Allright. I didn't see the show. However we went to the moon. I think that we have the technology that somebody could try and prove that the Wright brothers never flew as well.

You guys remember all the UFO sightings and supposed landings/crashes. I found it amazing that so much UFO activity was taking place during this century. If UFO's crashed or landed as often as they have in this century the earth would like like a UFO salvage yard from all the wrecks.

If we didn't land on the moon I suppose we didn't land that satellite on the astroid either?

Was the SR-71 actually designed in the 1950's by guys using slide rules? Even by today's standard's the SR-71 is one mean airplane and it's records are still standing. If we can build a plane as bad as the SR-71 - we went to the moon.

A member mentioned the pyramids. Good point. How about one in this century? OK. You guys remember World War II. The Germans built a great deal of their aircraft out of homes since the factorys were being bombed. So a few years ago they were restoring a Me 109. The motor for this is a inverted V-12. They pulled the crank and sent it to Rolls Royce to be checked and turned. RR sent it back untouched with this message "Whatever you do, do not drop this crank. The tolerances on this crank exceed anything that we are able to build." Meaning that a county that was being bombed on a daily basis built an engine with such precision that we couldn't even fix the thing today.

There are other examples around you.

98 F250LD 4X4

 

Logan, no you won't start an argument, but you will further the discussion. Just how can technology be lost? If a Saturn#5 rocket was able to carry us to the moon six times, this ought to be old hat. Just blow the dust off our 30 yr old blueprints and do the same thing we have done six times before. We've already done it six times, right? All the knowledge is still in some NASA computer, isn't it? I think we aren't going back because we can't get there and haven't been there yet. DF

 

It is entirely possible we do have a UFO "scrap yard" here on Earth. It is called "Area 51" (The base that according to the government never existed).
Kenny

 

It is not that technology has been lost. What does stop us from going is the $'s involved. We can put a man on the moon again but NASA better have a very good reason for doing so. It will costs a hell'va lot more to send someone to the moon now then it did then. That is also the reason the SR-71 was retired, except for a couple of 'em.

Remember when the first cars were made of wood and steel. Wood trim was considered standard. Now it is a premium on only top end vehicles. Why? Cause it costs too much and plastic is way cheaper. Same thing with the space program. We just haven't found the plastic way of going to the moon yet.

Personally, I think the guys that got us there should feel insulted for people thinking we didn't get there. We do the space shuttle on a regular basis, we launch satilletes all the time (you do have your GPS working, yes?). We went to the moon.

There is a group that thinks the earth is flat and trys to prove it. Are they right to?

98 F250LD 4X4

 

bill, the difference between a moon landing a pyramid is the the pyramids were made a LONG time ago, and the moon landing happened oh, half a century ago? not much time to rebuild technology. So, sure our rockets are powerfull, but are they powerfull enough to get us all the way to the moon? probbably not. Were the old rockets efficent? of course not, which is why they probbably stored a lot of fuel. I have a good question for you, how could the moon possibly have radiation? It is far too small to produce its own radiation."would we find out that the debris left from the 6 alleged missions has mysteriously disapeered?" While, Debris will eventually wear away, the moon has no atmosphere and thus no protection from solar wind. I wouldn't dought whatever all small debris that was left behind could have worn away. Is there any proof that there is no debris on the moon? Y2K you might be right about, but the whole idea of Y2K should have only effected databases that kept records from 1900 and 2000, but still how would the computer fail? About the asteroid, I'll admit that there is a very, very small chance of a meteorid hitting earth any time soon, how big is space? how much space is there around us for meteorids to float in? We have the hubble watching the skys, we should know in advance if their is a global killing asteroid within our solar system.

I will however admit there is a chance that I'm worng about losing the tech to go to the moon, or it could be that the technology is so out-dated that we have forgotten how to use it. Either way, as another memeber stated it would be too expensive to go to the moon. What is the point of going to the moon? Why did we visit the moon in the first? Why would NASA want to fake 6 trips to the moon? For American pride, while, if it were for American pride NASA could destroy the reputation of the USA if we did fake one of the worlds all time greatest technological advancments.

Logan

 

>bill, the difference between a moon
>landing a pyramid is the
>the pyramids were made a
>LONG time ago, and the
>moon landing happened oh, half
>a century ago? not much
>time to rebuild technology.

What technology are we "rebuilding"? We never lost the technology to go to the moon.

>So, sure our rockets are powerfull,
>but are they powerfull enough
>to get us all the
>way to the moon? probbably
>not. Were the old rockets
>efficent? of course not, which
>is why they probbably stored
>a lot of fuel.

