NASA: Triumph and Tragedy

[Guest alex]

The B2 stealth bomber is a good example of compartmentalized security. Until the first one was rolled out for public gaze in late 1989, a plane that had cost 30 billion $$$ had been kept completely secret for a decade. A lot more people worked on that (hundreds) than the few dozen or so it would have needed to shoot footage of the the fake Apollo 11 landing.

Not really worth arguing about as there isn't a scrap of evidence for what you suggest but they're two totally different things mainly due to one being an aircraft developed in top secret and the other being a space programme that was literally being scrutinised by the world. As I alluded to though the actions of the Russians suggest they were pretty certain the US sent men to the moon. Not least as they gave up their attempts to send a man to the moon as soon as the Americans beat them to it.

 

Just demonstrating secret keeping ain't hard.

If you genuinely can't see the difference it's little wonder you're so full of shit tbh. I'd suggest the Russians had an inkling on the B2's existence though, no?

[Renton 18038]

The B2 stealth bomber is a good example of compartmentalized security. Until the first one was rolled out for public gaze in late 1989, a plane that had cost 30 billion $$$ had been kept completely secret for a decade. A lot more people worked on that (hundreds) than the few dozen or so it would have needed to shoot footage of the the fake Apollo 11 landing.

 

Completely irrelevant. You just believe what you want to believe Parky, no matter what empirical evidence your presented with. Now that the lunar modules and footprints have been shown by the latest satellites you're saying they were created by robots (despite the fact that digital technology was embryonic 40 years ago), have I got this right? Seriously, if you really believe this I fear for your sanity.

[Park Life 71]

The B2 stealth bomber is a good example of compartmentalized security. Until the first one was rolled out for public gaze in late 1989, a plane that had cost 30 billion $$$ had been kept completely secret for a decade. A lot more people worked on that (hundreds) than the few dozen or so it would have needed to shoot footage of the the fake Apollo 11 landing.

Not really worth arguing about as there isn't a scrap of evidence for what you suggest but they're two totally different things mainly due to one being an aircraft developed in top secret and the other being a space programme that was literally being scrutinised by the world. As I alluded to though the actions of the Russians suggest they were pretty certain the US sent men to the moon. Not least as they gave up their attempts to send a man to the moon as soon as the Americans beat them to it.

 

Just demonstrating secret keeping ain't hard.

If you genuinely can't see the difference it's little wonder you're so full of shit tbh. I'd suggest the Russians had an inkling on the B2's existence though, no?

 

The Russians are about 10 years behind on stealth and have only very recently started using elements of it in their latest planes. So I guess they had no idea.

 

How exactly does 'the world scrutinise' the space programme?

[Park Life 71]

The B2 stealth bomber is a good example of compartmentalized security. Until the first one was rolled out for public gaze in late 1989, a plane that had cost 30 billion $$$ had been kept completely secret for a decade. A lot more people worked on that (hundreds) than the few dozen or so it would have needed to shoot footage of the the fake Apollo 11 landing.

 

Completely irrelevant. You just believe what you want to believe Parky, no matter what empirical evidence your presented with. Now that the lunar modules and footprints have been shown by the latest satellites you're saying they were created by robots (despite the fact that digital technology was embryonic 40 years ago), have I got this right? Seriously, if you really believe this I fear for your sanity.

 

Robots??! Now that really would be something. That new Japanese one has emotions apparently. Once it learns to type we're fucked!

[Guest alex]

The B2 stealth bomber is a good example of compartmentalized security. Until the first one was rolled out for public gaze in late 1989, a plane that had cost 30 billion $$$ had been kept completely secret for a decade. A lot more people worked on that (hundreds) than the few dozen or so it would have needed to shoot footage of the the fake Apollo 11 landing.

Not really worth arguing about as there isn't a scrap of evidence for what you suggest but they're two totally different things mainly due to one being an aircraft developed in top secret and the other being a space programme that was literally being scrutinised by the world. As I alluded to though the actions of the Russians suggest they were pretty certain the US sent men to the moon. Not least as they gave up their attempts to send a man to the moon as soon as the Americans beat them to it.

