting their very own flags where ours once reigned supreme...they are well on the way to making this happen.
Why for sure by 2050 many nations will have reproduced what the USA did with ease over and over again with the Apollo missions back in the 60's and 70's.
In the meantime we can just watch smugly...well aware of the superior qualities of our NASA and how they were there so very much in advance of anyone else, despite the fact that the Russians had surpassed us in the "space race" by a huge margin...we pulled ahead.
At the last moment we surged into the lead and conquered the moon.
Let us never forget this my fellow citizens as our country serenely glides into the bottom of the worlds toilet...we can still nod and say with the greatest satisfaction
"Yes, my friend, the proud Americans did indeed walk on the moon...and in my lifetime, too!"

Not quite.

Going to the Moon was not easy, and will not be easy for many decades yet. It is, at the heart of it, a very energy-intensive activity and there is no magical fix for that.

Yes and most countries and universities know also because they bounce lasers off the mirrors the Americans left on the moon for research. Fact!

Manned space flight has never crossed through the van allen belt, except, of course, the ever astounding Apollo Missions.
The Van Allen Belt is about 1000 miles above the earth.
The moon is about 380,000 miles above the Earth.
I am too stupid to calculate what % 1000 is of 385,000
Please help me. Because I keep coming up with 70%...
just like you say.
Wow....it's great everone bounces off our mirror placed their by the very hands of the brave brave men....do they also bounce off the one left by the unmanned flight with the Russian robot?
Nah...that's just not as cool.....


Well, actually, the ISS passes through a bulge of the lower belt. But you did say "passed through" so I'll give that a pass.

Just a floow up.

* There is no atmosphere on the moon, and therefore it is scientifically impossible for any wind to be blowing across the moon's surface. Nevertheless, the flag allegedly planted by U.S. astronauts can be clearly seen flapping in the breeze in NASA's footage of the landings.
* The lack of atmosphere means that the astronauts should have been treated to the most brilliant display of stars ever viewed by man. Nevertheless, no stars are visible in the lunar sky in any of the still photos or videotape supposedly shot on the moon.
* There is, as previously noted, no blast crater visible under any of the lunar landing modules, despite the fact that NASA's own artist renderings clearly show the presence of a large blast crater. Also, in the official NASA footage of the first landing, shot from within the module as it allegedly descended to the lunar surface, no engine noise can be heard, and there are no visible flames, smoke, or dust.
* The landing module, or LEM, never once successfully landed in test flights taken on Earth, and yet the modules performed perfectly on all six lunar landings.
* The designer of the cameras allegedly used on the missions has stated publicly that it would have been impossible for the astronauts to use them as they are seen doing in NASA's footage. Specifically, it would not have been possible for the men to see into the viewfinder to verify that the shot was properly composed and in focus. Nevertheless, thousands of photos were brought back, all perfectly framed and sharply focused.
* All of the light available to the astronauts on the moon would have come from a single source -- the sun. NASA acknowledges that no supplemental lighting was available to the astronauts. Nevertheless, many of the photos taken show shadows cast in more than one direction, indicating that there had to have been multiple light sources used.
* Since there was only one light source, any persons or objects lying in the shadows of other objects would be unlit. Nevertheless, many of the photos show the astronauts and their equipment standing in the shadows, and yet they are fully lit -- again indicating that supplemental lighting was used.
* There are identical backgrounds visible in still photos and videotape allegedly shot at different locations on the moon. Superimposing those background shots verifies that they are, in fact, exactly the same in every detail. They appear to be a studio backdrop.
* There are also identical foregrounds in some of the shots, again allegedly shot at different times and at different locations on the moon.
* There were cross-hair reference marks etched into the lenses of the cameras used on the missions. These marks should at all times appear on top of whatever objects were being photographed. Nevertheless, in many of the shots, the marks are partially blocked by objects in the photos, indicating that the images had to have been altered.
* Some scientists have claimed that the suits worn by the astronauts would not have protected them from the temperature extremes present on the moon. Due to the lack of atmosphere, the temperature in the sun would have been somewhere around +250 degrees. Stepping into the shadows, it would have dropped instantly to -250 degrees.
* Many scientists have also questioned how the astronauts could have survived passing through the intense radioactivity of the Van Allen radiation belts. By some estimates, protection from the belts - thousands of feet wide - would have required a solid envelope of lead some four feet thick.
* As with any good conspiracy, there is the requisite trail of bodies surrounding the Apollo flights. No fewer than ten of America's top astronauts died under mysterious circumstances in the years immediately preceding the supposed moon landings -- including Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee, who were burned to death during a test procedure on January 27, 1967. Thomas Baron, a safety inspector for NASA, was killed along with his family just a week after delivering highly critical testimony to Congress. Along with his testimony, Baron submitted a 1,500 page report to the congressional committee. Following his death, the report went missing and has never been seen again.