First, the Saturn V booster technology still exists not that it would make much sense to use it. It would make far more sense to hoist a lander up in the shuttle and launch it from orbit to the moon. Even if we had to make 2 shuttle trips it would still be less costly than rebuilding a Saturn V.

>I have a good question for
>you, how could the moon
>possibly have radiation? It is
>far too small to produce
>its own radiation.

It's not lunar radiation. The radiation referred to is the Van Allen belts of radiation which surround the earth. The shuttle and all other low earth orbiting manned spacecraft fly several hundred miles below them so they are not a problem. The only humans to have allegedly penetrated them are the Apollo astronauts. There are quite a few experts who claim that without 6 inches of lead shielding they would have suffered terminal doses of radiation. Needless to say the less than 1/8" aluminum shielding on the LEM was totally insufficient.

>"would we find
>out that the debris left
>from the 6 alleged missions
>has mysteriously disapeered?" While, Debris
>will eventually wear away, the
>moon has no atmosphere and
>thus no protection from solar
>wind. I wouldn't dought whatever
>all small debris that was
>left behind could have worn
>away. Is there any proof
>that there is no debris
>on the moon?

Solar wind??? I highly doubt that on an airless, waterless (therefore corrosionless) satelite such as the moon the metal and plastic of the 6 LEM bases and 3 solar rover would be worn away.

>Y2K you
>might be right about, but
>the whole idea of Y2K
>should have only effected databases
>that kept records from 1900
>and 2000, but still how
>would the computer fail?

It was the date not the data which caused the problem. The network operating system was not designed to handle the switch from 99 to 00. I don't know the exact specifics of why it failed or even how it was fixed but I can tell you that the systems effected were rendered useless for several days until a software patch was installed.

>About the asteroid, I'll admit that
>there is a very, very
>small chance of a meteorid
>hitting earth any time soon,
>how big is space? how
>much space is there around
>us for meteorids to float
>in? We have the hubble
>watching the skys, we should
>know in advance if their
>is a global killing asteroid
>within our solar system.

Current estimates place the number of NEO (Near Earth Objects) we've located at roughly 10% of the total. These are objects of 1 kilometer or more in diameter. That means that roughly 2000 of these objects whiz past the earth every year traveling at speeds over 80,000 mph. The Hubble doesn't even come close to covering 1% of the space surrounding the earth.

>I will however admit there is
>a chance that I'm worng
>about losing the tech to
>go to the moon, or
>it could be that the
>technology is so out-dated that
>we have forgotten how to
>use it. Either way, as
>another memeber stated it would
>be too expensive to go
>to the moon. What is
>the point of going to
>the moon? Why did we
>visit the moon in the
>first? Why would NASA want
>to fake 6 trips to
>the moon? For American pride,
>while, if it were for
>American pride NASA could destroy
>the reputation of the USA
>if we did fake one
>of the worlds all time
>greatest technological advancments.


We supposedly visited the moon for several reasons:

1. We were getting our tails kicked by the Russians and it was considered to be in the interest of national security to win the "space race".

2. NASA needed a serious shot in the arm.

3. Kennedy said we would.

I'm not saying we didn't go but I will say that the program I saw raised some serious doubts.

 

Okay Bill,I'll say it, We did NOT land on the moon. All a bunch of BS on the part of our government- your tax dollars at work! DF

 

Nice try, Cecil.
There never was no Moon landing and there ain't no 'internet'.
All this stuff is put out here by my cousin in Tennessee.
I know it's just me and you but, you don't never give up, do you?

Now cut it out Cecil, I got work to do.

 

Bill, I don't psot blind lies to try to convince people of something, don't try to make it look like I'm posting lies. Could pyramids be built in the 1700s with the precision of egyptian pyramids? of course not, and don't even reply saying that it happened. How much do you know about solar wind? it sure ain't like any wind on earth. Those Van Alllen belts, everything I learned in science didn't say anything about such belts. Also, the shuttles "float" while they are in oprbit, thus launching a rocket off of a shuttle would force the shuttle towards the earth and back out of orbit.

Just think about the facts, we cant launch a rocket to the moon today, we were not far behind the russians in "the technology race" we could have easily beat the russians. How do we now more about the Moon and Earth than any other planet in the solar system?(we also know a lot about the sun, but that is different)

Logan

 

Just a couple of things to add.

1) Fuel would not be a big concern to get to the moon. The massive size of the Saturn V was neccesary to escape Earth's gravity. It just got them into orbit. The service module of the ship--which is very small compared to the rocket--carried the fuel to get to the moon. They didn't need that much becuase they faced no drag of any kind in space. It was not a continuous burn, they just pointed in the right dirrection and fired the boosters till they got up to speed.

