If you believe we put a man on the Moon ...

by **professorpan** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Pentagon and NASA are the same branch of government and have caused incomprehensible destruction to all life on this planet in the pursuit of destroying more farther faster. So despite weather satellites and this groovy internet we're chatting over, NASA is a weapons program that kills just by using up funds. Fuck NASA.<hr></blockquote> NASA, like many governmental agencies, does both good and bad things. I admire and respect space exploration and basic space science, but I'm not a fan of the militarization of space. In other words, I don't see everything as you do, in black and white, love 'em or fuck 'em terms. And the space program is a drop in the bucket compared to military spending. It's microscopic. So the old "space program vs. feeding starving children" argument doesn't hold up. It's not either/or. We can feed everyone on this planet if the powers-that-be decided to do so -- *and* have a space program. The space program is not stealing money from the mouths of hungry children. That's a fallacy. And you ignore the positive contributions of weather and climate satellites to understanding the biosphere and our impact on it. I still say "fuck NASA" is simplistic and nonproductive, and ignores the positive things NASA has accomplished.

by **stickdog99** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:18 pm

Saratuma, you did a good job of responding and I took your answers to heart. I'm more convinced that man stepped on the Moon because of them. However, I still have some nagging doubt because I wouldn't put anything past LBJ and Nixon. And I still wonder why each mission did not include a series of photos showing what the entire sky looks like from the Moon and from the CSM on the way to and from the Moon. I still wonder why there is not more unambigous scientific evidence the PROVES that man set foot on the Moon, like surprising photos or scientific evidence that couldn't have possibly been faked given what we knew then that have subsequently been confirmed by later experiments. For example, I would be 100% convinced by a few lunar samples completely uncontaminated with live or dead microbes. That's proof -- which is what I've been looking for. What else to you want me to say? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/20/06 4:24 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:33 pm

Yes, the Pentagon budget is obscene. But that doesn't preclude criticizing NASA's, too. For all intents and purposes, NASA is a division of the Pentagon. Sure, I'd love to know what all programs are done by NASA and the cost but that is classified. Not for us mere citizens to know just because it is our money. Have you seen this? An 'official' tag of $600 million to test bunker buster technology under the cover of "looking for ice on the moon as fuel on the way to Mars." Have I mentioned FUCK NASA? Oh, I did. The message is not invalid just because it is "simple." Hitler did "good and bad" but the bad condemned him, agreed? Observe the mendacity of the offered cover story from NASA below. One device makes a crater and the next one reads through the debris cloud to hit again. What does that sound like to you? <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3785197.html">www.chron.com/disp/story....85197.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> April 11, 2006, 9:51AM NASA mission: Bomb the moon The impact will stir up lunar dust needed to search for signs of ice By MARK CARREAU Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle NASA plans to bomb the moon's south pole with an unmanned spacecraft launched in October 2008, tossing up a cloud of lunar debris that will be visible to Earth-based observatories, the space agency announced Monday. A satellite will fly through the 30-to-40-mile-high dust plume to search for evidence of water ice left by comets that slammed into the moon billions of years ago. The crash vehicle, called an impactor, and observational instruments will be added to NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Already slated for launch, the orbiter will map the moon's surface in unprecedented detail, taking a fresh look at the rugged south and north pole terrain to assist with the selection of landing sites for human expeditions. The $600 million plan outlined on Monday represents an early milestone in the strategy outlined by President Bush two years ago to send astronauts back to the moon to prepare for the eventual human exploration of Mars. Living off the land NASA's goal of reaching the moon by 2018 and establishing a human outpost several years later will be guided by efforts to verify the presence of ice hinted at by two previous missions, said Scott Horowitz, the agency's associate administrator for exploration. If lodged in the permanently darkened recesses of craters at the moon's south and north pole, ice deposited by ancient comet strikes could be mined by lunar explorers and converted into its elements, oxygen and hydrogen. The mining could provide a lunar base with breathing air and rocket propellants as well as drinking water. "We know for sure that for human exploration to succeed we are gong to have to learn eventually to live off the land," Horowitz said. "What this mission buys us is an early attempt at getting to know what some of the resources are that will have large implications on what we do in the future." The crater-strewn terrain at the moon's poles went unexplored by astronauts during the half-dozen Apollo missions that landed at equatorial sites between 1969 and 1972. But the Pentagon's Clementine and NASA's Lunar Prospector missions in 1994 and 1998-99 found hints of large amounts of ice at the poles. Finding power source With the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's new companion spacecraft, the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, space agency scientists will focus their search for ice on Shackleton Crater at the moon's south pole, said Butler Hine, the deputy program manager for NASA's Lunar Robotic Exploration Program. Portions of Shackleton's rim lie in near constant sunlight, which could serve as a source of solar energy to generate electricity. The region is high on NASA's list of sites for a lunar base. Under the plan outlined Monday, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the new Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite would be launched atop one another. The LRO would head for lunar orbit. The companion spacecraft and the launcher's second stage would remain linked in a looping orbit around the Earth and moon for three months. The 4,400-pound second stage would be released on a path that would send it into Shackleton with an impact velocity of 5,600 mph. The force of the impact should open a new crater 30 yards wide by 16 feet deep, tossing a cloud of lunar debris 40 miles above the surface, said NASA's Daniel Andrews, the project manager. The Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite would fly through the cloud with instruments designed to identify ice and water vapor. The companion satellite would then crash into the 12-mile-wide crater, too, throwing up another cloud of debris for observations. The mission plan was pioneered by Lunar Prospector. As that mission drew to a close on July 31, 1999, the 660-pound spacecraft was intentionally steered into the moon's south pole. The debris cloud, studied by scientists using the Hubble Space Telescope and powerful ground-based observatories, did not reveal ice. Scientists think the more massive impactor, a more destructive impact angle and the close-up observations by lunar orbiting spacecraft could produce different results. mark.carreau@chron.com<hr></blockquote> Hitler was nice to his dog. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/20/06 6:36 pm