Please take this as constructive criticism and not an attack.

Please take this as constructive criticism and not an attack.

I will the day I see you chide the hoax believers in the same way. How about starting with the poster who threatened physical violence? How about the posters who post NOTHING but wall-to-wall profanity?

The illusion of fair and dispassionate judgment you try to wrap yourself in is threadbare indeed.

Hey man, I'm a hoax knower, not a hoax believer, so take that and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Hey man, I'm a hoax knower, not a hoax believer, so take that and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Wasn't addressed to you, moron.

At least you are honest enough not to pretend anything.

This guy is such a whackjob. How could they have faked all that on tv?

from Dave Mcgowan....
I should probably preface this piece by noting that until fairly recently, had I heard anyone putting forth the drug-addled notion that the moon landings were faked I would have been among the first to offer said person a ride down to the grip store. However, while conducting research into various other topics, it has become increasingly apparent that there is almost always a few morsels of truth in any 'conspiracy theory,' no matter how outlandish that theory may initially appear to be.
With that in mind (and with a few hours to kill) I ventured onto a couple of websites that fearlessly claimed that the moon landings were indeed faked. And to be perfectly honest, I have no idea if much of the information presented was scientifically valid. Lacking a background in astronomy and rocket science, the explanations as to why the flights were technologically impossible went right over my head.
[For the scientifically minded, the theory seems to be that it is not possible for man to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt. If any attempt were made to do so, the astronauts would run the risk of returning to a planet occupied by apes speaking with British accents, lobotomized humans, and Charleton Heston screaming "it's a madhouse." But here I digress.]
Many of the arguments seemed convincing, though loading on the technical jargon can frequently convert a dung heap of disinformation into a convincing argument, or at least one that discourages dissenting views, lest the dissenter reveal his ignorance. There was, however, at least one rather provocative anomaly of the moon landings that doesn't require an advanced degree in aeronautics to understand.
This concerns the condition of the lunar surface directly beneath the landing module, also known as the Eagle. As was clearly visible in the photos and videotape beamed back to Earth, the moon's surface beneath the module was in pristine condition, as was the module itself. To which you may well respond: Duh ... why shouldn't the surface be undisturbed?
Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets. Otherwise it would have made a landing roughly comparable to a piano falling out of a high-rise apartment building.
But, you say, isn't the gravitational pull of the moon considerably less than that of the Earth? Of course it is, though this doesn't render objects weightless. A massive metal structure still has a considerable amount of weight, even on the moon. Enough so that it cannot make a cat-like landing without the use of rockets to slow its descent. It would actually make more of a splat-like landing.
That is why in the artists' renderings of the landings (which obviously couldn't be filmed), an enormous blast of flame and fire is seen shooting out of the bottom of the module. This massive reverse force serves to counteract the effects of the moon's gravitational pull, thereby allowing the module to gently set down in the lunar dust unharmed and intact.
The problem is that - unless the landing surface was paved with say, concrete - an inordinate amount of material should have been displaced by the force of the rocket blasts as the module was setting down. You can easily verify this yourself. All you have to do is get hold of a Saturn V rocket (you know - the kind Werner von Braun and his team of fellow Nazi war criminals designed to power the Apollo missions), and head out to the desert.
Once you get there, hold the rocket aloft (you might want to wear gloves and an asbestos suit for this part) and fire that bad boy up, directing the blast towards the desert floor (you might also want to grab hold of a stationary object with your free hand and hold on real tight). The result should be, if you've done this correctly, a=2 0rather large crater and a blinding dust storm.
This will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. The intense heat may even have fused the sand into something resembling a large sheet of glass.
