Advice to NASA: Skip the Moon

[Saxman]

[play]star trek TOS theme[/play]

(Image removed from quote.)

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Alcubdrive.html

 

General Relativity for Dummies, right?



But yeah, that's basically how it works.

[shotgunneeley]

Are you one of those guys who believe the earth is flat and hollow??? 

That's preposterous! 

There is no way the earth can be both flat and hollow. Therefore, it would have to be one or the other. 

[Digr1]

who ever said we stopped going to the moon in the first place,after all we only see the same side. For all we know the NSA or CIA could beup there alot

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33435155/ns/technology_and_science-space

An independent commission is recommending that NASA skip a return to the moon, and aim directly for either an asteroid nearby or one of the Martian moons. Among the reasons cited is the expense of sending a rocket into space with the amount of fuel necessary to complete the trip.

My own thought is:

Why are we still so attached to earth-launched vehicles? If we expect to expand our space program beyond Earth orbit, it's damn time we developed a self-propelled manned space craft that remains permanently in orbit.

If such a vessel were docked at the ISS when not on a mission I'd imagine it would substantially reduce the fuel requirements since you don't need to worry about escaping earth's atmosphere. That means more fuel that can be devoted to the mission. Also, IIRC, the majority of the fuel needed by the Apollo missions was, once again, to escape EARTH'S atmosphere. The rocket on the lunar modules didn't need anything near the same amount of power to jet back up to the command module after the surface mission was completed. You could then use "away modules" to jet down to the moon while the main ship remains in orbit in a similar fashion.

Different components could be assembles and tested on earth, then sent into space for assembly in a similar manner as the ISS.

[OOZ662]

who ever said we stopped going to the moon in the first place,after all we only see the same side. For all we know the NSA or CIA could beup there alot

Because there are a LOT of amateurs and radio enthusiasts that keep track of every single rocket launch and shuttle mission that happens. The last "super secret satellite" that was launched was identified and had its purpose discovered within a few days.

[dkff49]

Aww, I liked that post.

Well I deleted it because mostly it was just a repeat of what I said earlier.After some thought thoughI realized that you were probably talking about the one part that was different from what I said earlier. The part where I said that it seems to becoming more obvious that if an area is capable of sustaining life it most likely already has it (or something to that extent).

[soda72]

This looks promising for those wanting to go to Mars within the next 50 to 100 years...

DS4G ion engine

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DS4G_ion_engine.html

 

[Sonicblu]

  Ghi beat me to it. IT was just a movie.... NASA admitts that they don't have any of the original tapes recordings of the "moon landing misssion" The destroyed them. It seems  to me that they are the most important recording in history and they got rid of them. LOL

Besides all that explain  how they got past the radiation belts without getting fried then IM a true bleliever.

Oh please pass  the coolaid while your at it.

[OOZ662]

I can't wait until the day we can go there ourselves...though by then all the non-believers may have died off.

[soda72]

Ghi beat me to it. IT was just a movie.... NASA admitts that they don't have any of the original tapes recordings of the "moon landing misssion" The destroyed them. It seems  to me that they are the most important recording in history and they got rid of them. LOL

Besides all that explain  how they got past the radiation belts without getting fried then IM a true bleliever.

Oh please pass  the coolaid while your at it.

Sounds like you're suffering from IDS...

This video may help you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQphZnEpFdo&feature=player_embedded

 

[Anodizer]

Ghi beat me to it. IT was just a movie.... NASA admitts that they don't have any of the original tapes recordings of the "moon landing misssion" The destroyed them. It seems  to me that they are the most important recording in history and they got rid of them. LOL

Besides all that explain  how they got past the radiation belts without getting fried then IM a true bleliever.

Oh please pass  the coolaid while your at it.

