Neil Armstrong: Support Bush's space plan

[idkew]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/14/space.armstrong.ap/index.html)

Neil Armstrong: Support Bush's space plan

Sunday, March 14, 2004 Posted: 1:40 AM EST (0640 GMT)

HOUSTON , Texas (AP) -- Former astronaut Neil Armstrong says Americans should support President Bush's plan for renewed missions to the moon and beyond.

Armstrong said the plan was economically sustainable and that the country must accept the risks associated with space exploration in order to reap technological rewards.

"Our president has introduced a new initiative with renewed emphasis on the exploration of our solar system and expansion of human frontiers," Armstrong told a crowd of nearly 600 people Thursday.

"This proposal has substantial merit and promise."

He was in Houston to receive the Rotary National Award for Space Achievement.

Armstrong, 73, commanded NASA's Apollo 11 mission in 1969, becoming the first person to walk on the moon.

In 1971, he left the space program to pursue a teaching career in aeronautical engineering in his native Ohio.

Armstrong said the success of the Bush's space plan depends on whether the government, aerospace industry, researchers and others can unite behind it.

The Bush White House wants to return to the moon and eventually send astronauts there by 2020, and to Mars -- an effort that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Some lawmakers have questioned proposed costs and risks.

"Our economy can certainly afford an effort of this magnitude, but the public must believe the benefits to society deserve the investment," Armstrong said in Friday's edition of the Houston Chronicle. "To limit the program in the name of eliminating the risk is no virtue."

President Bush has proposed that the space shuttle stop flying in 2010 and that the remaining shuttle flights concentrate on completion of the International Space Station and research.



----------


interesting to see Armstrong voice his opinion. i would weigh his opinion heavily though, as i think he knows a bit about the value of going to the moon and beyond.

fwiw- i think i saw that glenn doesn't like bush's plan...

[Thomas Veil]

I'm usually big on space exploration, I really am...but we are to ****ed up at home right now I don't really see this as a priority.

The federal government is tightening the budgetary noose on the states, we still don't have health care for all, we're actively trying to stop people from saving money on prescriptions by buying from Canada, corporate lobbyists are helping our own government decimate the middle class, we've still got a war on terror to fight at home, we're trying to get out of Iraq, people are losing their jobs right and left....

Lotsa better places to spend our money right now. Sorry, I wish I could be more supportive.
:(

[Opteron]

I think bush sould concider cutting back on spending, and invading other countries if he's even hoping at spending another term in the White House.

Then again he may have relaised that he's on the way out and may as well spend as much as he can before he leaves.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I'm usually big on space exploration, I really am...but we are to ****ed up at home right now I don't really see this as a priority.

The federal government is tightening the budgetary noose on the states, we still don't have health care for all, we're actively trying to stop people from saving money on prescriptions by buying from Canada, corporate lobbyists are helping our own government decimate the middle class, we've still got a war on terror to fight at home, we're trying to get out of Iraq, people are losing their jobs right and left....

Lotsa better places to spend our money right now. Sorry, I wish I could be more supportive.
:(I agree and have allways been big on Space but we have so many darn problems caused by this latest administration we need to get our house in order before chasing grand dreams.Health care is one reason companies are running overseas.
I still think we need to be doing a lot more when it comes to looking for asteroids & comets. I cant think of a better way to get all of the countries together then to implement a program to look for and to be able to divert a earth crossing body. we have to vote out this Fiscal Liberal we elected :rolleyes: he has done a great job at growing the govt and growing the debt. I cant back his space dreams for now.

[Phatpat]

I'm normally very anti-Bush...but on this I support him. If Bush can unite people behind this common goal, a lot can be accomplished. And its not just space exploration. Plenty of new technologies would come out of such a venture that could be applied in a variety of down-to-Earth ways.

[Sun Baked]

Military and space are the two industries that pump new technology into the economy, of course it would be nice to see the space industry pumping more into the economy than the military right now -- but with the current budget constipation in space, we've been getting quite a few more military gizmos the last decade than space gizmos.

But with the last real space expansion effort it almost seems like we'd be comparing Tang to the GPS mapping in the Camry and finding Tang lacking in flavor and marketing glitz.

[Counterfit]

Would going to the moon again really give much in the way of new technology? We've done it before, and have managed to have people stay in space for over a year, so I don't think we'd gain much in technology there. Going to Mars though, that's something new, and would need much innovation to accomplish. Going to the moon first would be beneficial though, a sort of "practice run" if you will.

