Jump to content


Photo

Has Any Man Really Set Foot On The Moon?


  • Please log in to reply
301 replies to this topic

#21 ninj@

ninj@

    Virgin

  • (02) Sinless
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 19 October 2005 - 10:40 PM

IMHO, the moon landing is hollywood's (crappy) response to the Soviet challenge. Even the most rugged
equipment (Russians make the most rugged equipment) will not withstand the Sun's radiation in the
moon. Both of them knew it, the Russians knew what happened, they just don't give a s**t.

My 2 cents.

#22 cryptcracker

cryptcracker

    Voyeur

  • (02) Sinless
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 October 2005 - 11:49 PM

There's an old movie called 'Capricorn One' that's all about a fake Mars landing naman.

I find this moon landing hoax very interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


on the physics side, landing on the moon could be very risky, the pull of gravity, harsh atmospheric condition and unstable environmental factors can cause great damage on the spacescraft. point to remember: it's not easy to land while manuvering a space shuttle, the torque is your great enemy...

we'll it's up to you now to believe or not to believe this case.

#23 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 04:40 PM

then why don't we do it again?
that'll be cool, i can watch some dude floating around

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


We would be coming back ( actually the Americans) in 2018. A much improved Saturn rocket engine would be used and a pimped up Lunar module.

#24 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 04:49 PM

IMHO, the moon landing is hollywood's (crappy) response to the Soviet challenge. Even the most rugged
equipment (Russians make the most rugged equipment) will not withstand the Sun's radiation in the
moon. Both of them knew it, the Russians knew what happened, they just don't give a s**t.

My 2 cents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Actually this is bull***t. Not to knock the russians, but for a superpower they produce the shoddiest equipment's from the T-72 tanks bleeding metal shavings from it's engines, to the short lifespan of the engines and bumpy skins of the MIG-29 and SU-27.

May i remind you that the Americans, Russians, Europeans and Japanese have been sending unmanned probes to Mars, Saturn, Uranus and almost all of the spacecraft functioned as per designed.

As I have posted earlier, the russians acknowledged the moon landings are real.

#25 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 04:58 PM

on the physics side, landing on the moon could be very risky, the pull of gravity, harsh atmospheric condition and unstable environmental factors can cause great damage on the spacescraft. point to remember: it's not easy to land while manuvering a space shuttle, the torque is your great enemy...

we'll it's up to you now to believe or not to believe this case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Ummm the moon doesn't have any atmosphere and it has 1/6 th of the earth's gravity. For being unstable, geologically the moon is inert, no earthquakes or volcanic activities whatsoever. The apollo project didn't use the space shuttle to land on the moon they used a lunar module, the shuttle only coming into service in the late 70's and it is designed not for long space flight but for payload deliveries (satellites, space telescopes).

#26 ninj@

ninj@

    Virgin

  • (02) Sinless
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 06:49 PM

Actually this is bull***t. Not to knock the russians, but for a superpower they produce the shoddiest equipment's from the T-72 tanks bleeding metal shavings from it's engines, to the short lifespan of the engines and bumpy skins  of the MIG-29 and SU-27.

May i remind you that the Americans, Russians, Europeans and Japanese have been sending unmanned probes to Mars, Saturn, Uranus and almost all of the spacecraft functioned as per designed.

As I have posted earlier, the russians acknowledged the moon landings are real.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



That's because you've been reading crap. So that you may know, Russian/Soviet made products are built for war not for display. If you've come near a Russian aircraft or tank, you'll see the shoddiness on non-critical parts. They are at par or even better than Western equipment on parts that matter ( most critical) the most. Have you been to Zhukovsky? I saw them test an SU-27 landing without landing gears. They smash it through, then retract the gears, then test-fly it again and it flies. Westerns build their craft with
a scalpel honing it's form to perfection (aesthetics?), while Russians build theirs with a sledge hammer - they go for brute force, maximum reliability, and due to their extreme weather conditions it has to be
very durable. Why else would the Americans and the space tourists travel with the Soyuz, and the Chinese model their spacecraft to it? By the way, have you ever been on a Russian made airplane
travelling around eastern europe? Yup, they're crappy to look at, but it's the smoothest take-off/landing I've ever experienced. Westerners in the plane say the same thing, eventhough they don't want to fly with it at the beginning. So stop reading about western propaganda, the most crappy Russian products
are those they sell, see the ones the Russians use ...especially those MisSpec ones. Oh, by the way, I
have one Soviet Camera for sale for US$30, you wanna buy? It fell twice, but it's on perfectly working
condition. Price is negotiable, I'm not selling it coz it fell, it's because I have another one.

#27 ninj@

ninj@

    Virgin

  • (02) Sinless
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 06:57 PM

then why don't we do it again?
that'll be cool, i can watch some dude floating around

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yup, why not do it again? It's been years, while in fact it took them a few years to build their
craft to go there. They could have build a hundred more Apollo 11s, they could literally have
settlements there now.