by **Pirx** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:16 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>For all intents and purposes, NASA is a division of the Pentagon.<hr></blockquote> Perhaps YOUR intents and purposes. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sure, I'd love to know what all programs are done by NASA and the cost but that is classified.<hr></blockquote> No, it's not. Even DARPA funds lots of projects that are not classified. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Have I mentioned FUCK NASA? Oh, I did<hr></blockquote> Aww...and NASA says such nice things about you. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The message is not invalid just because it is "simple." <hr></blockquote> Unless, of course it is simply wrong. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> One device makes a crater and the next one reads through the debris cloud to hit again. What does that sound like to you?<hr></blockquote> A clever way to determine if the hydrogen detected at Shackleton crater is in the form of water ice or something more like Portland cement. I'd like to see a similar test at Peary crater at the opposite pole, but since this particular test is an add-on to LRO, that probably won't happen. Testing "bunker-busters" on the moon......uh huh. Hmm, Ed Wood, Andy Kaufman, Big Dick cheney, Hitler and his dog.... Even if this thread doesn't make the final cut for the "dumbest thread ever" award, it certainly sports an all star cast. I'm all atingle with anticipation for the next cameo!

by **anotherdrew** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:06 am

I thought the last 'did we really land on the moon' thread had wrung this subject dry. I thought folks had spent enough time (how many hours?) pointing out easily self-discoverable information to a pleasant but persistant plunker. It's starting to look like a game of 'throw the dog a bone' <img src="http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/bart.gif" style="border:0;"/> <a href="http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/">from here</a> now, I for one am not completely sure that we've ever broken the speed of sound in an airplane. They could have just had an identical plane with a look-a-like pilot prepositioned to land and make it look like a faster than sound flight. Please prove to me that we can fly faster than the speed of sound. I mean, wouldn't the skin of the plane peal off from superheating and all that friction? <- please no one take this last graph seriously.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:29 am

I think the topic of just what the hell is NASA up to? is a better topic, anyway. On the late 90s HBO comedy skit program called 'Mr. Show' there is a bit with a US project to...blow up the moon. I'm not kidding. There is an impassioned government official (David Cross) saying "We have the technology, the children are our future, we must blow up the moon!!" Parades, picnics with red white and blue Blow Up the Moon cake, and country western acts singing the praise of American techonology. As a NASA scientist David Cross explains to the press that this chimp who knows sign language will be sent to the moon to blow it up. The chimp signs "why?" and Cross looks panicky. Next shot: David Cross with a different chimp and he says "our project is back on track now that we found a chimp better suited to the task and, more importantly, doesn't know sign language." Cut to Toby Keith-esque singer with red white and blue guitar singing "Hey there Mr. Monkey don't put our country down cuz ya don't mess around...with God's America." Big wink. So this was all a hysterical comedy bit when I saw it on video last year. Now it is happening for real. Fuck NASA.