Now if we only had the money for this...

[Makosuke]

Going to space is a very, very cool thing; it is the stuff of human dreams, and has the potential for great scientific discovery as well.

And, I sympathize with Armstrong's opinion; he's been there, he understands the dream, and this is the biggest chance in three decades to make something happen.

Unforunately, I have very strong reservations about the why of this sudden new push toward space. If it were merely showing off on an international scale, it'd be perhaps egotistical and ignoring the many earthbound problems within the US, but otherwise benign. However, I don't think that's the motive behind it.

I'll let the Project for The New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) do the explaining for me:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010802.htm

(New American Century, for those not familiar with them, are a think tank very powerful with the current US administration; they're endorsed by Rumsfeld, Cheny, as well as folk like Jeb Bush and Steve Forbes. You can read their policy statement yourself, but they're generally in favor of extending US power globally, primarily through military force.)

[wdlove]

Military and space are the two industries that pump new technology into the economy, of course it would be nice to see the space industry pumping more into the economy than the military right now -- but with the current budget constipation in space, we've been getting quite a few more military gizmos the last decade than space gizmos.

But with the last real space expansion effort it almost seems like we'd be comparing Tang to the GPS mapping in the Camry and finding Tang lacking in flavor and marketing glitz.

I agree space exploration has provided us with the majority of our advanced medical technology. We certainly don't want to fall behind the rest of the world in technological innovation. If we waited till everything was settled at home we would never make any advancements technology.

[Dont Hurt Me]

we have billions of dollars we just threw at Iraq, and we want to throw billions into a run to mars to discover that a microbe once lived there? We need to keep exploring granted but in a logical progression not just a once in a while jump only to forget about it as in apollo. Lets first make a way to space by building a much better vehicle then shuttle. then lets build on the space station as to make a better halfway house and then a way to get to the inner solar system. we have to build real technology that works not just some more artwork from Nasa. They have excelled at artwork & redesign meanwhile not a clue on replacing 30 year old shuttle technology or a way to high orbit. I guess they love using chemical rockets need i say more.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm normally very anti-Bush...but on this I support him. If Bush can unite people behind this common goal, a lot can be accomplished. And its not just space exploration. Plenty of new technologies would come out of such a venture that could be applied in a variety of down-to-Earth ways.

Common goals are great, but there are issues that need to addressed at home first. What about the goal of affordable housing for the working poor (otherwise known as the middle class)? How about affordable healthcare so that people see a doctor before they get too sick? What about the goal of securing decent jobs for all legal residents of the US? Or even better what about the goal of eliminating our need for oil?

[idkew]

Common goals are great, but there are issues that need to addressed at home first. What about the goal of affordable housing for the working poor (otherwise known as the middle class)? How about affordable healthcare so that people see a doctor before they get too sick? What about the goal of securing decent jobs for all legal residents of the US? Or even better what about the goal of eliminating our need for oil?

these are reasons why i can't vote for bush. i agree with lots of republican ideas, but bush is not pushing where he needs to. we need lots more tax breaks for fuel efficient cars and other devices. we need to protect the environment, but we also need to explore and learn more. it is impossible to get everything.

[zimv20]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010802.htm


hadn't seen that. thanks for the link.

[Sayhey]

Unforunately, I have very strong reservations about the why of this sudden new push toward space. If it were merely showing off on an international scale, it'd be perhaps egotistical and ignoring the many earthbound problems within the US, but otherwise benign. However, I don't think that's the motive behind it.


I think you have our "friends" in the PNAC pegged just about right. Only thing I would add is that we are signatories of a treaty that outlaws the militarization of the moon.

Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
emphasis added

1967 Treaty on Outer Space (http://disarmament2.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf)

Of course, this wouldn't be the first treaty they have ignored.

[Desertrat]

We had no idea as to what spinoffs there would be from our first space efforts. What we do know is that they changed the whole world, and created the first trillion- and multi-trillion-dollar economies.

(In passing: The federal budget was $400 billion when Carter took office; $700 billion when he left. At the end of Reagan's tenure it was $1.1 trillion. Now, $2.36 trillion is what I read in the morning's news.)

This new round of space exploration is a relatively small number of billions, particularly in the startup phase. "It's about time!" comes to mind, given the rather dilatory behavior on our part over these last two decades.

