jettstarblue

Space,

Why go back when we were already there?

Well why keep going out with the shuttle then? We'd keep going to the moon to do experiments, ect. How about a moon base, as opposed to a space station? A base on the moon is farther from Earth, but closer to the ??? and a bit more stable and protected than a floating space station.......good question though.

Now before anyone reads too much into this: I'm not saying we went, and I'm not saying we didn't.....I'm saying this is a very good debate subject, and to say "we went" or "we didn't go" without exception is craziness. There are good arguments for both......I sat here and talked with my girls about it half the night tonight, and not one of us is sure either way.

They sure learned a lot about the moon and space travel, and I sure learned a lot about what they teach/don't teach in school these days!

Spaceclam

the reason that they use a space station and a shuttle rather than a moon base is simple. while technology has sure progressed, have you ever been up close to the saturn V? we are talking billions and billions and possibly trillinos of dollars to re-engineer to today's standards, as 1969 technology would simply not be accepted for a moon mission. also, if i am not mistaken, not a single piece of the saturn V is reusable whereas the space shuttle's entire main body and rocket boosters are not only re-usable, but upgradable. it's almost infinitaly cheaper to opperate the space shuttle than it is to opperate saturn v rockets. also, who's money would pay for a lunar base, the rockets to get you there and back, and the shuttling of parts and supplies for construction/maintainance? certainly not the united states. afterall, congress is currently having to extend the maximum debt limit for the federal government in order to keep from going bankrupt, so i cant see any possible source of funding. it would cost trillions, and i cant possibly see an all private funding source. can you?

bla bla

Why would the Moderator want to lock down this discussion?
Nobodies being hurt apart from me who the subject of any verbal attacks by the Pro's, including the moderator who job it is to stop such attacks.

Anyway, I can see some people do take this subject very seriously and are feeling offended, hurt or indeed humiliated by the possibility that this event didn't take place. I think thats enough to end it here and agree to disagree. I for one who love the fact that we went to the moon. I was a kid during this period, and I had every-model, every poster and watched every program. Regardless of what happened the 60's moon program was, without dought, one of the greatest highlight of my life. I was there... and I enjoyed every minute of it. Even if we did manage to do it with a compass and a sextant!

PS. Flyboy, we were discussing the Apollo missions and not the Space Shuttle. Easy mistake.

jettstarblue

Space,

Yes, I've been up close to a Saturn booster, and most of the other moonshot equipment......using today's tech, including the shuttle, would make a moonshot much easier. The idea of the "re-usable" shuttle would make hauling all the crap up there a lot cheaper.....(I kinda thought we built the shuttle for that reason).

The U.S. spends billions on a bunch of useless crap....IMO anyhow, why not space travel? It could also be easily privately funded...greed is a great motivator.

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

bla, I was being sarcastic about the shuttle and all the other. It made about as much sense as your first post.

I don't mind a good discussion about space travel, but your initial post sounds like a troll.

Kind of runs the same course as the roswell stuff. Your going to get people that know it happend and people that know it didn't. Someones brothers x girlfriends 5th cousin was there!

Just didn't want to see it turn into a total slam fest. Thats not what we are here for.

jettstarblue

Hey! Didn't we sent a sorta R/C thingy (tech term) to MARS?????

Why then wouldn't/couldn't we go (back) to the moon? It would make sence from a low gravity launch pad yes?

Live Wire

A Rover, ARF ARF. radio controled I think[]

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

I thought it was free flight. Didn't it just have programed movement? RC would take too long for the signals to get to it.

jettstarblue

I believe the signals took about 7 mins. to get there, and they had to move it a little at a time, and it did use a lot of preprogrammed movements.

gow589

My Feedback: (1)

Well the fox show which claimed the landings were faked was another use of media to twist the facts. They misrepresented facts and would not allow scientist opportunity to rebuff them. I wouldn't be suprised if it was directed by Michael Moore. You prove anything wrong doing this and has all the credentials of any newsstand trash mag. Fact is spreading these roomers is a disgrace to America, a disgrace to Gus Grission, Ed white, Roger Chaffe who died in Apollo 1. It's a disgrace to the rest of the Battles American are fighting and I question the Patronage of those who make it an issue.

