The Dark Side of the Moon.

[stickdog99]

=
How about sending a Moon orbiter for any other of a long multitude of purposes, but then simply lowering its orbit to the point where it could take photos with sufficient resolution in order to honor the single greatest technological achievement in human history? Why would that suggestion get one fired? What cost would it add to the mission?

How about keeping ON AND ON asking confused and euphemistic rhetorical questions which will never be answered because nobody in the real world needs 'proof' that the moon landings happened and there is zero financial, moral, political, popular or scientific incentive for NASA or anyone else to provide it?

Also seriously give me just one factual reason that moon hoax enthusiasts would be unable to simply claim these new photos were faked too. This is not an attack, I'm not saying you personally would do so or anything like that, I'm simply asking why this new 'evidence' would have any more weight than all the rest for people who already believe the landings were fake?

What rubbish. Why ever obtain evidence of anything if your standard is that any such evidence is useless if anyone in the world questions it?

It would be interesting to revisit the sites. It would honor the original missions. It would be ridiculously cheap and easy to do as part of a bigger moon orbiter mission. Yet some 40 years later it has still never been done. We could successfully complete semi-annual manned missions up to Moon, allow astronauts to hit around golf balls up there using 1960s technology, but we asked to believe that our inability to ever even once photograph any one of the landing sites over the last 35 years is because some conspiracy theorists will disbelieve any evidence?

We have (supposedly) been avoiding any return -- unmanned or manned -- to the scene of humanity's single greatest symbolic technological achievement for 40 years now. Why?

[orz]

What rubbish. Why ever obtain evidence of anything if your standard is that any such evidence is useless if anyone in the world questions it?

Hmmm that makes no sense and doesn't even seem to relate to what I was saying, and then you just repeated exactly the same kind of addled illogical rhetorical question I was complaining about? Thanks i guess.

[orz]

but we asked to believe that our inability to ever even once photograph any one of the landing sites over the last 35 years is because some conspiracy theorists will disbelieve any evidence?

ARGH no. Just for your info you appear to be really dumb, you might wanna do something about that as I'm sure you're not really.

I'll try again:

ASSUMING NASA WERE TO ACTUALLY RE-PHOTOGRAPH THE SITES, what exactly about this new 'evidence' would make it so believable to people who already insist that the existing evidence is fake???

[brainpanhandler]

Well, FFS, you guys won't have long to wait. Nasa's LRO is scheduled for launch April 24. It will supposedly photograph the Apollo relics.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

[orz]

Cool! Looking forward to being proved right. (Just about the moon hoax fans' reaction to the new photos that is; the fact that the moon landings happened is of course already proven.)

[brainpanhandler]

Cool! Looking forward to being proved right. (Just about the moon hoax fans' reaction to the new photos that is; the fact that the moon landings happened is of course already proven.)

I agree that the great majority of people who believe the Apollo missions were hoaxed will believe the new photos are hoaxed. Why wouldn't they? In which case the only evidence that would suffice is if they went to the moon themselves and examined the landing sites and the artifacts left behind. Even then I suppose some of them might claim that it is still true that the Apollo missions were faked and that the evidence at the landing sites was placed there on subsequent covert missions.

The funny thing is, and I have not reread the whole thread, I don't hear SD saying that we never went. Rather SD seems to be saying we went and it makes no sense that we never went again and mightn't it possible that we did go again and for some reason those subsequent missions have been kept secret from the public.

How about keeping ON AND ON asking confused and euphemistic rhetorical questions which will never be answered because nobody in the real world needs 'proof' that the moon landings happened and there is zero financial, moral, political, popular or scientific incentive for NASA or anyone else to provide it?

I can imagine that there will in fact be financial, moral, political and popular benefits from photographing the Apollo landing sites. Just imagine the impression photos of the American flag on the moon could have on the public. NASA is going to be fighting for scraps with all the other budgetary priorities and concerns. Any good pr could be worth millions and millions.

On Edit: The American flag planted on the moon will be too small to photograph clearly. However, the point that NASA might score some pr points with photos of Apollo relics that will be visible is still valid.

[stickdog99]

Cool! Looking forward to being proved right. (Just about the moon hoax fans' reaction to the new photos that is; the fact that the moon landings happened is of course already proven.)

I agree that the great majority of people who believe the Apollo missions were hoaxed will believe the new photos are hoaxed. Why wouldn't they? In which case the only evidence that would suffice is if they went to the moon themselves and examined the landing sites and the artifacts left behind. Even then I suppose some of them might claim that it is still true that the Apollo missions were faked and that the evidence at the landing sites was placed there on subsequent covert missions.