Always remember that the spinoffs, whatever they may be, will create new wealth for the entire nation. That creates more revenues to the feds. That helps toward getting back to a balanced budget, as well as enabling more social spending. It also leads to employment of many of those whose skills now being outsourced...

Besides, it's neat and exciting and romantic and all those human-factor notions. :) Heinlein, et al, would be pleased.

'Rat

[Rebel]

We can barely bring back our astronauts in today's high-tech craft. What makes you believe that the tin can we supposedly sent to the moon; really went?

Here are some questions to answer if you really think we landed on the moon:

The moon has very little gravity, yet when the craft was landing, and firing it’s many-psi-engines, there is no dust. Yet, when Armstrong jumps onto the surface, you see dust shoot up from his feet. Why?

The rovers they had zooming along the surface, are shooting plumes of dust into the air, and it falls back to the surface rather quickly. Why?

Where are the stars in the background of the pictures?

The Hubble telescope can clearly view the moons surface, why do we never see the flag that we supposedly left up there? or the rovers that we left?

Who was filming the landing and first walk? Don’t say it was remotely controlled, because they can barley perform this act in today’s modern environment.

Rumor is; China wants to send a man to the moon to prove that America never went. Can you imagine the shock waves through our society?

[Sayhey]

We can barely bring back our astronauts in today's high-tech craft. What makes you believe that the tin can we supposedly sent to the moon; really went?

Here are some questions to answer if you really think we landed on the moon:

The moon has very little gravity, yet when the craft was landing, and firing it’s many-psi-engines, there is no dust. Yet, when Armstrong jumps onto the surface, you see dust shoot up from his feet. Why?

The rovers they had zooming along the surface, are shooting plumes of dust into the air, and it falls back to the surface rather quickly. Why?

Where are the stars in the background of the pictures?

The Hubble telescope can clearly view the moons surface, why do we never see the flag that we supposedly left up there? or the rovers that we left?

Who was filming the landing and first walk? Don’t say it was remotely controlled, because they can barley perform this act in today’s modern environment.

Rumor is; China wants to send a man to the moon to prove that America never went. Can you imagine the shock waves through our society?

This is a joke, right? What kind of conspiracy theory have you swallowed - hook, line, and sinker?

[idkew]

We can barely bring back our astronauts in today's high-tech craft. What makes you believe that the tin can we supposedly sent to the moon; really went?...

Man, you need to stay off the drugs.

[bousozoku]

I support a plan to send Bush and his family to Mars. :D

[zimv20]

We can barely bring back our astronauts in today's high-tech craft. What makes you believe that the tin can we supposedly sent to the moon; really went?

Here are some questions to answer if you really think we landed on the moon:


this particular conspiracy theory has been soundly debunked by (gasp) actual science. come back when you've done some real research and feel embarrassed for posting this.

[Desertrat]

:D:D:D

Part of the problem for some with trying to pass Foil Folding 101 is forgetting to keep the shiny side out.

'Rat

[2jaded2care]

Rumor is; China wants to send a man to the moon to prove that America never went. Can you imagine the shock waves through our society?

Aha, so that's why Bush is so eager to get there now -- to plant the evidence!

Here's a fave of mine: http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/Moonphoto.htm

As far as tax breaks for fuel efficient cars, I'd be happy if they would just repeal the SUV tax break. :rolleyes:

[idkew]

As far as tax breaks for fuel efficient cars, I'd be happy if they would just repeal the SUV tax break. :rolleyes:

wasn't the suv tax break passed when people used their suv's to cart around tools and other items for work, and not when mommy wanted to show her neighbors she is rich and can afford a 12mpg vehicle, then cart around her kids in a vehicle that is twice the cost of a minivan?

i am very for a tax on fuel inefficient vehicles, and a tax break on LEV / fuel efficient vehicles. Charge/forgive $4000. "normal" vehicales get no charge or break. That might change some minds. I also like california's quota on alternative fuel cars.

anyway- back to space. i think that a lot of our problems can be solved by reducing our need for fossil fuels, especially oil. when we can produce 100% of our own energy, we can stay out of the middle east, and save some cash while we are at it. we would spend less time and money on environmental clean up of oil spills, emissions...

by switching to renewable, cleaner burning fuels, we may actually be able to pay for a lot of new exploration with the money once spent on oil.