As far as why we have not gone back, I don't think that's an easy answer. The shuttle is designed to orbit, not go on long distance missions. If you look at the rocket that took us to the moon it was 99% fuel and 1% payload. It is no easier doing it now then it was then. But why go? Yes we had good reason to go. The political reasons were way beyond the scope of this forum and these reasons are not the same now. Putting a space shuttle in orbit is not even similar to going back to the moon. Why go? It would be fun, it would be neat, etc. Everyone wants to see it happen but reason and money have not met yet. Why go into orbit with the shuttle? That's easy, drop satellites, fix satellites, that is a job here to stay. There is always a reason to go into orbit and always some one ready to pay; The moon? Every one wants to go, who's going to fund it, and what purpose is good enough to fund it? The job of going to the moon is 100X the mission of going into orbit.

bla bla

I just have to share this with you.
Regardless of which camp you fall into, there are certain amnormallities with the official pictures from the moon landing.
I have been an Art Director since leaving Collage and have worked with photographic images for the passed 20 odd years.
Not wanting to be distracted by the "fake landing" web sites, I have this evening, taken another serious look at the NASA Official site.
I asked my wife, a proffessional Mac/photoshop opperator to come and take a look with me.
Before this, she had no idea about this post, she had no idea about any fake landings... she just thought, like we do, that men landed on the moon period.
We have just spent one hour howling in laughter looking at some of these pictures.
We have looked at the official reasons for these abnormalities, the reflected light theory (by the way reflected light isn't a theory...it's a fact) etc and these imagines simply just don't fly. These pictures, the ones we're told are real, have been doctored/faked/set-up/composed/modified/manipulated... call it what you want, but they are not, 100% genuine, period!
We do these sort of things for a living. We know the technical problems... and we know what to look for.
These loonies out there that host the fake landing sites... they're on to something.

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

Ok bla, heres a challenge, give us the links you speak of, and tell us why you think they are fake. Its easy to just say it, but tell us why.

dkf1979

[link=http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm]In depth explanations[/link]

The first page of this site basically goes over the same claims the previous site listed does. But read on, on the next few pages for even more in depth explanations.

bla bla

Ok. It's 12.00pm in the evening here and I want to go to bed... so here's a quicky.
Go to http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...113-18339.html
Hopefully you will be looking at a picture from the Apollo 16 landing. It should show the lunar module on the left, the rover in front of it and the jumping Astronaut on the right. Cool Picture!
Lets shoot of some simple ones first.
How big is that flag pole? Or how small is the austronaut... may be it's his son!
How about the shodow from the pole? Is that a shadow eating rock... yes it is and it spits it out on the riht at a different angle.
And why we're talking about the flag... how much starch did they use on that fabric?
Now were was the man when he jumped? On the little hill behind him, in the little valley under him or infront of the valley?
Well, look at the shadow to his right, (if indeed it is his shadow or the mysterious flag shadow even though there seems to be a pole shadow in front of that one) it would suggest that he's standing infront of the valley ... yet look at some of those foot prints behind him... they big.

Ok that's all open for comment. Now let get somewhat more serious.
The moon has no atmoshere to diffused the suns light, so what you'll get is total blinging bright light that can be compare to nothing we could whitness on earth. The light in this picture is coming hard and low from the left... thus the long shadows.
The exposure with this type of light is a nightmare... even on earth..thats why we never take pictures in direct sun light... you've tried it looks terrible, bright spots, hard shadow etc... look at your holiday snaps.
Yet here on the moon, in lighting conditions in compaible with anying on earth even in a studio we have a "perfectly" exposed picture.
Look at the fill in on the lunar module. you can see details in the shadows...no way would that happen It'll be absolute hights/burn out on one side and absolute black on the other.

