we literally landed on a moving asteroid that will recover material and bring it back to us in 4 years THIS WEEK
but he thinks we can’t land on a moon lol
BUZZ ALDRIN - WE DIDN'T GO TO MOON
- Thread starter quad
- Start date
we literally landed on a moving asteroid that will recover material and bring it back to us in 4 years THIS WEEK
but he thinks we can’t land on a moon lol
If there was any possibility it was bullshit, wouldn't the Russians an Chinese prove it to **** smack us in the face?
The moon landing is grand achievement for the US and mankind and it doesn't seem like any credible source from around the world challenges it.
Why would the Soviets go along with a lie that solely benifits the US and humiliated them?
No peeps on board......unmanned stuff is easy!! Van Allen belt would kill any living creature and NO we don't have hardware to do it.......yet!!
Every single person who tells you they couldn't go because of the Van Allen belts lives in their moms basement.
Even the communists know this
We don't even have the technology to go, land and return now, much less then....FAKED by the DEEP STATE to fund NASA!!
We specifically went through a section of the Van allen belts quicker inorder to lessen the exposure. The trouble is more once you are outside the belts you have to deal with all the radiation from the sun and other cosmic rays. Thats why the missions were short. But if there were a solar flare or another burst of radiation toward the astronauts while outside of them it would have been radiation sickness and death or cancer if they made it longer.
Plans for landing on the moon had been devised decades before we even had jets. A Russian scientist actually came up with the idea of using 2 craft to travel to with one that could land on the moon as the other orbited and ultimately returned to Earth. Landing on a body with no atmosphere and minimal gravity all you need is enough delta V and understand the timing (Hohmann transfer orbit/orbital mechanics) to get into orbit of the moon, capture burn, undock land, takeoff, re-dock, transfer crew and jettison the asssent stage, and then return to earth. Just a matter of timing power and fuel. Saturn 5 was basically like a big block car of the time. Big ass engine(s) strapped to a fuel tank(s). The 2nd stage was basically a modified Saturn 1 that had been flying 10 years. Simple proven tech, lightweight chasis.
The STS program was like a mid to late 2000s car, or a 3 valve 5.4. that while the navigation system was awesome back then, nowadays its damn near useless, maps are outdated, it breaks easily and takes several systems with it, like your climate control. And costs a ton to keep working or to rip out and replace. We should have lost 3 orbiters, Atlantis was nearly lost on STS-27 with severe damage to 700 tiles, most at nasa knew it was only a matter of "when", not "if" it happened. They had to go to old computer swapmeets to get parts for the orbiters. Ambitious but the tech ultimately wasn't there.
SpaceX is basically a restomod. Older designs with modern power/electronics. Thats why it's working. Keeping it simple, and applying impreasive new technology to areas where they can and using tried and true elsewhere.
Now Mars is going to be a bitch. Most unmanned missions don't make it. We only have a 40% success rate overall with all Mars missions, Including just entering into orbit. And the 2 launch windows we get only occur every 1.6 years due to orbital periods being longer on Mars and you need to launch at a certain time to use the least amount of time and delta V to make the Hohmann transfer orbit, and capture burn. Then with a crew you have radiation, isolation, and long coms times of 3 to 22 mins each way. Depending on the position of Earth and Mars. That’s not even counting the atmosphere and increased gravity of Mars to attempt a landing. Even one way would be crazy, and probably end with dying of cancer on Mars.
We made it to the Moon, and back. I've seen the Apollo 13 Command module "oddesy" several times. The problem was once we got there the race was over. The Russians gave up and we were trying to get over Nam. If the Russians made a landing, then there would have been a race to establish a base as it moon is essentially the high ground if it ever came to war with Russia. Sputnik freaked us out... Imagine looking at the moon and thinking there are Russian nukes pointed at you sitting there.
Sent from my Note9 using Tapatalk
Plans for landing on the moon had been devised decades before we even had jets. A Russian scientist actually came up with the idea of using 2 craft to travel to with one that could land on the moon as the other orbited and ultimately returned to Earth. Landing on a body with no atmosphere and minimal gravity all you need is enough delta V and understand the timing (Hohmann transfer orbit/orbital mechanics) to get into orbit of the moon, capture burn, undock land, takeoff, re-dock, transfer crew and jettison the asssent stage, and then return to earth. Just a matter of timing power and fuel. Saturn 5 was basically like a big block car of the time. Big ass engine(s) strapped to a fuel tank(s). The 2nd stage was basically a modified Saturn 1 that had been flying 10 years. Simple proven tech, lightweight chasis.
The STS program was like a mid to late 2000s car, or a 3 valve 5.4. that while the navigation system was awesome back then, nowadays its damn near useless, maps are outdated, it breaks easily and takes several systems with it, like your climate control. And costs a ton to keep working or to rip out and replace. We should have lost 3 orbiters, Atlantis was nearly lost on STS-27 with severe damage to 700 tiles, most at nasa knew it was only a matter of "when", not "if" it happened. They had to go to old computer swapmeets to get parts for the orbiters. Ambitious but the tech ultimately wasn't there.