[idkew]

I think you have our "friends" in the PNAC pegged just about right. Only thing I would add is that we are signatories of a treaty that outlaws the militarization of the moon.

emphasis added

1967 Treaty on Outer Space (http://disarmament2.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf)

Of course, this wouldn't be the first treaty they have ignored.

go ask an indian (native american, to be pc, but incorrect) about the us gov and treaties. :rolleyes:

[Rower_CPU]

...
indian (native american, to be pc, but incorrect)
...

How is Indian more correct than Native American?

[tpjunkie]

We can barely bring back our astronauts in today's high-tech craft. What makes you believe that the tin can we supposedly sent to the moon; really went?

Here are some questions to answer if you really think we landed on the moon:

The moon has very little gravity, yet when the craft was landing, and firing it’s many-psi-engines, there is no dust. Yet, when Armstrong jumps onto the surface, you see dust shoot up from his feet. Why?

The rovers they had zooming along the surface, are shooting plumes of dust into the air, and it falls back to the surface rather quickly. Why?

Where are the stars in the background of the pictures?

The Hubble telescope can clearly view the moons surface, why do we never see the flag that we supposedly left up there? or the rovers that we left?

Who was filming the landing and first walk? Don’t say it was remotely controlled, because they can barley perform this act in today’s modern environment.

Rumor is; China wants to send a man to the moon to prove that America never went. Can you imagine the shock waves through our society?

come on man...do you realize that given the video technology available in 1969, it would actually be easier to land on the moon than fake it? And if they were all fake landings, why go to the trouble of Apollo 13? You don't even have to look at the mounds of scientific evidence (or the moon rocks they brought back, including the one in my town, where buzz aldrin grew up, two blocks from my house), you can look at the practicality of it.

[idkew]

PC post moved to new thread here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=64299).

[Rower_CPU]

not to get too into this, since this is not the thread, but....


ex: when I on a blackfoot reservation recently, i never once saw "Native American". I did, however, see many, many references to Indian(s). Even the high school mascot was the Indians. Weird that the NA don't even call themselves such.

Also, native means: Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place. Did this people evolve in the Americas? No, they walked here many years before the Europeans, but nonetheless, all humans on this continent are immigrants. Sure, some were here before others, but none are original inhabitants of this particular continent. Hence, there are no true Native Americans. This title is pure PC'ness, and has no base in fact, or, as it seems, little backing from the "Native Americans".

I am sure not all NAs feel the same... But, I am still waiting for the government to recognize me as an Italian/German American. I've yet to see that checkbox. Plus, technically I am a Native American, being that I was born on the North American continent.

NA is still more correct than Indian (a native of India). They only got the name because people thought they had reached India from the other side, until they realized it was the "New World".

To Westerners just arriving, they were "native" to the land since they were here and established long before Columbus/Pilgrims/etc.

I agree, that usage usually dictates meaning. But IMO, Indian is simply incorrect.

[idkew]

NA is still more correct than Indian (a native of India). They only got the name because people thought they had reached India from the other side, until they realized it was the "New World".

To Westerners just arriving, they were "native" to the land since they were here and established long before Columbus/Pilgrims/etc.

I agree, that usage usually dictates meaning. But IMO, Indian is simply incorrect.

sorry, forgot to address that, edited it in. still, what is the point of correcting an incorrect title with another incorrect title?

IMO, both are incorrect. I choose Indian, based on my limited experience with Indians using that title themselves.

[Dont Hurt Me]

We can barely bring back our astronauts in today's high-tech craft. What makes you believe that the tin can we supposedly sent to the moon; really went?

Here are some questions to answer if you really think we landed on the moon:

The moon has very little gravity, yet when the craft was landing, and firing it’s many-psi-engines, there is no dust. Yet, when Armstrong jumps onto the surface, you see dust shoot up from his feet. Why?

The rovers they had zooming along the surface, are shooting plumes of dust into the air, and it falls back to the surface rather quickly. Why?

Where are the stars in the background of the pictures?

The Hubble telescope can clearly view the moons surface, why do we never see the flag that we supposedly left up there? or the rovers that we left?

Who was filming the landing and first walk? Don’t say it was remotely controlled, because they can barley perform this act in today’s modern environment.