The point here is that nothing of the sort was evident in the pictures beamed back from the moon. The lunar surface was, as noted, undisturbed and the module itself was as clean as if it had just rolled off the assembly line. It appears as though it did not land at all, but was rather set in place with a crane or other such device. And of course we all know that there were very few crane operators on the moon at that time.
How then did the module get there? Perhaps, you say, the surface was so compact that even the massive thrusts of the rockets could not dislodge it. That might be a reasonable explanation were it not for the fact that the astronauts themselves - who with the moon's reduced gravitational pull weighed in at about 20 pounds apiece (OK, so I just made that figure up, but you get the point) - made readily identifiable footprints from the moment their feet hit the ground.
It appeared, in fact, as though the lunar soil had roughly the same consistency as baby powder. And yet, amazingly en ough, not a single grain of this soil was displaced by the landing of the module. Despite my initial skepticism, I had to admit that I had no logical explanation for this phenomenon, and was compelled to take a closer look at the Apollo program.
The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union - prior to the time that we up and landed on the moon - was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. They launched the first satellite, sent the first man into space, sent the first woman into space, performed the first docking maneuver in space, performed the first space walk, and landed the first unmanned rocket on the moon - a full decade before the Apollo 11 flight.
Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually landing on the moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch Nazi team. The smart money clearly was on the Soviets to make it first to the moon, if anyone was to do so. They had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and national pride riding on that goal.
And yet, despite the long odds, the Americans made it first. Not only did we make it first, but after thirty-one long years the Soviets apparently still haven't figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is: why? Why, even if we grant that the U.S. made it first, did the Soviets never m atch this feat?
Is it just that they were really poor losers? Perhaps the conversation went something like this:
Boris: Comrade, the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the moon. What should we do?
Ivan: Let's just shit-can our entire space program.
Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success. And we have so much invested in the effort.
Ivan: Fuck it; if we can't be first, we aren't going.
Boris: But I beg of you comrade. The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share the knowledge they have gained with us.
Ivan: Nyet!
In truth, the entire space program has been from its inception little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the moon, simply for the sake of their own national defense.
In fact, while we're on the subject, why has America not returned to the moon in nearly thirty years? Following the alleged landings, there was considerable talk of establishing a space station on the moon, and of possibly even colonizing Earth's satellite. Yet all such talk was quickly forgotten, and for twenty-eight years now not a single human has left the Earth's orbit.
Not a single human, that is, from any country on the planet. Again, the ques tion that comes to mind is: why? Why has no nation ever duplicated this miraculous feat? Clearly, the technology is there. Technology has advanced to such a degree in the last three decades that virtually any industrialized nation currently has technology that is light-years beyond what the United States had in 1969.
And yet no one has made an attempt to once again land a man on the moon. Is this because we already learned everything we need to know about the moon? Of course not. That is an absurd supposition. Would it be possible to make six random landings on the surface of the Earth and come away with a complete and thorough understanding of this heavenly body? Again, of course not.
And are we to believe that the scientific community has come up with no new questions in the intervening decades that beg for answers? I should think not. Why then has not France, or Germany, England, Japan, or any of a number of other technologically advanced nations made any effort to reach the moon?
Why, for that matter, has not private industry made any effort to reach the moon. In this age of the mega-corporation, there are any number of private firms that have the financial resources to mount such an effort. And quite a profitable one it could be. There are, no doubt, any number of minerals, compounds, etc. that could be mined from the moon that are unavailable here on planet Earth. With the proper marketing, and of course a built-in monopoly, there are vast fortunes to be made, new frontiers to exploit.