If you think we have never been to the moon you are a complete idiot. If we can rocket a plane into space have it float around and navigate its way back to kennedy I'm sure we can land on the moon. We have rovers driving around mars as we speak we have telescopes that can see trillions of miles away and you people still don't think we have been to the moon.
@SkatingIsMyWayOfLife So forgetting a word while typing fast makes me a morron yet you don't answer me, so what that does make you ? if this discussion gonna turn up to just mutual insults then it is not worth it.
@wasssuppp08 At some point, you must accept the level of evidence is sufficient. Only so many points of data can exist, and if they all say something, that thing must be true. The mirrors by themselves may not prove we landed on the moon, but the lander, the mirrors, the video, the testimony, etc. are sufficient evidence.
@InitialDAmine We COULD, but there is no reason too in the minds of people. In the sixties, we had to beat the Russians, but now, we have already been there, done that. I expect that as soon as our economy clears up, we'll be back to mine He3, but right now, there is too little money in NASA, and too little public interest in returning.
@zantrua we cannot, with the technological advances the trip cost would be cut by at least 10 times to what it was supposed to be in the 60s, the moon is full of rare minerals that are easy to extract which economically proves to be really intersting! As for Duteriem it is not intersting until we proves that nuclear Fusion does work properly and can be self sustained to produce energy
@InitialDAmine The only thing on the moon we really want is He3, which we don't have a use for until reactors come out that can use it, which won't happen until we have enough to support running one. Cyclical problems suck.
@zantrua there is the one that will prove if nuclear fusion does work or not, it is called the ITER and it being built here in France in an international effort and btw H3 exist on earth in great quatities in deep sea waters
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. There's a partial summary of hoax evidence posted on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon"?. The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
they sented another space ship up there cause theres dididnt have enough feul so they stayed on the for 3 days so they were outta the earth for 9 days cause it takes them 3 days to get there and back
Why has NASA gone for the "egg cup" design for the service module ? And not stuck to a much large "Apollo style" the tubular service module ? Has it to do with weight ?
Shuttle never looked aerodynamically sound, but these do. Unlike Apollo whole crew will land on moon. However, one breakthrough must be made before meaningful space exploration: Creation of impulse type space engine allowing for super fast sustainable speeds. That should be goal: Say, 1/20 light speed. Then Mars would be worth going to (Less than a few days)
A ballistic capsule, with an ablative heatshield and expendable launch vehicles...
Sad and kind of pathetic, really: just how far backwards they've gone. The '60 Dyna-Soar was more advanced.
NASA is not going to allow the development of a reusable system that would lead to gutting their bloated workforce (10-20k, to turn-around the Shuttle). You U.S. taxpayers get to piss away billions more on some stupid Kennedyesque moondirt stunt.
At this rate, TRULY routine space access will never happen.
When the Americans and the Soviets have both told so many lies, fabricated so many things, secretly assassinated so many individuals, undermined so many regimes, backed up many despots then no wonder many people doubt the lunar landings of the late 1960s and 1970s.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
they will probably just recycle this video after NASA claims to have landed on the moon for a "second time". hah
I used to think the lunar conspiracy theory was a bunch of BS until I started looking at the pictures of the lunar surface NASA published. The photos are doctored so poorly its ridiculous. That was before the days of photo shop, obviously, so it was very easy to spot.
They will have much better technology to fake their second attempt, maybe they'll fool us next time.
i was half joking about faking a new lunar landing, they have the technology to do it now, of course.
but, in the 60's NASA was pressured into getting to the moon, mainly by money, and hence a lot of the footage released on landing appears to be staged.
Also, the module was so small its impossible to have fit 2 men with space suits inside and they be able to even move an inch!
Many of the photos have be doctored, with light coming not only from the sun, but many other diff angles as well.
Look up "Mythbuster moon" on youtube. Mythbusters did a whole episode on this subject. They recreated a minature scene with material VERY close to lunar dust and almost identical lightning and they got the same results. Nice try though.
hehe, yeah there is no doubt we have been to the moon, I never claimed we didnt. I'm just stating what is a well-know fact: many of the photographs and other materials NASA released documenting the lunar landing appear to be at the very least doctored in some way. That in and of itself doesnt indicate the landing was a hoax, but it brings into question NASA's motivation for producing such materials.
@InitialDAmine Thats two questions, and 1 the USSR could track spacecraft long before the landing, after all they build a craft that impacted the moon before the USA landing. 2 radiation can be reflected and absorbed, yes they would have received higher radiation doses than when on earth but not high enough to cause immediate damage to the body
@theoneandonly690 there is a difference between tracking and a space craft sending it status and position, the best thing USSR could do till mid 70s was to track about half the way to the moon.
As for radiation,the astronauts might survive the flight if they are lucky enough, but for sure the radiation would causes cancer and other radiation related deseases where the apolo program astraunots are suprislingly healty ....
@TheJomogogo You could have took one min to read what is written in this same page before like acting as ignorant, but here i ll copy it for you could do till mid 70s was to track about half the way to the moon. As for radiation,the astronauts might survive the flight if they are lucky enough, but for sure the radiation would causes cancer and other radiation related deseases where the apolo program astraunots are suprislingly healty
Very cool, but it made me wonder just how much space junk is floating around out there. I suppose it's just a matter of time before it becomes a problem.
Space is extremely big. We could launch all garbage on earth into space and probably wouldn't notice. Every planet in the universe could launch all their garbage into deep space, and we'd be fine.
mtgand: you are wrong when it comes to garbage that is in orbit around earth. those pieces can destroy sattelites, or the international space station, or anything that is on its way into space.
scientists put a lot of effort into tracking all parts that can be detected, they are constantly following them and planning their missions so that there will be no collisions (except for smaller parts that are more difficult to detect but still deadly).