The funny thing is, and I have not reread the whole thread, I don't hear SD saying that we never went. Rather SD seems to be saying we went and it makes no sense that we never went again and mightn't it possible that we did go again and for some reason those subsequent missions have been kept secret from the public.

How about keeping ON AND ON asking confused and euphemistic rhetorical questions which will never be answered because nobody in the real world needs 'proof' that the moon landings happened and there is zero financial, moral, political, popular or scientific incentive for NASA or anyone else to provide it?

I can imagine that there will in fact be financial, moral, political and popular benefits from photographing the Apollo landing sites. Just imagine the impression photos of the American flag on the moon could have on the public. NASA is going to be fighting for scraps with all the other budgetary priorities and concerns. Any good pr could be worth millions and millions.

Thanks. That's why it makes no sense to me that we haven't been back in over 35 years.

[stickdog99]

but we asked to believe that our inability to ever even once photograph any one of the landing sites over the last 35 years is because some conspiracy theorists will disbelieve any evidence?

ARGH no. Just for your info you appear to be really dumb, you might wanna do something about that as I'm sure you're not really.

I'll try again:

ASSUMING NASA WERE TO ACTUALLY RE-PHOTOGRAPH THE SITES, what exactly about this new 'evidence' would make it so believable to people who already insist that the existing evidence is fake???

What does this have to do with any of the real motivations for revisiting the sites?

[stickdog99]

Astronaut-authored report says NASA needs new direction

There is limited value in returning to the Moon, according to a report co-authored by Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin



NASA's performance since the Apollo programme has been "lacklustre" and the agency needs "serious reform or significant organisational overhaul," Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin and colleagues say in a draft paper released on Monday.

The draft paper, posted to the National Space Society blog, outlines a plan to replace George W Bush's 2004 Vision for Space Exploration, which called for returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020, with a plan that focuses on sending astronauts first to new targets, such as asteroids.

A shorter version of the report will be released formally in a few days and sent to President Obama's administration for review, says Feng Hsu, the paper's primary author and an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The Apollo lunar programme of the 1960s and 70s was an "astonishing success", the report says. But it goes on to argue that "post-Apollo NASA" became a "visionless jobs-providing enterprise that achieves little or nothing" in areas such as the development of reusable or affordable launch systems.

The space shuttle, which costs about $450 million per launch and requires a lot of maintenance, is one of a number of "wasteful projects with costly or unnecessarily complex and risky designs", the report says.

The report says the agency's downturn may have been inevitable, since Apollo had been a well-funded programme designed to beat the Soviet Union in the space race. "America's space program was destined to lose direction soon after winning the space race," the authors write.
No discussion

NASA's new Constellation programme is at "high risk" for continuing this downward spiral, they argue. The programme, which is developing rockets and an Apollo-inspired crew capsule to replace the ageing space shuttle, will send astronauts to the space station as well as the Moon.

Bush's plan to return to the Moon was not vetted by space policy experts, politicians or the public through hearings and was not funded well enough to achieve its goals, they say.

Crucially, it also "lacks strategic merit", the authors write: "There is neither significant (or short-term) science value nor space exploration and operation value in revisiting an Earth-orbit destination that was explored by mankind four decades ago."

Instead, the authors say the US human exploration programme should focus first on sending astronauts to an asteroid or to L2, one of five gravitational 'sweet spots' around Earth's orbit. There, spacecraft essentially could be parked so that they could keep pace with Earth on their orbits around the Sun.
Cabinet-level office

The authors say the site, which is farther away than the Moon, could host a space-station-like outpost. It could also act as an intermediate step on the way to Mars, where human missions could initially be sent to Mars's moon Phobos before landing on the Red Planet itself.

If the US did return to the Moon, the venture should be part of larger commercial or international efforts, the authors say.

To explore those options better, the authors propose that a new cabinet-level office be developed - the US Department of Space. It would take over from NASA and expand the agency's current efforts to work with businesses on space vehicles to reach destinations in low-Earth orbit, such as the International Space Station. The department would also help spur the development of other technologies, including beaming solar energy down from space.
'Rearranging the bureaucracy'

The recommendation to make the Moon an international target is "much to be commended," says Louis Friedman of The Planetary Society, which last year made a similar call for US astronauts to aim for asteroids and Mars.

Friedman says The Planetary Society was approached to sign on to the document, but Society officials have not yet decided to do so.