2) As far as technology goes...I think they had more than enough to get to the moon. The only thing that makes me skeptical is the difficulty of the acutual landing. Seems mighty impossible to me, but hey, I'm no pilot. Who knows?

 

Area 51 as a UFO scrap yard. Ok, so the USofA is the only country to have one? If UFO's have crashed here they would have crashed in other countries and they inturn would have similiar protected sites. So say a UFO crashes onto a 3 world country dictatorship. Would they not use that excuse to rally the people to prepare for a alien invasion? Would the USA rush in to capture the wreckage? When you start applying logic to it you end up having more ?'s. The area might be a UFO site for all I know but since it has been there for around 50 years and no new crashes have happended (that we know of). I just wonder.

98 F250LD 4X4

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 27-Mar-01 AT 08:07 PM (EST)[/font][p]>Bill, I don't psot blind lies
>to try to convince people
>of something, don't try to
>make it look like I'm
>posting lies.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that you're posting lies. All I'm doing is posting some facts and my own opinions.

>Could pyramids be
>built in the 1700s with
>the precision of egyptian pyramids?
>of course not, and don't
>even reply saying that it
>happened.

I don't know, I wasn't alive during the 1700s and neither were you. I do know they could be built with today's technology. I don't see what this has to do with whether or not we landed on the moon.

>How much do you
>know about solar wind? it
>sure ain't like any wind
>on earth.

You're absolutely correct, it's not, which is why it plays no part in degrading the condition of the debris left from our alleged landings. Here's a link which explains solar wind in more detail:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/12063.html

> Those Van Alllen
>belts, everything I learned in
>science didn't say anything about
>such belts.

Well then you weren't paying attention. Here's another link which describes what they are and when they were discovered:

http://www.britannica.com/seo/v/van-allen-radiation-belt/

> Also, the shuttles
>"float" while they are in
>oprbit, thus launching a rocket
>off of a shuttle would
>force the shuttle towards the
>earth and back out of
>orbit.

So you lift the lander out of the shuttle with the arm and use booster rockets to send it on it's way. Satellites are launched from the shuttle all the time as was the Hubble telescope. The original plans for the moon missions were designed around a craft built in orbit involving multiple launches of small rockets. The Saturn V program only won out by a narrow margin.

>Just think about the facts, we
>cant launch a rocket to
>the moon today, we were
>not far behind the russians
>in "the technology race" we
>could have easily beat the
>russians. How do we now
>more about the Moon and
>Earth than any other planet
>in the solar system?(we also
>know a lot about the
>sun, but that is different)

We can launch a rocket to the moon if we want, we choose not to. If we were so far ahead of the Russians in the 60's then why were they the first to have a satellite in orbit around the earth as well as the first man in space? What does our knowledge of the local solar system have to do with anything?

 

You staed yourself we can launch a rocket to the moon, that settled what is the biggest challenge? I think we will both agree that all the difficulties that exist today existed back then. What is the big challenge of getting to the moon? designing a big rocket. Russia may have had the first satelite, but do it actually do anything important, while not really. I myself would hardly consider Sputnik a satelite. Russia developed a good life-support system. But why exactly cant humans survive in space? Lack of oxygen, no pressure, and a harsh enviorment, all of which can be curred by a pressurized capsule(I'll admit it wouldn't be easy). So, say we both have a life-support system, now all we need is a rocket. Is it not possible that the U.S.A. simply could have had better rocket scientist at work, or just pure luck? Highly unlikely but a moon landing is hard to fake. About the debris, I still believe in the time given solar wind could have erroded the debirs a lot, but does that mean it is not visible if you know where to look?

Logan

 

I don't feel as though anyone has posted any lies, or accused anyone of else posting lies. Just some honest opinions, sugguestions, and possibilities is all that's here.
I'm not saying that Area 51 is the only UFO scrapyard, or even that it is one. I'm just sugguesting that it could be a possiblity. I believe there are other top secret or restricted areas in the USA, and in other countries as well.
Kenny

 

Kenny: Your point about the UFO scrapyard, I agree with. There always is a possibilty.

Now for the solar wind. If I understand the conversation that the solar wind has eroded the lunar rover we have on the moon as well as the platform that the lander landed with, then I offer this. 1: I have telescope, granted it is not the Hubble but it is not a Walmart scope. Under a full moon I need filters just to look at the moon and even then they sometimes aren't enough (it's very bright). However I can see very sharp relief from the craters and ridges and the shadows they cast, especially during half moons, etc. If the solar wind is that erosive to dissolve a metal lunar rover then it could also dissolve the rims around the craters and make the moon a smooth surface. I have never tried to see if I can find the site where we landed but admit I am intrigued by it now. Will I see anything? Maybe a UFO, one has to be open to the possibilty!

98 F250LD 4X4