By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 23:08 - Jul 13 by Warhurst
We haven't been back as it's very expensive to do so and there is not much scientific knowledge to gain, at least compared to a manned mission to Mars.
A sceptic does not ignore evidence. A sceptic takes the position that a claim must meet its burden of proof.
The moon landing meets that test. Claiming to be a sceptic does not justify entertaining ill evidenced conspiracy theories.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 23:13 - Jul 13 by Marshalls_Mullet
If it was possible with limited tech 50 years ago, why is it so expensive and difficult now... and we have no idea what scientific knowledge we have to gain.
Like I say, I'm just sceptical. That's ok.
The biggest reasons we haven't been back are not scientific, rather political and budget related. Back in the space race era NASAs budget was around 4% of GDP and public perception was largely supportive, these days its barely 0.5% and space travel is not seen as a priority.
It may be 50 years later but designing, building and successfully landing humans on another solar body is still a huge technical achievement and not something to be done for the hell of it.
1
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 23:34 - Jul 13 with 3922 views
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 23:34 - Jul 13 by Warhurst
The biggest reasons we haven't been back are not scientific, rather political and budget related. Back in the space race era NASAs budget was around 4% of GDP and public perception was largely supportive, these days its barely 0.5% and space travel is not seen as a priority.
It may be 50 years later but designing, building and successfully landing humans on another solar body is still a huge technical achievement and not something to be done for the hell of it.
Your last para explains why I'm sceptical that it happened half a century ago.
Half a century since the on 23:40 - Jul 13 by jeera
We've been to Pluto since, landed sh1t on asteroids, been driving remotely around Mars...
I say 'we', I mean 'them' of course. Smart people who know how these things work.
Landing on the Moon is a bit lame in comparison now.
Edit: I'd like to see Michael Stipe make that scan.
"If you believe..."
[Post edited 13 Jul 2019 23:43]
When you say 'we' mostly you mean 'robots', y'know like most of the usernames on this forum...
Also, if we could land something on an asteroid why would it have to be 'sh1t'? Personally, I would prefer us to send them some glitter, sticky backed plastic and various coloured bit of card. Surely that would cheer them up even though they do have to live on an asteroid.
[edit] Imagine it, hanging around bored forever on an asteroid like a punk in Bildeston in 1978. Then a package descends from the ether and you hurry excited over to open it but then start think 'smells a bit...'
Half a century since the on 23:53 - Jul 13 by WeWereZombies
When you say 'we' mostly you mean 'robots', y'know like most of the usernames on this forum...
Also, if we could land something on an asteroid why would it have to be 'sh1t'? Personally, I would prefer us to send them some glitter, sticky backed plastic and various coloured bit of card. Surely that would cheer them up even though they do have to live on an asteroid.
[edit] Imagine it, hanging around bored forever on an asteroid like a punk in Bildeston in 1978. Then a package descends from the ether and you hurry excited over to open it but then start think 'smells a bit...'
[Post edited 13 Jul 2019 23:57]
What?
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 23:48 - Jul 13 by Warhurst
It happened because the technology existed and two superpowers were racing to be the first to make it happen.
If I may ask an unrelated question, assuming it was indeed faked, one of these scenarios must be true;
a) All the thousands of workers involved were successfully hoodwinked into believing what they were doing was real, whilst it wasn't
b) Everyone involved knew it was a hoax and nobody has come out since with any sort of proof this is the case
How likely are either of these?
That’s not as odd as it might appear. I remember American kids in Mildenhall telling us certain spy planes didn’t exist when we’d seen them flying over our own houses!
It's 106 miles to Portman Road, we've got a full tank of gas, half a round of Port Salut, it's dark... and we're wearing blue tinted sunglasses.
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 20:02 - Jul 13 by Marshalls_Mullet
I am a sceptic, will it sway me?
Why are you a sceptic?
The evidence is overwhelming that it happened.
If you want to look at stats the evidence is overwhelming as well, 400,000 people can't keep a conspiracy for 50 years.
This stuff really annoys me. The hoax theories belittle the work of hundreds of thousands of people who devoted their lives at the time to making it happen.
Listen to 13 minutes to the moon, the BBC podcast. If that doesn't convince you nothing will. It's a magnificent podcast, probably the best I've heard.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
3
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 08:33 - Jul 14 with 3726 views
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 23:13 - Jul 13 by Marshalls_Mullet
If it was possible with limited tech 50 years ago, why is it so expensive and difficult now... and we have no idea what scientific knowledge we have to gain.
Like I say, I'm just sceptical. That's ok.
It was hugely expensive, if the US didn't "have" to beat the Russians it wouldn't have happened that early.
As for not going back, what was the point (they did actually go back a few times)? They had achieved what they wanted to, there was no pressing research to do so there was no point. Now they want to establish a base, use the moon as a staging post for solar system exploration and possibly mine materials.
Why do you think it's OK to be sceptical? It's ignoring facts which on other subjects you'd deem unacceptable. How would you feel if someone belittled your greatest achievement and called you a liar and a fraud?
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
1
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 08:36 - Jul 14 with 3719 views
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 23:04 - Jul 13 by Marshalls_Mullet
I do believe in the ISS.
I'm just dubious about landing on the moon 50 years ago when technology was relatively primitive.
If it's so easy to do, why have we not been back for 37 years?
Just dubious, that's all.
The advancement in tech is a lot of the reason why we haven't sent humans back to the moon (or to anywhere else) since 1972. Improvements in processing power, analytics and automated systems mean you don't need to send people there to actually look and do any more. We can find out just as much remotely, using robots.
Much like modern keyhole surgery where they can use minaturised cameras and tools instead of cutting you right open to find and fix medical problems.
Plus it doesn't require heavy and cumbersome crew capsules and life-support systems into orbit. And when it goes wrong, you've only broken a bit of equipment, not killed anybody.
For that matter, the idea that tech was "primitive" in 1969 is misleading. The rocket technology had been developed in the 1940s and a lot of the mathematical problems theoretically solved even before that. The physics was well understood. What has mostly changed since then is more compactness, concentration and reduced cost in computing. When you have the resources of a wealthy nation state at your disposal (as the USA and USSR deployed during the Space Race), those three things are less of an issue. Building a computer the size of a house is no problem. As mentioned above, for fine control in flight, you have the processing power and manual dexterity of the crew to handle tricky tasks and emergencies (as when Armstrong had to take over manual control during the landing).
Rather more likely that he is fed up of being insulted by morons claiming him to be some sort of fraud, when in fact he was involved in a truly momentous part of human history.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Half a century since the "moon landings" ... (n/t) on 12:04 - Jul 14 by sparks
Rather more likely that he is fed up of being insulted by morons claiming him to be some sort of fraud, when in fact he was involved in a truly momentous part of human history.
Possibly more so when that particular moron was asking him to swear his achievements on a magic book.
Surely the moon must rank up there with Augusta as one of the most sought-after golf courses there is? Why Musk and Branson aren't taking this obvious marketing opportunity I don't know. Plenty of fairly well-moneyed gobsh1te golfers would be up for it, for bragging rights if nothing else. But how would you get an Audi into space? One for the eggheads.
footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