Who cares about the original Apollo 11 recordings?  We landed on the moon 5 other times and there's plenty of footage there(of higher quality as well)
that do more than prove it actually happened..  Don't you think the Soviets at the time would've cried foul if they had any suspicion, especially at the height of the cold war??  The Soviets were keeping tabs on what was going on, monitoring voice, data and telemetry transmissions..  They would vouch (as many old guard Soviet Scientists already have) that this is a real thing and it actually happened and they listened and watched the entire thing..

As far as the Van Allen belts, they spent very little time going through the belts as compared to the rest of the mission and the exposure was minimal.. 
They also planned the flight path to go through the smallest area of the belt. 
However, there are several Apollo era Astronauts who developed cataracts as a result of the dose of radiation they experienced....

People who question this stuff just don't look up the facts and just don't want to understand, regardless of their ability to comprehend the data..
But wait!  The data is suspect due to the source(NASA)!!    
 

I've read many books extensively on the Apollo missions as well as some supporting the theory that it didn't really happen(just for a laugh)....
I know the most mundane and minuscule of facts from start to finish(and even into Skylab)..  It's absurd to think it didn't really happen with all the
engineering, planning, and money that went into the program..
People who don't believe it just haven't done the research or haven't done enough research or truly don't comprehend any of the research in the first place..

People who cry "Moon Conspiracy" have a lot in common with these people  -------> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

[Yossarian]

Ghi beat me to it. IT was just a movie.... NASA admitts that they don't have any of the original tapes recordings of the "moon landing misssion" The destroyed them. It seems  to me that they are the most important recording in history and they got rid of them. LOL

Besides all that explain  how they got past the radiation belts without getting fried then IM a true bleliever.

Oh please pass  the coolaid while your at it.

I'm very glad that some people still believe that the Moon landings were faked.  It gives me someone to laugh at when I get bored.

Also, they were in the 'radiation belts' (actually known as the Van Allen Belts) for about 4 hours each way.  Not long enough to get 'fried', or even harmed.  In addition, IF the Apollo astronauts would have been harmed by the Van Allen Belts, then there's NO WAY anyone could be living on the International Space Station.

EDIT: My bad, they only spent 30 minutes in the Van Allen Belt.  They received radiation equivalent to a few hospital X-Rays.

[john9001]

That's preposterous! 

There is no way the earth can be both flat and hollow. Therefore, it would have to be one or the other. 

think pizza box.

[Anodizer]

Ghi beat me to it. IT was just a movie.... NASA admitts that they don't have any of the original tapes recordings of the "moon landing misssion" The destroyed them. It seems  to me that they are the most important recording in history and they got rid of them. LOL

Besides all that explain  how they got past the radiation belts without getting fried then IM a true bleliever.

Oh please pass  the coolaid while your at it.

"Moon Landing Mission"......**sigh**
By your quote, it seems you only think we landed on the moon once.....
While it may shock you to know this, there were also Apollo's 12-17..  We even had a spacestation made out of spare Apollo parts..  It was called Skylab.. (yes, I'm talking to you as if you ride the short bus to knitting class)..
Of course we all know what mostly happened with Apollo 13 thanks to Ron Howard..

What is your point in arguing this and spouting typical baseless conspiracy theory rhetoric when you truly don't know enough about the subject or the
the program in the first place or science for that matter?  Amazing...

This goes for you too, Ghi...
Being a fellow Romanian does not exclude you...  You know better...  If not, I'll school you so you understand that this stuff actually happened.... 

[bozon]

The moon has great advantages as a space station, instead of an orbital one. However, the greatest an immediate difficulty that we are facing is a better shuttle and launching capabilities into orbit. Shuttle in particular does not require lifting great loads (a few humans and equivalent weight in equipment) and can be achieved with existing or within-reach technology. With a base station in orbit or on the moon, the regular shuttling of humans back and forth will be required, without the need to transport all the life support, scientific equipment, building materials, etc. with them.

[falcon23]

The space station is only "GOOD" until about 2016,then it will be junked..They may possibly extend its life..But it just goes to show you just how HARSH space is on equipment.


 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/science/space/29shuttle.html