On this day

[Bazzlad]

The biggest proof has already been stated:
The Russians and Americans both wanted to win.
If the Americans HADN'T LANDED ON THE MOON, every Russian Scientist would have made a comment, IE, NO YOU DIDN'T.
So unless you believe yourself to be smarter than the American scientists who DID send men to the moon, AND the Russian scientists who couldn't find a falisy in their claims, with all their Satellites and sensors and whatnot, be quiet.
I posted a link that refutes every argument against it with HARD SCIENCE. Read it. Read it again. That's right. They ARE smarter than you.

[Auran]

Zak
Part of ther reason it was easier then than now is down to the following; The more complex a system the more likely it is to fail. Part of this is obviously down to probability, the more things that can go wrong, the more likely something will. Hence, the need for so many redundancies on modern aircraft.

But more than this we are working with systems on an atomic scale, which are inherently unstable. With what I learnt doing quantum mechanics it amazes me that computers work as well as they do

[Bazzlad]

If you don't believe it READ THIS PAGE: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20...the%20Moon.htm
Here's ONE answer to one of the many stupid questions HOAX believers ask:

It was never a 'safe' journey to reach the Moon, far from it. The Apollo 1 crew were all burned to death on the launch pad while only rehearsing a lift off, and the Apollo 13 crew were very lucky to make it back alive after being forced to cancel their Moon landing following a near fatal onboard explosion. This from a total of only 11 manned Apollo flights. You call that 'safe'? The Space Shuttle has suffered two major disasters in 113 flights, not a great record, but far better that the Apollo missions, even though the shuttle is forced to use a far more dangerous system of lift-off and re-entry. The truth is NASA were glad the moon missions were cancelled because they knew it was only a matter of time before they lost a crew. Better to stop while ahead.

The system of getting to the Moon was to use a huge Saturn V booster costing $185,000,000 that was used once only - simply to get the Apollo Command and Service Module into low Earth orbit and then boost it on its way to the moon- then it was thrown away! The Saturn V booster, complete with the tiny Apollo Module on top, stood 363 feet high and weighed 2,888 tons. The only part of this huge monster to return the crew to Earth was the tiny Command Module fitted with a heat shield. See The journey to the Moon This system IS a lot safer then using a re-usable Space Shuttle, but is impossibly expensive to use on a regular basis as the shuttle is today. The ONLY reason such a ridiculously expensive system was ever used in the first place was because it provided the USA with the quickest way to achieve a Moon landing before the Russians got there first.

The Space Shuttle is a marvel of engineering but does have to face problems the Moon landings didn't. The main problem is re-entry. It is not just a tiny capsule that is returning, as in the Apollo programme, but the entire Space Shuttle, and it not just the once, it has to do the same trip time and time again. When in orbit the Shuttle is travelling at a speed of 27,000 km/hr (app. 16,800 mph) and this speed has to be shed as it descends through the atmosphere. In the early days of space flight the Mercury capsule descended through the atmosphere much steeper than today's Shuttle, and much faster, with the result that it was much safer. This may sound odd but it's all due to the shockwave created by the space craft, and the blunter the capsule and the faster it moves, the farther away the shock wave occurs. A returning spacecraft does not get hot through friction with the atmosphere. A layer of air builds up in front of it, and between this layer and the surrounding atmosphere is the shockwave. That's where the heat is generated. Most of the heat of a Mercury (and Apollo) re-entry was swept away into the atmosphere.

Because the shuttle was required to be maneuverable during landing it had to have a delta wing which meant that the wing is much more exposed to the heat. NASA originally wanted the Shuttle to re-enter like the Mercury capsule, with its nose held high, but it's shape and size restricted it with the nose allowed no higher than 40 degrees to the horizon. As a result, the Shuttle would be subject to four times as much heat, for twice as long.

The shuttle re-entry procedure has always been dangerous, as is the lift off, strapped as it is to the External Fuel Tank and two Solid Rocket Boosters, with no means of escape for the crew in the event of an emergency.