by **anotherdrew** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:49 am

seen that, very damn funny. not so funny - the DID have a plan to set off a nuke on the moon. As a demonstation. I shit you not. It was thankfully not implemented. At least as far as we know. <a href="http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/nuke_moon_000514.html">here's</a> the link <img src="http://nettg.com/extras/13-dancing/MoonNuke.jpg" style="border:0;"/> nuke THIS moon:<img src="http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Moonies/Subversives_04.jpg" style="border:0;"/> republican humor: <img src="http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/model-nuke.jpg" style="border:0;"/> leads to this: <img src="http://seder.topcities.com/nukeMoon.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=anotherdrew>anotherdrew</A> at: 4/20/06 10:58 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:25 am

Nukes on the moon? I guess that's better than at Bikini Atoll. I've read some about orbiting lasers for SDI which should really be SOI since 'defense' is a euphemism for 'offense.' (We don't read about the Army Defense College, do we?) Since the lasers use so much energy, keeping them on the ground and bouncing their beams off mirrors was considered a possibility. Problem: atmospheric interference which dissipates the laser beam. Solution? Maybe keep the lasers on the moon and fire them through the void of space with no atmospheric interference. Then a power source on the moon is all that's needed. Probably nuclear power, not 'ice and hydrogen.' I'll bet that is being seriously considered if not well underway.

by **stickdog99** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:13 am

Q. Where is the zero gravity point between the Earth and the Moon? Q. What were the recorded temperatures during the Apollo EVAs? Q. Where are the technical blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module, Lunar Rover and Saturn V rockets well over 30 years later? Why can't today's engineers study the absolute height of 1960's and 1970's technology? Just wondering, as usual ...

by **Pirx** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:57 am

Fuck Google! What happened to the three source rule? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>wouldn't the skin of the plane peal off from superheating and all that friction?<hr></blockquote> (aviation lobe throbbing.....pain....must...not... resist) They tried to come up with an ablative paint back around the days of the X-15, best they could come up with was a rubbery coating that made the aircraft look like a big pink eraser that nobody wanted to fly. The shit melted off and gunked up all the windows. Made for some really, really fun landings and probably a soiled flightsuit or two. (ahh....sweet relief..) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I thought the last 'did we really land on the moon' thread had wrung this subject dry<hr></blockquote> I tend to think of it like "The Return of the Son of the Brainless Head of the Mixed up ZombieThing that Wouldn't Die" Just wish it were in Sensurround. More popcorn?

by **Pirx** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:03 am

Testing a sinister new weapon system that deploys from a cool-looking airplane.......silly. Rest assured that this is the last thing you and your family will ever see! <img src="http://www.transformspace.com/media_gallery/media/sized_CXV_Carry_Test.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:58 pm

Why looky here at who has a new job among the US mouthpiece management (military intelligence) on the environment, BIRD FLU, and those oh so noble space programs. It is Baku Reno Harnish, the suddenly former ambassador to Azerbaijan who just got transferred out for being involved in human trafficking due to an FBI investigation complete with a stabbed-to-death translator. Getting the public message, Sibel Edmunds wannabe's? Can you say 'CIA'? Doesn't take a "three source rule" to figure this one out. This is from the thread titled ' US Ambassador to Azerbaijan, human trafficking, murder' <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=4022.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...4022.topic</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>His "promotion"? www.azernews.net/view.php?d=8082 Outgoing US envoy to tackle space exploration Deputy US ambassador to Azerbaijan Jason Hyland will take over as head of the US diplomatic mission in the country until a permanent replacement for ambassador Reno Harnish is approved, a source from the US embassy said. Harnish will leave Baku on April 24 and on the following day he is expected to start working as principal deputy assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs. His normal term of ambassadorial duty would have ended in August, 2006, but he has been asked to depart Baku on April 24 and assume his new duties on April 25, as the officer he is replacing left the job in December 2005. In his new post, Amb. Harnish will be responsible for managing 200 Department of State employees that lead in the foreign policy aspects of such issues as global climate change, the reaction to avian influenza, and space exploration.<hr></blockquote> I think that shows ya how the National inSecurity State sees those science topics. Icons to make the masses tremble with fear or excitement. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/21/06 11:15 pm