 

Just demonstrating secret keeping ain't hard.

If you genuinely can't see the difference it's little wonder you're so full of shit tbh. I'd suggest the Russians had an inkling on the B2's existence though, no?

 

The Russians are about 10 years behind on stealth and have only very recently started using elements of it in their latest planes. So I guess they had no idea.

 

How exactly does 'the world scrutinise' the space programme?

I was referring to Apollo, which was obvious tbh.

[Renton 18038]

The B2 stealth bomber is a good example of compartmentalized security. Until the first one was rolled out for public gaze in late 1989, a plane that had cost 30 billion $$$ had been kept completely secret for a decade. A lot more people worked on that (hundreds) than the few dozen or so it would have needed to shoot footage of the the fake Apollo 11 landing.

Not really worth arguing about as there isn't a scrap of evidence for what you suggest but they're two totally different things mainly due to one being an aircraft developed in top secret and the other being a space programme that was literally being scrutinised by the world. As I alluded to though the actions of the Russians suggest they were pretty certain the US sent men to the moon. Not least as they gave up their attempts to send a man to the moon as soon as the Americans beat them to it.

 

Just demonstrating secret keeping ain't hard.

If you genuinely can't see the difference it's little wonder you're so full of shit tbh. I'd suggest the Russians had an inkling on the B2's existence though, no?

 

The Russians are about 10 years behind on stealth and have only very recently started using elements of it in their latest planes. So I guess they had no idea.

 

How exactly does 'the world scrutinise' the space programme?

 

Besides the broadcasts to an estimated 600 million people you mean? Well, the space crafts were tracked by dozens of military and civilian space authorities across the world, for starters.

[Park Life 71]

You donkeys didn't even know the Pentagon had a bigger space budget than nasa. Please put it down.

[Fop 1]

You donkeys didn't even know the Pentagon had a bigger space budget than nasa. Please put it down.

 

The Pentagon is a decoy though.

[Park Life 71]

You donkeys didn't even know the Pentagon had a bigger space budget than nasa. Please put it down.

 

The Pentagon is a decoy though.

 

Deep black innit.

[Craig 6321]

Apollo 11 is the only moon landing I've ever questioned. But that's all because of the "by the end of this decade" promise Kennedy made. It may have been genuine but it could well have been staged just to ensure that deadline was met. All the other Apollo missions are definitely genuine IMO and ont he photo for Apollo 14, you can see the footpath created over to the instruments.

 

The only other event I've considered may be staged was the Apollo 13 explosion. The press at the time were critical, almost to the point of ridicule that NASA were continuing to travel to the moon at taxpayers expense. The public were getting 'bored' by all accounts now that the goal of reaching the moon had been achieved. Some claim the explosion on Apollo 13 was staged to re-ignite public interest in the programme making NASA would-be heroes.

 

There's not a shred of real evidence to suggest any of it was faked though is there? The idea that the Apollo 13 incident was somehow faked, for the motives you've suggested, is frankly ludicrous, and again would require the complicity of hundreds of people. Have you seen the photographs of the damage to the service module?

 

I think there's something a bit sad about these conspiracy theories. Firstly, they demonstrate a complete lack of critical thinking from the conspiracy theorists, but secondly and more significantly, it's an insult to the people who risked their lives to make the Apollo missions a success imo.

 

My personal belief in both cases are that they were genuine.

 

As Alex alludes to, there's far too many people who've kept quiet who definitely wouldn't have done had it all been a sham. I'm simply playing devil's advocate by suggesting those the two incidents that are most likely to have been staged. Yep I've seen all the detail of the Apollo 13 explosions. I used it as a case study on my manufacturing degree years back.

[Fop 1]

Apollo 11 is the only moon landing I've ever questioned. But that's all because of the "by the end of this decade" promise Kennedy made. It may have been genuine but it could well have been staged just to ensure that deadline was met. All the other Apollo missions are definitely genuine IMO and ont he photo for Apollo 14, you can see the footpath created over to the instruments.