Rumor is; China wants to send a man to the moon to prove that America never went. Can you imagine the shock waves through our society?I find all these arguments amazing! though each one can be explained i wont bother. it is time to sober up. stay away from drugs. go read a few books such as For All Mankind or the Kennedy Space Center Story etc. the amount of evidence in geological material,eyewitnesses,photographic, seismic,electrical telemetry,film, etc is overwhelming. stop listening to the crazy's outthere who are trying to make a buck spinning lies. Do you realize how many times they went to the moon before even landing? the sad fact of the matter is our generation has not done crap since Apollo. Nasa is ran by short sighted politicians who's goal isnt space but the next pork barrel project. They have failed at opening space by sticking with a Pork Barrel Pig known as Shuttle that never met any of the original objectives and ended up costing 1000 times what it was suppose to cost. Nasa has floundered for 30 years. Its sad they we are starting again from where Apollo left off all those years ago. Its like 1970 all over again.
Rebel go do some reading and research on your questions before you try to rewrite history.

[Rower_CPU]

sorry, forgot to address that, edited it in. still, what is the point of correcting an incorrect title with another incorrect title?

IMO, both are incorrect. I choose Indian, based on my limited experience with Indians using that title themselves.

Both are incorrect, but one (NA) is more correct than the other, IMO. It's merely a matter of semantics with the word "native".

But, let's leave it at that and get back to the moon landing conspiracy discussion. ;)

[tpjunkie]

And a further piece of evidence about the moon landing: One of the apollo missions positioned mirrors on the moon that can be targeted with earth based lasers and the travel time is computed, to find the exact distance to the moon (and additionally, its rate of travel away from the earth, something like a few millimeters every year)

[Counterfit]

Here's a fave of mine: http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/Moonphoto.htm Wow. "No photographs were ever taken of the moon until the 1850’s" Gee, I wonder why?

I seriously hope that site is a joke, because it is filled with all sorts of hollow, uninformed, and blatantly misleading lies. He goes so far as to "disprove" the "tide myth" as supported by the "Lunar establishment". I think I'll blow that one out of the water (pun definitely intended) here for you.

He suggests that you fill a tub with water and use a rubber ball to simulate the moon. Now slowly move the ball closer to the water.* Does the level of the water change? Okay, the reason the water level doesn't change is: THERE IS NO SOURCE FOR THE WATER TO GET INTO THE TUB. IT MUST BE DISPLACED BY SOMETHING
High and Low tides are mutually exclusive, and the amount of water in the oceans must remain relatively constant. That means that if one area is having a high tide, then someplace else must be having a low tide. Similar tides are at opposite sides of the Earth, with high tides being on the same side as the moon.
Then he goes on about clouds, but I bet that wouldn't hold up under any decent amount of scrutiny either. But I don't have time for it, and I don't know the mass of the average cloud, which certainly can't be much considering they are held aloft by tiny little updrafts.

Some people :rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

And a further piece of evidence about the moon landing: One of the apollo missions positioned mirrors on the moon that can be targeted with earth based lasers and the travel time is computed, to find the exact distance to the moon (and additionally, its rate of travel away from the earth, something like a few millimeters every year)the also used those mirrors to study lunar quakes.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I find all these arguments amazing! though each one can be explained i wont bother. it is time to sober up. stay away from drugs. go read a few books such as For All Mankind or the Kennedy Space Center Story etc. the amount of evidence in geological material,eyewitnesses,photographic, seismic,electrical telemetry,film, etc is overwhelming. stop listening to the crazy's outthere who are trying to make a buck spinning lies. Do you realize how many times they went to the moon before even landing? the sad fact of the matter is our generation has not done crap since Apollo. Nasa is ran by short sighted politicians who's goal isnt space but the next pork barrel project. They have failed at opening space by sticking with a Pork Barrel Pig known as Shuttle that never met any of the original objectives and ended up costing 1000 times what it was suppose to cost. Nasa has floundered for 30 years. Its sad they we are starting again from where Apollo left off all those years ago. Its like 1970 all over again.
Rebel go do some reading and research on your questions before you try to rewrite history.

Even for those of us that followed the program, there are instances that make you wonder. Case in point (and being photographer I have to scratch my head on this one) is a photo of one of the missions done with the NASA Hassleblad with etched crosshairs. This particular image (wish i could find it, it was featured at the Newsuem in Va. in a retrospective of famous news photos) the crosshairs did not lay over part of the image. Sort as if the subject was "Photoshopped" over.

All this "finger pointing" reminds me of line from Independence Day movie, (forgive me the misquote perhaps), "You don't really think they paid $500 for a hammer do you?".

As for me, do I think men landed on the moon back in 1969? I believe they did. But maybe that is not much different from my faith, in that I believe in a God. I also believe in a Heaven and Hell.