Look at the contasts on the Lander and then the Astronaut. Totally different! He's waering white... a Photographer nightmare. One side should be bright white, the other pitch black...but no! OK so the lights comming slightly from the front and filling him in? But no... hes still has shadow on his body and leg and they...grey, not black at all. This is a GENIOUS exposure. But wait it gets worse!

All the pro am photographer out there will say Ar' but under these lighting circunstances you would measure the bright spots, the darkest spots and make your exposure in the middle... and they'd be correct.
The probløem is that to get detail in the shadow aras under such extreme lighting conditions you need a longer exposure. That would blech out the high lights, this hasn't happened and it would cuse a blur in the motion. We have a jumping Astronaut... he's sharp(ish)

Go to the astronauts right foot(on the left of the pic) Look at the sole and it's interaction with the background. It'll possible look nornal to you be any one who's work with retouch will notice a hallo. Yet it could be just bad luck and it's a retouchers trademark.

Why you looking closely at the foot... look at those shadows... or the lack of them. Impossible.

Back to what could be the Astronauts shadow. By now you should understand that it can't be his shadow as it's being cast down at 45 degrees and very likely it was. Look at the shadow of his arm one his suit.

Even if this is a genuinemoon picture, it has been doctored or manipulated the only way I coulg get this picture under these circumstances is to make a composite of various different exposures of the subject. They didn't do this. The had basically no training and they used normal Kodak film. When questioned about the remarkable qualities of this film to hadel such a difficult pictures NASA has recently said that it was a very special film! Developed by Fuji! I **** you not. Kodak wasn't impressed.

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

good stuff dkf

Spaceclam

jettstarblue:
the shuttle was designed to only go into low earth orbit. unfortunatly, we would have to engineer a completely different monster for a moon mission. that would cost lots of money that the government does not have, even though they do spend millions on turkey launchers for turbofan testing.

GRANT ED

Once again go to the two sites posted they explain all these things. I have not seen this particular pic on the sites(not saying its not there) so there may not be a specific explanation for these shadows but it does talk about shadows and photo exposure for other pics, same idea different pic. Also the flag pole is closer than the man and the reason the flag is staight out is because there is a rod running along the top of the flag. It was put there on purpose to hold the flag out. This is also explained on these sites.

BillyGoat

Boy everybody getting all worked up. They landed on the moon, they didn’t land on the moon. If NASA revealed tomorrow it was all a fake will it affect the value of any bodys 401k or the price of gas? Very doubtful.

Spaceclam

nobody is getting worked up. this is what you call a good discussion

Tall Paul

Geez, Louise....
There's nothing fake or inconsistent or Photoshopped about any of the lunar images...
The one in question, everything lines up.
The reflection from the grainy surface of the moon's dust fills in the areas where there isn't total darkness in the same manner a photographer would use a fill-in flash or reflector...
As the moon is a sunlit object, the old law, 1 over the film ASA at f16 was used for the shutter speed. For 400 ASA film, the shutter speed would be 1/400th, more than sufficient to stop any motion, particularly if the exposure happened to be made at the height of the hop.
No NASA photo has ever been proven to be Photoshopped.
This one certainly isn't.
It's normal and real..

Tall Paul

Here's a closeup of a rock from the same Apollo mission..
Note the detail in the down-sun side.. NOT inky-black at all..
http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...-107-17573.jpg

jettstarblue

[X(][>:][>:]

rw Guinn

Obviously, as a professional photog, you have never, ever, shot a concert or any other extremely high-contrast event from close up...
Sheesh!

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

The photo with the 2 guys standing there is interesting. I looked at it for about 2 seconds without reading the text and realized that the guys were on uneven terain that would elongate one shadow and shorten the other. The angle of the terain makes it look like the shadows are at different angles.

Guess people are going to see what they want to see though. You can believe it or you can toss it and say they are faked. Really makes no diff in the long run.

HEY, Was that Elvis?

scottrc

This reminds me, I need to rent Capricorn One tonight.