#28 hellspawn

hellspawn

    Charmer

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts

Posted 22 October 2005 - 06:23 AM

"why not do it again...?"

according to "new scientist" magazine, nasa has plans to send more manned missions back to the moon. admittedly it will take another 5-8 years before this happens.

<ninj@>

dude, about your take on russian weaponry, couldn't agree with you more. russian made tanks, planes, and personnel carriers, especially the btr-80, are top notch.


i don't know if this story is true, or if it's an urban legend, but if it is it clearly illustrates the difference between american and russian thinking: in the early days of the space race nasa spent a s**t load of money developing a pen that would work in zero gravity for their astronauts to use. the russians gave their cosmonauts pencils.

#29 shodandille

shodandille

    the princess

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Interests:debating, shopping, watching football, badminton, the arts (theater, paint), brad pitt ;)

Posted 22 October 2005 - 09:59 AM

then why don't we do it again?
that'll be cool, i can watch some dude floating around

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


because it costs a lot of money. we're talking billions of dollars here and the u.s. is too busy with the "war against terrorism" to finance for another moon landing... in the future, im pretty sure they'll try again.

#30 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 22 October 2005 - 10:22 AM

Yup, why not do it again? It's been years, while in fact it took them a few years to build their
craft to go there. They could have build a hundred more Apollo 11s, they could literally have
settlements there now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The problem is budget. They don't have the monetary resource to undertake such a big space program. Hell if you have been reading my previous post, NASA's plan is to go back at 2018 (if the U.S. congress approves the requested budget)

#31 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 22 October 2005 - 11:13 AM

Senor let me quote from your previous post

Even the most rugged
equipment (Russians make the most rugged equipment) will not withstand the Sun's radiation in the
moon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


You see this is a lie, currently satellites, the ISS, and the MIR are currently in orbit around the earth bombarded daily by the Sun's radiation but they are still functioning.

The problem with your argument is you make a hasty generalization that since the russians can't do it nobody can.

Your other arguments are invalid for this topic.

#32 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 22 October 2005 - 11:40 AM

Why else would the Americans and the space tourists travel with the Soyuz, and the Chinese model their spacecraft to it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The russians needed the additional funds and from what I know NASA does not allow space tourist to hitch a ride on the shuttle. The Soyuz was also used by NASA to resupply the ISS when all the shuttles were grounded and all space flights were cancelled. The Chinese copied it because it is the cheapest form of space travel.

#33 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 22 October 2005 - 11:44 AM

i don't know if this story is true, or if it's an urban legend, but if it is it clearly illustrates the difference between american and russian thinking: in the early days of the space race nasa spent a s**t load of money developing a pen that would work in zero gravity for their astronauts to use. the russians gave their cosmonauts pencils.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Yes it is an urban legend as seen on this link

http://www.snopes.co...us/spacepen.asp

#34 ninj@

ninj@

    Virgin

  • (02) Sinless
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 24 October 2005 - 04:38 PM

Senor let me quote from your previous post
You see this is a lie, currently satellites, the ISS, and the MIR are currently in orbit around the earth bombarded daily by the Sun's radiation  but they are still functioning. 

The problem with your argument is you make a hasty generalization that since the russians can't do it nobody can.

Your other arguments are invalid for this topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That is not a lie. The ISS not yet fully functional. The MIR was.

The problem with your argument is your illogical conclusion that I "generalize". Go back to first
year and study symbolic logic again please.

#35 Guest_airmax_*

Guest_airmax_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2005 - 05:11 PM

diba may expose tungkol dyan.

#36 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:32 AM

That is not a lie.  The ISS not yet fully functional. The MIR was.

The problem with your argument is your illogical conclusion that I "generalize". Go back to first
year and study symbolic logic again please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Eh, how about the hubble telescope currently in space. It is working isn't it. The ISS is currently under construction but operational, with 1 Astronaut and 2 cosmonauts living in it.

#37 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:43 AM

(Russians make the most rugged equipment)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


This is your statement, it is a sweeping generalization right?

FYI. A sweeping generalization is one in which there seems to be sufficient evidence offered to draw a conclusion, but the conclusion drawn far exceeds what the evidence supports.

#38 clipperjune

clipperjune

    Hottie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:51 AM

Opps, my mistake it should have been hasty generalization.

A hasty generalization is one in which there is an insufficient number of instances on which to base the generalization.

#39 Firewolf9

Firewolf9

    Cutie

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts

Posted 25 March 2006 - 09:32 AM

The russians acknowledged the moon landings are real. PERIOD...

#40 warpspeedo

warpspeedo

    Looker

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 25 March 2006 - 06:57 PM

I would think that the moon landing was for real. What an endeavor it would have been to fake it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users