[Rebel]

Why are Americans so passive? I think it's because people no longer think for themselves. They have been taught to think what they learned in our colleges and universities and what the news media says. They have been taught to accept everything they read and hear as truth. Think about it. Who controls the books that are taught in our schools from kindergarten on up?

I notice this different thought process between those that never attended college and those that do. Common sense in very short supply to most college educated people. Many people I meet that have the higher education, if it's out of their field they are lost. I had a college-educated lady tell me one day that I couldn't fix her leaking stool because I wasn't a plumber. Another time a person said I couldn't hook up their VCR to program TV shows because I was not an electronics technician or I could not fix the rattle in someone’s car because I was not a mechanic.

Don't believe everything your hear or read. Think with some common sense - Think outside of the box that our system places us in - and look at things from a practicle viewpoint.

[Counterfit]

Even for those of us that followed the program, there are instances that make you wonder. Case in point (and being photographer I have to scratch my head on this one) is a photo of one of the missions done with the NASA Hassleblad with etched crosshairs. This particular image (wish i could find it, it was featured at the Newsuem in Va. in a retrospective of famous news photos) the crosshairs did not lay over part of the image. Sort as if the subject was "Photoshopped" over.

All this "finger pointing" reminds me of line from Independence Day movie, (forgive me the misquote perhaps), "You don't really think they paid $500 for a hammer do you?".

As for me, do I think men landed on the moon back in 1969? I believe they did. But maybe that is not much different from my faith, in that I believe in a God. I also believe in a Heaven and Hell. Perhaps not all their cameras have the etched crosshairs? Possibly a private camera. As for someone who doesn't think the moon exists, I say we launch them up there, and then see what they say. I wish we could prove the existence of God that way, would make for much less tension.

[idkew]

I notice this different thought process between those that never attended college and those that do.

Actually, college helped me in my beliefs that our government is corrupt. It also helped me see that, even with its problems, it is the best system anyone has tried. We can fix any corruption if we find it necessary enough.

You speak of common sense. Where is your common sense?
Did these huge machines that we "supposedly" launched to the moon just disappear into thin air, or did it actually fly out of our atmosphere?
Is there an amazing natural formation on the moon that reflect light back at the sender, no matter the angle they use to reflect the light, or did we place this highly precise instrument there?
Common sense will answer these two questions.

Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. This is a thread about going BACK to the moon and to Mars. It is not about whether we went to the moon or not.

[Rebel]

Actually, college helped me in my beliefs that our government is corrupt. It also helped me see that, even with its problems, it is the best system anyone has tried. We can fix any corruption if we find it necessary enough.

You speak of common sense. Where is your common sense?
Did these huge machines that we "supposedly" launched to the moon just disappear into thin air, or did it actually fly out of our atmosphere?
Is there an amazing natural formation on the moon that reflect light back at the sender, no matter the angle they use to reflect the light, or did we place this highly precise instrument there?
Common sense will answer these two questions.

Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. This is a thread about going BACK to the moon and to Mars. It is not about whether we went to the moon or not.

You're very touchy on this....

I was actually having fun with my original post and I see that it has touched off some creative conversation. As far as the Hugh machines that we launched to the moon. Yeah! I want to see them. We never brought them back to earth, so there should be all kinds of land rovers and miscl gear that we left up there. The Hubble telescope should be able to see them, and the flag that we supposedly left. Tell them to show me, and then I will be able to die in peace.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Perhaps not all their cameras have the etched crosshairs? Possibly a private camera. As for someone who doesn't think the moon exists, I say we launch them up there, and then see what they say. I wish we could prove the existence of God that way, would make for much less tension.there were some private cameras if not mistaken, rebel you need to do a little research. every point you make is lacking science. dust & dirt did fall off rovers wheels but at 1/7 of the earths gravity and with no air to resist. ever notice how the astronauts shuffled around? you know how heavy those suites were but yet they were doing a floaty skip. its called less gravity. moon dust was blown by the landing engines but only when almost landed.( ever hear that the moon doesnt have a atmosphere?) here is one for you. notice the flag was waving on the moon but the moon has no air tell me why then it was waving? rebel i would suggest not being such a pessimists when it comes to the space program and history. where you there 30 years ago? there are some things that you have to accept not first hand, did know how many tons of propellent and how many stages it took just to get the lander and lunar orbiter to the moon? the whole rocket was thrown away except for the command/service module. try taking a picture of a bright light at night and tell me if the stars arent obscured? History has been recorded in film and pictures and books and if you choose to not think a word is true then its your loss. some things were recorded correctly and the Apollo missions were watched and studied and analyzed by countless and then countless more. just because you dont understand something doesnt mean history was wrong. sure errors have been made in historical documents but not 1 of your questions holds any water in earths gravity.