 

The only other event I've considered may be staged was the Apollo 13 explosion. The press at the time were critical, almost to the point of ridicule that NASA were continuing to travel to the moon at taxpayers expense. The public were getting 'bored' by all accounts now that the goal of reaching the moon had been achieved. Some claim the explosion on Apollo 13 was staged to re-ignite public interest in the programme making NASA would-be heroes.

 

There's not a shred of real evidence to suggest any of it was faked though is there? The idea that the Apollo 13 incident was somehow faked, for the motives you've suggested, is frankly ludicrous, and again would require the complicity of hundreds of people. Have you seen the photographs of the damage to the service module?

 

I think there's something a bit sad about these conspiracy theories. Firstly, they demonstrate a complete lack of critical thinking from the conspiracy theorists, but secondly and more significantly, it's an insult to the people who risked their lives to make the Apollo missions a success imo.

 

My personal belief in both cases are that they were genuine.

 

As Alex alludes to, there's far too many people who've kept quiet who definitely wouldn't have done had it all been a sham. I'm simply playing devil's advocate by suggesting those the two incidents that are most likely to have been staged. Yep I've seen all the detail of the Apollo 13 explosions. I used it as a case study on my manufacturing degree years back.

 

 

Or you are in on it.

[Park Life 71]

Apollo 11 is the only moon landing I've ever questioned. But that's all because of the "by the end of this decade" promise Kennedy made. It may have been genuine but it could well have been staged just to ensure that deadline was met. All the other Apollo missions are definitely genuine IMO and ont he photo for Apollo 14, you can see the footpath created over to the instruments.

 

The only other event I've considered may be staged was the Apollo 13 explosion. The press at the time were critical, almost to the point of ridicule that NASA were continuing to travel to the moon at taxpayers expense. The public were getting 'bored' by all accounts now that the goal of reaching the moon had been achieved. Some claim the explosion on Apollo 13 was staged to re-ignite public interest in the programme making NASA would-be heroes.

 

There's not a shred of real evidence to suggest any of it was faked though is there? The idea that the Apollo 13 incident was somehow faked, for the motives you've suggested, is frankly ludicrous, and again would require the complicity of hundreds of people. Have you seen the photographs of the damage to the service module?

 

I think there's something a bit sad about these conspiracy theories. Firstly, they demonstrate a complete lack of critical thinking from the conspiracy theorists, but secondly and more significantly, it's an insult to the people who risked their lives to make the Apollo missions a success imo.

 

My personal belief in both cases are that they were genuine.

 

As Alex alludes to, there's far too many people who've kept quiet who definitely wouldn't have done had it all been a sham. I'm simply playing devil's advocate by suggesting those the two incidents that are most likely to have been staged. Yep I've seen all the detail of the Apollo 13 explosions. I used it as a case study on my manufacturing degree years back.

 

People know jack shit and care even less. No argument that relies on people knowing anything ever stands up to scrutiny. First rule of the Empire.

[Park Life 71]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

[Guest alex]

To think I left NO in the hope of leaving this sort of patter behind. If I'd known he was going to follow me I wouldn't have bothered.

[Park Life 71]

To think I left NO in the hope of leaving this sort of patter behind. If I'd known he was going to follow me I wouldn't have bothered.

 

Fuck you!

[ender4 0]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

 

but you still need to get all the stuff up to the ISS in the first place!

[Fop 1]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

 

but you still need to get all the stuff up to the ISS in the first place!

 

Moon base and we're 9/10 of the way to Mars. (no not in actual Km, Alex ) All it needs is Parky to spread enough internet rumours about their being oil on the moon.

[Park Life 71]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

 

but you still need to get all the stuff up to the ISS in the first place!

 

 

Break down the ISS and send it to Mars.

 

I really ought to leave my mind to science.

[Fop 1]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

 

but you still need to get all the stuff up to the ISS in the first place!

 

 

Break down the ISS and send it to Mars.

 

I really ought to leave my mind to science.

 

Aldrin idea was pretty simple too (as if you're not coming back it's a much easier thing to do), and they would get enough people willing to do it.

[Park Life 71]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

 

but you still need to get all the stuff up to the ISS in the first place!

