Did We Ever Actually Make It to the Moon?

Jimmy Junior

New member
Emrysgirl said:
How about storing nuclear waste?:D But I suppose the moon's atmosphere is so thin that it wou ld float back to earth.
Well that would be a good reason for humans to 'return' to the moon.
If something were placed on the moon it wouldn't just 'float away' - the gravity on the moon isn't as great a force as the gravity we experience on earth because the moon is smaller than earth so has a lesser gravitational pull, but it still has one.
 

Jimmy Junior

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

arach said:
The documentary you saw doesn't count; they could tell you anything and you would believe it because you are no NASA expert.
Again, like I already said, I didn't question the integrity of the moon landing for about 20 years until I saw this documentary, but it raised some good points.

Do you think the flag is still there? After 35 years of asteroid bombardements? Don't forget that the moon has no atmosphere, so it's not protected against all the stuff that's flying around in space. I don't wanna calculate but I guess in those 35 years there happend to be one single 5 cm Asteroid, which crashed into the moon next to the flag, and the flag was catapulted into space.
Even if the flag has gone, what about the other crap they left up there?
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
@Jimmy Junior- Yes it is better to store it on the moon, then on earth, that is what I said in that quote. I was referring to the moon.

@Emrysgirl- The ISS will be dead and obsolete 20 years from now, and it's very expensive. moon bases only have to be put up once. If taken care of and upgraded as time goes on, it could be there forever. space stations must be moved constantly to keep from plummeting into Earth. Remember Mir? the Russian space staition, it ran out of fuel, and was too old after 20 years. It was sent on a "controlled" crash to the surface of Earth.

Jimmy Junior said:
Who were the 'moon rocks' annalised by? The organisation that went to find them. If a robot were sent to the moon to get more, I'm sure they would be different.

If there is no reason to send anyone else to the moon, why have other people been to go and float around in space since then? Surely that is even more pointless?

Again, the technology exists to view the surface of Mars in detail, why not the moon, considering the pictures taken by the 1960s astronauts weren't very clear?
The moon rocks were analized by NASA, and some other company probably. They would look the same if a robot went up there too, because they are the real thing.

As for experiments in the ISS:
Examples of the types of U.S. research that will be performed aboard the station include:

· Protein crystal studies: More pure protein crystals may be grown in space than on Earth. Analysis of these crystals helps scientists better understand the nature of proteins, enzymes and viruses, perhaps leading to the development of new drugs and a better understanding of the fundamental building blocks of life. Similar experiments have been conducted on the Space Shuttle, although they are limited by the short duration of Shuttle flights. This type of research could lead to the study of possible treatments for cancer, diabetes, emphysema and immune system disorders, among other research.

· Tissue culture: Living cells can be grown in a laboratory environment in space where they are not distorted by gravity. NASA already has developed a Bioreactor device that is used on Earth to simulate, for such cultures, the effect of reduced gravity. Still, these devices are limited by gravity. Growing cultures for long periods aboard the station will further advance this research. Such cultures can be used to test new treatments for cancer without risking harm to patients, among other uses.

· Life in low gravity: The effects of long-term exposure to reduced gravity on humans – weakening muscles; changes in how the heart, arteries and veins work; and the loss of bone density, among others – will be studied aboard the station. Studies of these effects may lead to a better understanding of the body’s systems and similar ailments on Earth. A thorough understanding of such effects and possible methods of counteracting them is needed to prepare for future long-term human exploration of the solar system. In addition, studies of the gravitational effects on plants, animals and the function of living cells will be conducted aboard the station. A centrifuge, located in the Centrifuge Accommodation Module, will use centrifugal force to generate simulated gravity ranging from almost zero to twice that of Earth. This facility will imitate Earth’s gravity for comparison purposes; eliminate variables in experiments; and simulate the gravity on the Moon or Mars for experiments that can provide information useful for future space travels.

· Flames, fluids and metal in space: Fluids, flames, molten metal and other materials will be the subject of basic research on the station. Even flames burn differently without gravity. Reduced gravity reduces convection currents, the currents that cause warm air or fluid to rise and cool air or fluid to sink on Earth. This absence of convection alters the flame shape in orbit and allows studies of the combustion process that are impossible on Earth, a research field called Combustion Science. The absence of convection allows molten metals or other materials to be mixed more thoroughly in orbit than on Earth. Scientists plan to study this field, called Materials Science, to create better metal alloys and more perfect materials for applications such as computer chips. The study of all of these areas may lead to developments that can enhance many industries on Earth.

· The nature of space: Some experiments aboard the station will take place on the exterior of the station modules. Such exterior experiments can study the space environment and how long-term exposure to space, the vacuum and the debris, affects materials. This research can provide future spacecraft designers and scientists a better understanding of the nature of space and enhance spacecraft design. Some experiments will study the basic forces of nature, a field called Fundamental Physics, where experiments take advantage of weightlessness to study forces that are weak and difficult to study when subject to gravity on Earth. Experiments in this field may help explain how the universe developed. Investigations that use lasers to cool atoms to near absolute zero may help us understand gravity itself. In addition to investigating basic questions about nature, this research could lead to down-to-Earth developments that may include clocks a thousand times more accurate than today’s atomic clocks; better weather forecasting; and stronger materials.