[2jaded2care]

Of course that site is not a joke.

I'll bet you believe there's a Winnipeg, too.

:D

[Chip NoVaMac]

Perhaps not all their cameras have the etched crosshairs? Possibly a private camera. As for someone who doesn't think the moon exists, I say we launch them up there, and then see what they say. I wish we could prove the existence of God that way, would make for much less tension.

Sorry for the confusion. The photo was with a camera with the etchings of crosshairs. They are in the rest of the picture, but they don't overlap the entire image as they should. And they should be present.

What these etchings do is during the exposure they take and lay an additional image on the image being exposed. Sort of a double exposure made at one time.

Here is a link:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Cross_Hairs.htm

It also attempts to explain. But even more learnered photographers have had a hard time fully accepting the theory. yet when you look at a 30"x30" print, the "cut-off" seems to be clean to be an optical brightness issue.

[Counterfit]

Of course that site is not a joke.

I'll bet you believe there's a Winnipeg, too.

:D I refuse to recognize the existence of any country that begins with "C" :D So "Columbia" is really just a resort for any military personnel on leave. And "Canada"? A "Frozen Hostile Wasteland", to paraphrase Jim Carrey. :D :p

[Counterfit]

Sorry for the confusion. The photo was with a camera with the etchings of crosshairs. They are in the rest of the picture, but they don't overlap the entire image as they should. And they should be present.

What these etchings do is during the exposure they take and lay an additional image on the image being exposed. Sort of a double exposure made at one time. Okay, now I'm even more confused :confused: I give up :p

[idkew]

You're very touchy on this....

I was actually having fun with my original post and I see that it has touched off some creative conversation. As far as the Hugh machines that we launched to the moon. Yeah! I want to see them. We never brought them back to earth, so there should be all kinds of land rovers and miscl gear that we left up there. The Hubble telescope should be able to see them, and the flag that we supposedly left. Tell them to show me, and then I will be able to die in peace.

actually, we track all the ~20,000 objects that we have put in space.

[Dont Hurt Me]

getting back on track we need a steady progression to have access to space. a Grand mission to the Moon or Mars isnt going to do it. As I stated before we will blow a lot of money George doesnt have( remember his war and economic policies of spend spend spend) and we need a better way to high orbit. we need to expand and grow the ISS. we need more hubble class telescopes. lets get the building blocks in place otherwise it will be more of Apollo. a great big mission and then nothing to show for it for the next 50 years. a shuttle replacement should be our first focus. something thats cheaper,faster,safer and can make high orbit.

[tpjunkie]

Using the moon makes more sense than trying to reach mars straight from earth, but its still wasteful in terms of getting components to the base and from earth. A large orbital facility in a geosynchronous orbit (much much higher than the ISS, by over a factor of 100) would make a lot of sense in terms of a permanent presence in outer space, in terms of distance from earth, and not having a smaller gravitational field to escape. An even better choice would be a lagrange point.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Okay, now I'm even more confused :confused: I give up :p

Re-look at my post. I proved a link to better show and explain what i was talking about.

[idkew]

Using the moon makes more sense than trying to reach mars straight from earth, but its still wasteful in terms of getting components to the base and from earth. A large orbital facility in a geosynchronous orbit (much much higher than the ISS, by over a factor of 100) would make a lot of sense in terms of a permanent presence in outer space, in terms of distance from earth, and not having a smaller gravitational field to escape. An even better choice would be a lagrange point.



but what is the moon made of? could we not somehow build a manufacturing plant on the moon which would allow us to easily build a machine that could take us elsewhere. i see the moon as a great step towards the stars.

it would cost less to develop after a certain point. maintaining a space station two orders of magnitude larger than the current one seems difficult, if not impossible with current technology. but, this could easily be done on the moon, especially if we can mine the moon for resources to build the station. what says we can't find a way to turn moon dirt into propellent or dirt for growing food or O2.....

the moon has little gravity, making much less propellent necessary to get a craft going away from it then from the earth. is there more gravity keeping the ISS in geosynchronous orbit, which a craft would have to overcome to leave orbit?

also- there are tens of thousands of objects orbiting earth, any of which could hit a space station in orbit. this is less of a problem with the moon.

the moon is infinitely sustainable. it is not going anywhere (almost, we are losing it), and a Space Station is vulnerable to problems which could slow it down and force it to plummet from orbit.

i can think of a lot more I am sure. the moon just sounds better to me.