Yes, of course the technology has improved over the last 30 years or so, but it's just not possible to compare a one-flight only Saturn V booster with a re-usable Space Shuttle. Two very different machines doing two very different jobs.

[Clingy]

Sorry Zak, one of my pet hates is the "conspiracy theories". I loved it when they came out recently and said without a doubt that LHO killed JFK debunking the biggest conspiracy theory of recent times. I have a good friend who would stake his life on the fact that Prince Charles had Diana assassinated. I just dont understand this desire to ignore the overwhelming mountain of evidence and hang onto the scraps of co-incidences and unexplained quirks. To me if you dont believe we landed men on the moon then I cant see how you can believe anything from History.

[Rythmic]

Yeah....and 25 years later we couldnt even get a Shuttle in and out of orbit safely....in fact we STILL CANT do it safely.

And yet we managed to get al those blokes to land in the same bit of the moon, over and over...and get them home.

With communications.....on Computers less powerfull than a VW Polo engine management system

Actually - the shuttle runs on computers less powerfull than a VW Polo engine management system.

Look back through the shuttles design - you'll find it's was only ever meant to be the first phase of a long program. But the manned program never got the funding for any of the later phases.

In fact it's so silly - they've ended up having to source parts for it via ebay.

They didn't land in the same part of the moon every time - Neil Armstrong actually overshot his landing spot by a loooong way.

Have a look through the mission control logs for the apollo series - see the astronauts going "we've got an error 54 - wtf is an error 54?" and you'll know how good the computers were....

[Tumble]

The error 54 thing is well funny.. the computer guys wanted Armstrong to turn the computer off and then back on again to fix it... which he couldn't do so close to landing - so he turned the alarm off and ignored it.... Nowts changed in 30 years of computing realy

[Flash]

funnily enough was just reading the BBC website and came accross this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ore/html/1.stm

hi res pics from the moon that have been enhanced from the originals

[Bazzlad]

For the record:
(Why haven't we been again?)

We have since Apollo 11 became the first lunar landing six other missions reached the Moon. Five landed and a further ten men became moonwalkers.

The last moonwalk was in 1972.

[Rythmic]

Cause no one wants to pay 6 billion dollars per launch to go look at some rock perhaps?

Until someone can come up with a relevant reason - we won't go back

[Flash]

For the record:
(Why haven't we been again?)

We have since Apollo 11 became the first lunar landing six other missions reached the Moon. Five landed and a further ten men became moonwalkers.

The last moonwalk was in 1972.

lovingly ripped from that link I just provided

[Bazzlad]

Me rip? Never I just know people who don't believe wouldn't look at the link, so it's vital to provide the important sections.
A lot of people who don't believe we didn't walk on the moon think we've only been once..... :S

[steve threlfall]

Cause no one wants to pay 6 billion dollars per launch to go look at some rock perhaps?

Until someone can come up with a relevant reason - we won't go back

Exactly.

Back then the reason to land on the moon was a political one. The goal was to stick it to the Ruskys big time

After this was achieved (or thought to be as the case may possibly be) America cut NASA's budget BIG

We are not much closer to sending tourist space craft now than we were back then. Theres no cash for space travel but plenty for lauching trident cruise missles at a million a pop

[Agent]

...and yet the Yanks just dropped a few blokes on there, several times , DROVE AROUND IN A BUGGY, played golf and then took off again!

I just spent the best part of 10 mins laughing at that bit

As for why we havnt been back: we have. Thing is, we now have UFO's which will take is there in no time. Obviously the goverments dont want to admit to this, so they cover it up with a conspiracy theroy about it costing too much

[streetster]

agent - the voice of logic and reasoning

[Stoo]

The main thing of why there have been so many disasters in recent years is down to the fact that NASA's budget has been slashed time and time again. They've had to cut down things so far that now they can only just get a rocket in orbit, and not always sucessfully at that.

The Shuttle program has suffered so much lack of investment that it's virtually dead on it's feet, the technology is so old and unreliable that the whole thing needs replacing with something safer, more efficient, and more cost effective. But to do that it needs major investment.

Unfortunately the government has decided that it's far more profitable to wage war on other countries instead.