· Watching the Earth: Observations of the Earth from orbit help the study of large-scale, long-term changes in the environment. Studies in this field can increase understanding of the forests, oceans and mountains. The effects of volcanoes, ancient meteorite impacts, hurricanes and typhoons can be studied. In addition, changes to the Earth that are caused by the human race can be observed. The effects of air pollution, such as smog over cities; of deforestation, the cutting and burning of forests; and of water pollution, such as oil spills, are visible from space and can be captured in images that provide a global perspective unavailable from the ground.

· Commercialization: As part of the Commercialization of space research on the station, industries will participate in research by conducting experiments and studies aimed at developing new products and services. The results may benefit those on Earth not only by providing innovative new products as a result, but also by creating new jobs to make the products.

Experiments from: http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/ISS_OVR/
And nobody takes pictures because we know what is there. the rements of past missions to the moon, and rocks.
 

arach

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

Jimmy Junior said:
Even if the flag has gone, what about the other crap they left up there?
I told you about the mirrors. They are definitely still up there.
 

Jimmy Junior

New member
J[QUOTE said:
.]@Jimmy Junior- Yes it is better to store it on the moon, then on earth, that is what I said in that quote. I was referring to the moon.
I was agreeing with you there.
The moon rocks were analized by NASA, and some other company probably. They would look the same if a robot went up there too, because they are the real thing.
Who do you think funds NASA?

And nobody takes pictures because we know what is there. the rements of past missions to the moon, and rocks.
[/QUOTE]... Because that is what the American government have told us and we have no reason to suspect otherwise? We have colour pictures of Mars, why not the moon, which isn't even as far away?
 

Emrysgirl

New member
Jimmy Junior said:
Well that would be a good reason for humans to 'return' to the moon.
If something were placed on the moon it wouldn't just 'float away' - the gravity on the moon isn't as great a force as the gravity we experience on earth because the moon is smaller than earth so has a lesser gravitational pull, but it still has one.
Yes, it has some gravitational pull. How else would it stay together? But would it be enough to keep most of the radioactive stuff down? The extremely dangerous ones are far on the denser side, but there's quite a lot and will be much more (especially in France). And would the earth's atmosphere be able to repell the fraction that does float off? I don't know. I was just wondering. Remember, I'm the one that brought it up. If it's possible, I'm not against it.

And, actually, humans aren't needed. Again, it can be done with machines. It's probably a lot safer (not having a life to worry about etc).

Jimmy Junior said:
If there is no reason to send anyone else to the moon, why have other people been to go and float around in space since then? Surely that is even more pointless?
Most of the actual missions have been ISS related, where they're actually building and not just floating around.

If you're reffering to the commercial stuff, Nasa refused to do even that (sending them into space). It's a lot more expensive to send a person to the moon and back than to send them into space for a few hours. Only the very rich (actually only 2 or 3 people I think) are willing to spend money even for the current accomadations. It would be impossible to find somebody willing to spend enough money for a trip to the moon. Plus, it would be very dangerous. I don't think, even given permission/hazard forms etc, that they'd by willing to risk lawsuits.

Jimmy Junior said:
Again, the technology exists to view the surface of Mars in detail, why not the moon, considering the pictures taken by the 1960s astronauts weren't very clear?
If you're reffering to the pictures taken by Hubble, it HAS been done.
If you're reffering to my comment about Spirit and Oppurtunity. The mission was to find any trace of water and consequently microbial life, or evidence that it ever existed. Mars was chosen b/c it's very simmilar to the earth and so the possibility is very real. B/c of the moons minimal gravity, and small size, the chances of finding water are nil.
 

Emrysgirl

New member
J. said:
The ISS will be dead and obsolete 20 years from now, and it's very expensive. moon bases only have to be put up once. If taken care of and upgraded as time goes on, it could be there forever. space stations must be moved constantly to keep from plummeting into Earth. Remember Mir? the Russian space staition, it ran out of fuel, and was too old after 20 years. It was sent on a "controlled" crash to the surface of Earth.
The key phrase from your quote is "if taken care of and upgraded". That can be done with the ISS as well. The reason it wasn't done with Mir is because it was less expensive to simply build a new one. Besides, lets find someplace to go and figure out how to get there before we start building bases.

The experiments you described sound cool.

Jimmy Junior said:
... Because that is what the American government have told us and we have no reason to suspect otherwise? We have colour pictures of Mars, why not the moon, which isn't even as far away?
I'm sure they've been analyzed by other space programs as well.

Besides, the fact that it's funded by the US Gov had no bearing since NASA has a lot to invest in the space race/mission itself - that's the reason it was created. And, however money driven NASA is, I find it very hard to believe that they're THAT corrupt.