"I think that it's overly critical of NASA," Friedman told New Scientist. "NASA still delivers a lot to America and to the world. They have issues to solve, but they're normal issues. They do it in the glare of a lot of publicity," he says. "I don't know that rearranging the federal bureaucracy is the solution to any problem NASA is encountering right now."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16660-astronautauthored-report-says-nasa-needs-new-direction.html

Whoa! This is crazy. Anything but the Moon recommendations coupled with scathing NASA criticism! WTF is so horrible about revisiting the Moon -- our nearest celestial neighbor by far, which we have never done more than kick the tires of some 40 years ago? Am I the only one who sees that this is obviously staged disinfo?

[orz]

We're talking at cross purposes now, I give up. Thanks for not posting anything that doesn't 100% prove the point I was attempting to make tho.

[stickdog99]

We're talking at cross purposes now, I give up. Thanks for not posting anything that doesn't 100% prove the point I was attempting to make tho.

yes, discussion vs. debunksion

When you have nothing to debunk, you never seem to have all that much to say.

[orz]

What is even worth saying to someone who thinks in those sort of terms?

[stickdog99]

LOL?

[alwyn]

I was going to post this the other day, in answer to "why haven't we been back to the moon" but it seemed a little fantastic. Then I came across this article (which follows). My son's friend stays with his grandfather quite a bit, who used to be an engineer (now retired) at JPL. He said we haven't been back to the moon because the engineers who did it died, and no one now has the technology. I just laughed, and then I came across this today. Maybe not so fantastic?

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/herald ... 29.0.0.php

How the US forgot how to make Trident missiles
Inquiry cites loss of files and key staff as reason for $69m repair delayBy Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

PLANS TO refurbish Trident nuclear weapons had to be put on hold because US scientists forgot how to manufacture a component of the warhead, a US congressional investigation has revealed.

The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) "lost knowledge" of how to make a mysterious but very hazardous material codenamed Fogbank. As a result, the warhead refurbishment programme was put back by at least a year, and racked up an extra $69 million.

According to some critics, the delay could cause major problems for the UK Trident programme, which is very closely tied to the US programme and uses much of the same technology. The US and the UK are trying to refurbish the ageing W76 warheads that tip Trident missiles in order to prolong their life, and ensure they are safe and reliable. This apparently requires that the Fogbank in the warheads is replaced.
advertisement

Neither the NNSA nor the UK Ministry of Defence would say anything about the nature or function of Fogbank. But it is thought by some weapons experts to be a foam used between the fission and fusion stages of a thermonuclear bomb. US officials have said that manufacturing the material requires a solvent cleaning agent which is "extremely flammable" and "explosive". The process also involves dealing with "toxic materials" hazardous to workers.

Over the last year the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which reports to the US Congress, has been investigating the W76 refurbishment programme. An unclassified version of its final report was released last week. The GAO report concluded: "NNSA did not effectively manage one of the highest risks of the programme - the manufacture of a key material known as Fogbank - resulting in $69m in cost over-runs and a schedule delay of at least one year that presented significant logistical challenges for the navy."

For the first time, the report described the difficulties faced by the NNSA in trying to make Fogbank. A new production facility was needed at the Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, because an old one had been demolished in the 1990s.

But vital information on how Fogbank was actually made had somehow been mislaid. "NNSA had lost knowledge of how to manufacture the material because it had kept few records of the process when the material was made in the 1980s, and almost all staff with expertise on production had retired or left the agency," the report said.

The GAO report also accused the NNSA of having an inconsistent approach to costing the W76 refurbishment programme. The total cost was put at $2.1 billion in 2004, $6.2bn in 2005 and $2.7bn in 2006.

To John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, it was "astonishing" that the Fogbank blueprints had been lost. "This is like James Bond destroying his instructions as soon as he has read them," he said. "Perhaps the plans for making Fogbank were so secret that no copies were kept. The British warhead is similar to the American version, and so the problems with Fogbank may delay Aldermaston's plans for renewing or replacing Trident."

The NNSA's principal deputy administrator, William Ostendorff, said that the agency "generally agrees" with the findings of the GAO report. He stressed that NNSA was strengthening its management procedures. He added: "As with many processes that implement increased rigour, there is a need for identification of increased funding in order to increase the fidelity in project risk assessment."

UK sources suggested, though, that the US and UK designs were not identical. All the details of exactly how nuclear weapons are put together are classified as top secret in both countries.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence told the Sunday Herald: "It is MoD policy not to comment on nuclear warhead design. To do so would, or would be likely to, prejudice national security."

[wintler2]

Thanks Alwyn, thats the best news i've read this week. Maybe its just what we should expect of a civilisation in decline. Anybody know how to make matches?