SpaceX is basically a restomod. Older designs with modern power/electronics. Thats why it's working. Keeping it simple, and applying impreasive new technology to areas where they can and using tried and true elsewhere.
Now Mars is going to be a bitch. Most unmanned missions don't make it. We only have a 40% success rate overall with all Mars missions, Including just entering into orbit. And the 2 launch windows we get only occur every 1.6 years due to orbital periods being longer on Mars and you need to launch at a certain time to use the least amount of time and delta V to make the Hohmann transfer orbit, and capture burn. Then with a crew you have radiation, isolation, and long coms times of 3 to 22 mins each way. Depending on the position of Earth and Mars. That’s not even counting the atmosphere and increased gravity of Mars to attempt a landing. Even one way would be crazy, and probably end with dying of cancer on Mars.
We made it to the Moon, and back. I've seen the Apollo 13 Command module "oddesy" several times. The problem was once we got there the race was over. The Russians gave up and we were trying to get over Nam. If the Russians made a landing, then there would have been a race to establish a base as it moon is essentially the high ground if it ever came to war with Russia. Sputnik freaked us out... Imagine looking at the moon and thinking there are Russian nukes pointed at you sitting there.
Sent from my Note9 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
No idea. Was there any real benefit? Maybe Russia said thank god, this is an incredible waste of money for nothing.
Honestly, I couldn’t care less whether we did or not.
However, I think it’s fair to ask why we are talking about doing it again. Considering where tech is now VS then, why bother?
“BLM is doing God’s work”
2KblackGT
svtperformance.com mobile app
Good stuff in this thread
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
I believe it was paramount that we landed on the moon at the time. Do I believe we actually did it? Can't say that I do. I don't have reason to believe either way, but one thing remains and causes question on my part. If we did indeed land on the moon in the 60's, then why does it seem so challenging to pull off launches post. For example, challenger.
Also, when we returned with the shuttle program, why did we struggle so with re-entry and the tiles surviving. To me, it seems that once you do something, it should get easier, not harder.
All of that said, and the challenges we face today, we either pulled off the biggest miracle in the history of the world, or we faked it.
Also, when we returned with the shuttle program, why did we struggle so with re-entry and the tiles surviving. To me, it seems that once you do something, it should get easier, not harder.
All of that said, and the challenges we face today, we either pulled off the biggest miracle in the history of the world, or we faked it.
We’ve been to space and back (with astronauts on board) over 200 times.
What are you talking about?
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
The idea now is to make a base for future missions to Mars. Eventual economic feasibility.
Economic feasibility?
Are you naive enough to think the GOV and funding is anything but a mirage?
“BLM is doing God’s work”
2KblackGT
svtperformance.com mobile app
You’re missing the point.
If we had to shit can the shuttle program due to failure, how did we land people on the moon?
“BLM is doing God’s work”
2KblackGT
svtperformance.com mobile app
Yeah I get it. I’m not a someone who believes we’ve never been there though.
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
I’m not sure what to believe.
It literally makes no difference though.
Do the math.
What did we get from it? Moon dust lol.
“BLM is doing God’s work”
2KblackGT
svtperformance.com mobile app
What?
The entire space program was a front to build nuclear missiles with captured Nazi war criminals to wipe out the communists.
The early Gemini rockets literally where ICBMs with a man strapped to the top instead of a warhead.
The shuttle was specifically designed to fit and service CIA spy satellites.
Challenger failure is well documented. Service issues with high pressure fuel o-rings on the boosters and a hot-cold cycle that caused cracking.
Columbia again, service issues and a panel being struck by debris and damaged during launch.
The other issues are the chassis where damn near 40 years old which is long for even regular aircraft. They are constantly reused, unlike the previous capsules that where a one and done. Shuttle was also significantly larger with more heat generating surface area.
We did have a moon failure, Apollo 13. The reason we stopped going the moon was, as mentioned, it became clear it was financially stupid. We beat the Russians and the further knowledge gained did not justify the costs.
The other brilliant piece about the moon race wasn't just prestige but also economic impact. Even in the 1960's the US understood the Soviet Command Economy was weak. Much of the cold war was nothing more than to bankrupt the Russians.
Space Race, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Star Wars, Arms Race (Soviets dumping billions into 3rd world shit holes as foreign aid) and lastly Chrynobel...
By 1989 they had no money left and zero commercial industrial base.
I'm talking about the tile issues and reentry problems of the 80s. 20 years after the landing on the moon. All those issues, came 20 years afterwards. Thats why I'm somewhat skeptical. Not saying I don't believe we did or that I'm sure we didn't. Its just odd how many challenges we had 20 years later, which you would think were all worked out.
The biggest giveaway to me on the Moon Landing was the lack of dust and a HUGE CRATER from the Lander's retro rockets....yet when Armstrong took his first walk it was like he was walking in FLOUR.........I called BS right then!!
I don't think the space shuttle program was nixed because of failure. The Obama administration had other ideas
Posts and likes are not mine.
Posts and likes are not mine.
Users who are viewing this thread