by JD » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:45 pm

Hey just thought I'd pleasantly plunk some junk down. 1) Answering Stickdog's question at the beginning of the thread: IMO there is no absolute 100% proof. What we have to work with is merely proof of extremely high probability that men did indeed walk on the moon (i.e. moon rocks, photographic evidence, eyewitness testimony). I can't hang a quantitative number of it; maybe 99.5% certain? But no one can truly say with 100% confidence unless they were intimately involved with the program themselves. If they do say with 100% certainty they aren't being open minded enough. 2) This whole question leads to an interesting point, as I plunked in the last thread wrt no one doubting Cook's "discovery" of Australia. IMO this is because two issues have arisen. First the propensity of governments to lie is being recognized by many people, and second the ability to fake evidence and disseminate it has grown incredibly. This works in the government's favour to support lies perpetrated by it, and also in the favour of allowing very silly ideas to be heard that would otherwise have been filtered and flushed long ago. 3) Stickdog I like your questions. Don't let people discourage you from asking them. Lots of rude stuff and "attitudes". I have no idea why this is necessary. If you don't want to engage Stickdog in his question ignore the thread. 4) Oh btw, I looked for hours to find the duty of the cooling system of the LM. Never found it and no one from this site offered the information so apparently they don't know either. I still have some technical issues understanding how the LM was cooled, and how gloves on space suits work, and the very large number of photographs taken in the limited time on surface. Maybe some people think these questions were satisfactorily explained, but I never got any feedback that was satisfying. 5) "Why haven't we returned to the moon?" I believe I've heard that post Apollo there was the realization that if there is a solar flare while the astronauts are in deep space, that it would kill them, and we were darned lucky that this didn't happen. Anyone remember anything to this effect? This would seem to me to be an excellent explanation for not having repeated the feat in over 30 years. 6) As per any motive for faking the landings, I can't really think of any really good ones. Money? No, it is far more efficient to loot the treasury via a savings and loan scandal or corporate welfare. I can hardly imagine a more inefficient way to scam the taxpayer. So again........ exactly what is the motive? Propaganda victory? Nah - too easy for the Ruskies to really call us on it. I'd like to hear some more proposals, because I can't think of a good reason to fake them. In my mind, the lack of a plausible motive has to make anyone really doubt any fake landing scenario, irrespective of whatever evidence of fakery is put out. Ok that's all the pleasent plunking for now. I hope I'm not wasting anyone's time; I wouldn't want anyone wasting hours on my little questions on this matter. (LOL if anyone did waste hours on my previous questions they were truly wasted as no one really answered them in a satisfactory way! LOL) PS - gotta love that oil price. Oil production will never peak either, right? Yours pleasantly, JD

by **anotherdrew** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:09 am

I just said I was surprised it'd gone so long for a seocnd time in a few months, not that it was wrong. I just don't think you'll ever get 100% sure, and I don't have time to do the research. I'm willingto go with the mainstream concensus view on this because I don't think it's dangerous or immoral to believe it happened. I'm not willing to do that with, oh... say... 911. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=anotherdrew>anotherdrew</A> at: 4/21/06 10:15 pm

by **tigre63** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:26 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>5) "Why haven't we returned to the moon?" I believe I've heard that post Apollo there was the realization that if there is a solar flare while the astronauts are in deep space, that it would kill them, and we were darned lucky that this didn't happen. Anyone remember anything to this effect? This would seem to me to be an excellent explanation for not having repeeated the feat in over 30 years.<hr></blockquote> The solar flare thing I am not sure about, but I can say that the reason the Apollo program was cancelled was because Nasa wanted to pursue the Space Shuttle and Skylab. Heres a page full of references on the "Space Shuttle" debate: <a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Shuttlebib/ch3.html">www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pa...b/ch3.html</a> And of course from wiki: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Apollo">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Apollo</a> Originally three additional lunar landing missions had been planned, as Apollo 18 through Apollo 20. In light of the drastically shrinking NASA budget and the decision not to produce a second batch of Saturn Vs, these missions were cancelled to make funds available for the development of the Space Shuttle, and to make their Apollo spacecraft and Saturn V launch vehicles available to the Skylab program. Only one of the Saturn Vs was actually used; the others became museum exhibits. ########## Since Apollo there hasn't been a mission that was outside low-orbit, so the solar flare rumor has some validity. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tigre63>tigre63</A> at: 4/21/06 10:43 pm

If you believe we put a man on the Moon ...

Re: Polling shows Americans think NASA is what the Fed does.

Re: Polling shows Americans think NASA is what the Fed does.

Re: Comparing the budgets of NASA and Pentagon

Re: Comparing the budgets of NASA and Pentagon

I'm surprised this board has risen to a second such thread

Re: I'm surprised this board has risen to a second such thre

Re: I'm surprised this board has risen to a second such thre

Re: What to do with the moon.

Re: If you believe we put a man on the Moon ...

Re: Google-for-brains

Re: just what the hell is NASA up to?

Re: just what the hell is NASA up to?

Persistant Plunker?

Re: Persistant Plunker?

Re: Persistant Plunker?

Who is online