We do have color pictures of the moon.

Jimmy Junior said:
How do you know that?
(reffering to arach's mirrors FACT)

B/c as he said, they're being used to make measurements.
 

yardgames

Retired Administrator
I find it interesting this is such a hot-button topic in a Malcolm in the Middle community. I'm completely impartial, but am enjoying everyone of your arguments. Both sides are presenting evidence and then the other is countering with even better evidence. Congratulations. Please, carry on.
 

Emrysgirl

New member
I have too much work to be on this site, but I thought I should mention that today (July 20) is the anniversery of the Apollo 11 moon landing.:)
 

yardgames

Retired Administrator
Well, they only show you the first sentence, but wasn't that originally promised when SpaceShipOne went up? That's whose doing it, isn't it?
 

Emrysgirl

New member
Really? Oh darn...must be a membership thing b/c I get the whole article. Well, I'll post the text:

Private Company Plans $100 Million Tour Around the Moon

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
One day after NASA brought the shuttle Discovery back from low Earth orbit, a private company plans to announce a more audacious venture, a tourist trip around the Moon.

Space Adventures, a company based in Arlington, Va., has already sent two tourists into orbit. Today, it is to unveil an agreement with Russian space officials to send two passengers on a voyage lasting 10 to 21 days, depending partly on its itinerary and whether it includes the International Space Station.

A roundtrip ticket will cost $100 million.

The space-faring tourists will travel with a Russian pilot. They will steer clear of the greater technical challenge of landing on the Moon, instead circling it and returning to Earth.

Eric Anderson, the chief executive of Space Adventures, said he believed the trip could be accomplished as early as 2008. Mr. Anderson said he had already received expressions of interest from a few potential clients.

The Soyuz vehicle to be used does not have the power to reach the Moon on its own, so the Russians have devised a plan to send up a booster. The Soyuz would dock with the booster, either in low Earth orbit or at the International Space Station.

The booster would take the passengers the rest of the way. The price of the two tickets, Mr. Anderson said, would pay for the costs of the Moon shot. His company's demographic research, he said, suggests that 500 to 1,000 people in the world can afford to do this.

"It's the same number of people who could afford to buy a $100 million yacht," Mr. Anderson added. Two people who have already paid Space Adventures to go into orbit, at a reported $20 million apiece, applauded the new initiative though they said they were not sure they would try the Moon orbit.

Dennis Tito, a financier who in 2001 became the first space tourist, said that he found the idea fascinating but added that he doubted he would make such a trip. Having just turned 65, and with the Moon orbit at least a few years away, he said he might be too old for the rigors of the voyage.

"I would be considering it if I were younger, and I had that kind of money to spare," Mr. Tito said.

Another Space Adventures client, Greg Olsen, who made millions in the sale of his camera technology company, Sensors Unlimited, is preparing to visit the space station for several days in October. Of the Moon trip, he said, "It's certainly intriguing, and it's something I'd like to do."

Will he buy a ticket, then? "One trip at a time," he replied.

The trip seems feasible, said Dr. John M. Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. "As a nontechnical person, I don't see any technical showstoppers," Dr. Logsdon said, "if people are crazy enough to do it."

And, he added, it would make "a lot of money for the Russians."

Christopher C. Kraft, a former director of the Johnson Space Center, said his feelings about the enterprise were mixed. "I think it would be a fantastic journey," he said. "I could see why, if I had the price of the ticket and could use the money that way, that it would be tempting to go."

But Mr. Kraft added that the flight would be cramped and probably extremely unpleasant. With three people in a small Soyuz craft for an extended trip, he said, "I imagine that you could endure that, but, man, it would be tough."

Mr. Anderson of Space Adventures said the craft had about as much room as a sport utility vehicle. "Will it be cramped? Yes," he said. "But will it be doable? Yes."

He noted that the Gemini capsule was smaller than the Soyuz, and that the astronauts James A. Lovell and Frank Borman orbited the Earth for 14 days in the Gemini 7 mission in 1965.

But Mr. Kraft, who was the flight director for that mission, recalled that Mr. Lovell and Mr. Borman were miserable. They complained bitterly that the trip was like "14 days in a men's room," and Mr. Kraft said that he had to talk them out of ending the mission early. "They wanted to get out of there," he said.

Mr. Anderson said the timing of the announcement was not meant to tweak the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "We believe private space flight and space exploration can go hand in hand, and can coexist and benefit each other," he said. Government, he said, should focus "on things that private companies cannot do," like exploring other planets. His company's system, he said, could eventually be a subcontractor, offering transportation services to a government Moon base.

"I just love the idea of demonstrating that things can be done for less money than people thought, and paradigms can be shifted," he said. "Space flight can be opened up."
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Although I think the subject was exhausted, can you think of a conspiracy theory proving the facts(or so it seems) wrong? :D
 
Top