 

 

Break down the ISS and send it to Mars.

 

I really ought to leave my mind to science.

 

Aldrin idea was pretty simple too (as if you're not coming back it's a much easier thing to do), and they would get enough people willing to do it.

 

Yup. Sending one man missions is the way forward. Also Mars is livable if you have a few odds and ends with you.

[Renton 18038]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

 

but you still need to get all the stuff up to the ISS in the first place!

 

 

Break down the ISS and send it to Mars.

 

I really ought to leave my mind to science.

 

Aldrin idea was pretty simple too (as if you're not coming back it's a much easier thing to do), and they would get enough people willing to do it.

 

Yup. Sending one man missions is the way forward. Also Mars is livable if you have a few odds and ends with you.

 

You really don't half talk shit.

 

Who the fuck in the right mind is going to volunteer for a one-way solo mission to a freezing desert millions of miles away? Although I could think of some people I'd like to volunteer.

[Park Life 71]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

 

but you still need to get all the stuff up to the ISS in the first place!

 

 

Break down the ISS and send it to Mars.

 

I really ought to leave my mind to science.

 

Aldrin idea was pretty simple too (as if you're not coming back it's a much easier thing to do), and they would get enough people willing to do it.

 

Yup. Sending one man missions is the way forward. Also Mars is livable if you have a few odds and ends with you.

 

You really don't half talk shit.

 

Who the fuck in the right mind is going to volunteer for a one-way solo mission to a freezing desert millions of miles away? Although I could think of some people I'd like to volunteer.

 

 

There's loads apparently. And there is water there. I'd love to go.

[Renton 18038]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

 

but you still need to get all the stuff up to the ISS in the first place!

 

 

Break down the ISS and send it to Mars.

 

I really ought to leave my mind to science.

 

Aldrin idea was pretty simple too (as if you're not coming back it's a much easier thing to do), and they would get enough people willing to do it.

 

Yup. Sending one man missions is the way forward. Also Mars is livable if you have a few odds and ends with you.

 

You really don't half talk shit.

 

Who the fuck in the right mind is going to volunteer for a one-way solo mission to a freezing desert millions of miles away? Although I could think of some people I'd like to volunteer.

 

 

There's loads apparently. And there is water there. I'd love to go.

 

There's loads of people not in their right minds you mean. And I'd love you to go.

[Park Life 71]

"The agency’s current Vision for Space Exploration will waste decades and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reach the moon by 2020—a glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago. Instead of a steppingstone to Mars, NASA’s current lunar plan is a detour. It will derail our Mars effort, siphoning off money and engineering talent for the next two decades." Aldrin

[Fop 1]

The way to do Mars would be to send payloads of supplies and equipment from joint space station we already have (some of the heavy stuff) lightening the payload of the earth launch as much as possible.

 

Then send one man missions to Mars separately on extremely light plastic based launchers.

 

Mars solved.

 

but you still need to get all the stuff up to the ISS in the first place!

 

 

Break down the ISS and send it to Mars.

 

I really ought to leave my mind to science.

 

Aldrin idea was pretty simple too (as if you're not coming back it's a much easier thing to do), and they would get enough people willing to do it.

 

Yup. Sending one man missions is the way forward. Also Mars is livable if you have a few odds and ends with you.

 

You really don't half talk shit.

 

Who the fuck in the right mind is going to volunteer for a one-way solo mission to a freezing desert millions of miles away? Although I could think of some people I'd like to volunteer.

 

 

There's loads apparently. And there is water there. I'd love to go.

 

There's loads of people not in their right minds you mean. And I'd love you to go.

 

 

Are you really saying (given that many of the early space missions were effectively suicide missions, and they still had plenty of volunteers - in fact the initial moon missions were basically - they had no guarantee at all about getting there safely never mind getting back) that no one would volunteer to the be first person or people on Mars?

 

 

They could be supplied indefinitely there relatively easily, certainly compared to getting everything you need to get there and back out of the Earth's atmosphere and orbit.

 

 

The best option IFO's is still a proper ISS and/or a Moon Base, but still it could be viable.