[Sparky's]

Originally posted by Thomas Veil
I'm usually big on space exploration, I really am...but we are to ****ed up at home right now I don't really see this as a priority.

And what condition of the Nation do you think we were in when John F. Kennedy made his speech about reaching the Moon? McCarthyism was just winding down, the cold war was at it's peak, and things weren't all that peachy with civil rights and a lot of other little agenda's going on. We were a Paranoid society for some time and a little shot of pride in the arm kinda helped to bring us out of it, not to mention the reaps of technology that followed. Besides I kinda like Tang.

[Dont Hurt Me]

the moon does have one thing that we humans must have and that is gravity. we allready know that without it we become a bunch of mush or rather bones that dont work. maybe by building a base on the moon we can work and stay in space a lot longer. this is one of the biggest problems with working in no gravity. perhaps a moon base would be a good starting point but we still need something a lot better then shuttle. we need a new and cool rocket and spaceship. no more fancy artwork Nasa. we all can draw our own rockets. what we need is real hardware. sort of like the Mac.

[tpjunkie]

the moon has little gravity, making much less propellent necessary to get a craft going away from it then from the earth. is there more gravity keeping the ISS in geosynchronous orbit, which a craft would have to overcome to leave orbit?

also- there are tens of thousands of objects orbiting earth, any of which could hit a space station in orbit. this is less of a problem with the moon.

the moon is infinitely sustainable. it is not going anywhere (almost, we are losing it), and a Space Station is vulnerable to problems which could slow it down and force it to plummet from orbit.

i can think of a lot more I am sure. the moon just sounds better to me.

First, ISS isn't anywhere near a geosynchronous orbit. It orbits the earth at an altitude of about (it sinks 10 meters or so each day, and needs occasional boosts to back up to higher orbits) 320 km. A geosynchronous orbit for earth is 42155 km. However, there are quite a few advantages to this; from the frame of reference of the earth, it appears to be stationary in the sky, completing one orbit of the earth in the same time it takes the earth to complete one revoltution (obviously in this case, we are talking about them traveling in the same direction). The upshot here is that a direct signal from command HQ doesn't need a satelite relay because its always within line of sight, and making orbital rendezvous with supply craft doesn't really require any particular timing.

The force of attraction between a craft and earths gravitational field (or the force felt by a stationary object at this distance from the earth) by a vehicle of mass 80,000 kg, is equal to
GM1M2/R^2, or 1.8x10^10 kg*m*s^1 (N)

The moon averages about 385,000 km from earth (this distance is subject to variance, due to many factors im not going into here). This is slightly over 9 times the distance of a geosynchronous orbit. Travel time is about three days, by apollo spacecraft. Oxygen for a settlement here would have to be brought in (same problem as a space station, but a lot further to haul) or harvested from lunar rocks or lunar ice, which while feasible, is certainly not something we have spent any amount of time researching (well, we know how to get it out of water, but i meant getting lunar ice in the first place). Anyway, lets say you get your mars bound space craft built and ready for launch. Whats the gravitational attraction at the surface of the moon?
GM1M2./R^2 for that same space craft with mass of 80,000 kg equals 1.30x10^11 N, which is over 7 times the amount required for the geosynchronous space station. But wait, you're still within earth's gravitational field (after all, the moon orbits the earth), so theres a force of attraction there of over 2 million newtons as well (this is actually relatively insignificant, but still must be accounted for)

What it boils down to is how much do you want to pack on this ship to mars, and whether or not its going to be assembled largely on earth and sent to a launching station either on the moon or elsewhere. A sevenfold reduction in attraction means a lot less of the ship can be used as fuel, and if the bulk of the assembly is to be done on earth anyway, why bother having to land on the moon, establish a settlement there, and then launch something from the moon? I'm all for a moon colony, I just don't think its the best place to launch our first mission to mars from.

[tpjunkie]

and i forgot to mention, there really isn't a lot of debris in the geosynchronous orbital zone, probably a lot less than the low earth zone most satelites and the shuttle and ISS occupy. There are several satelites with geosynchronous orbits, thats how GPS works, its a network of geosynchronous satelites that triangulate your position based on signal travel time to and from 3 points.