Yes, what I meant was deep space debris. It's harder to get stuff into deep space, but there's a lot of room there. Maybe launching garbage into the asteroid belt; there's already lots of stuff flying around over there.
have you ever calculated the amount of energy it takes to get 1 kilogram of material to leave earths orbit?
your idea really doesnt make sense. with that amount of energy and worktime and money, you could hire scientists to completely decompose your 1 kilogram of garbage into the chemical elements it consists of, and you would still have money/worktime/energy left to make something else out of the sulfur, hydrogen, iron, oxygen, potassium, chlorine, that you got out of it.
as well as all that stuff that comes off the launch vehicles falls back to earth. they release the parts low enough that the earths gravity does pull them down.
Is there some kind of plan to actually do this. I seem to recall there was some talk about making a permanent station on the moon? Something about a launch platform to go to other places. Or are some people just making that up?
I muted this and put star wars music on... lol just right
nathandism 5 months ago
yeah well this was in 2008 and we're in 2011 going to 2012 and they havent sent shit to the moon >:/
BizzNitzz 7 months ago
@BizzNitzz Constellation was cancelled thats why lol
TheWebMan2010 6 months ago
If you think we have never been to the moon you are a complete idiot. If we can rocket a plane into space have it float around and navigate its way back to kennedy I'm sure we can land on the moon. We have rovers driving around mars as we speak we have telescopes that can see trillions of miles away and you people still don't think we have been to the moon.
SkatingIsMyWayOfLife 1 year ago
@SkatingIsMyWayOfLife if you think heading to the moon is like using a rocket plane then you are the complete idiot here.
InitialDAmine 1 year ago
@InitialDAmine I didn't say rocket plane moron learn to read before you judge I said rocket " A " plane...
SkatingIsMyWayOfLife 1 year ago
@SkatingIsMyWayOfLife So forgetting a word while typing fast makes me a morron yet you don't answer me, so what that does make you ? if this discussion gonna turn up to just mutual insults then it is not worth it.
InitialDAmine 1 year ago
sometime i wish i was sitting on a flaming dildo headed for the moon
ISinisterI 1 year ago
@wasssuppp08 At some point, you must accept the level of evidence is sufficient. Only so many points of data can exist, and if they all say something, that thing must be true. The mirrors by themselves may not prove we landed on the moon, but the lander, the mirrors, the video, the testimony, etc. are sufficient evidence.
zantrua 1 year ago 3
@zantrua then why can't we land on the moon 40 years later?
InitialDAmine 1 year ago
@InitialDAmine We COULD, but there is no reason too in the minds of people. In the sixties, we had to beat the Russians, but now, we have already been there, done that. I expect that as soon as our economy clears up, we'll be back to mine He3, but right now, there is too little money in NASA, and too little public interest in returning.
zantrua 1 year ago
@zantrua we cannot, with the technological advances the trip cost would be cut by at least 10 times to what it was supposed to be in the 60s, the moon is full of rare minerals that are easy to extract which economically proves to be really intersting! As for Duteriem it is not intersting until we proves that nuclear Fusion does work properly and can be self sustained to produce energy
InitialDAmine 1 year ago
@InitialDAmine The only thing on the moon we really want is He3, which we don't have a use for until reactors come out that can use it, which won't happen until we have enough to support running one. Cyclical problems suck.
zantrua 1 year ago
@zantrua there is the one that will prove if nuclear fusion does work or not, it is called the ITER and it being built here in France in an international effort and btw H3 exist on earth in great quatities in deep sea waters
InitialDAmine 1 year ago
R.I.P constellation programm
InitialDAmine 1 year ago
Un régal pour les yeux. ! Magnifique . Merci.
alalone35 1 year ago
I SEE CARL SAGAN IN THE TAGS, FUCK YEAH!
magicalwrath 1 year ago
Next faked moonlanding will be digital. Trust me.
joroma77 1 year ago
@joroma77 If this is the best they put out to the public, imagine what they are capable of in digital imagery, the we don't know about.
joroma77 1 year ago
@joroma77
>implying that there was a faked moon landing in the past
zantrua 1 year ago
maybe it's fake ...
provedroved 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. There's a partial summary of hoax evidence posted on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon"?. The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored It happened. You're a moron.
zantrua 1 year ago 3
we should blow up the moon and see wat happens
SadCarnage1224 2 years ago
how did they come back???
derecesange 2 years ago
they sented another space ship up there cause theres dididnt have enough feul so they stayed on the for 3 days so they were outta the earth for 9 days cause it takes them 3 days to get there and back
killertboy16 2 years ago
Why has NASA gone for the "egg cup" design for the service module ? And not stuck to a much large "Apollo style" the tubular service module ? Has it to do with weight ?
kurt30001 2 years ago
Money.
lonnyonline 2 years ago
Shuttle never looked aerodynamically sound, but these do. Unlike Apollo whole crew will land on moon. However, one breakthrough must be made before meaningful space exploration: Creation of impulse type space engine allowing for super fast sustainable speeds. That should be goal: Say, 1/20 light speed. Then Mars would be worth going to (Less than a few days)
alexalex3131 2 years ago
another one... using less fuel to get out of earths gravitational pull, maybe another launch method, but that'd be hard for ares V
supertrinko 2 years ago
if you think about it..pure existence doesnt even make sense..so youre all wrong
agdstardust 2 years ago
Evan though this video is created and posated on the NASA web site i would like to congradulate the poaster of the video for educating the public.
nbc547 2 years ago
@nbc547 Educate us with what? A 3D fantasy?
joroma77 1 year ago
@nbc547 Educate us with what? A 3D fantasy?
joroma77 1 year ago
A ballistic capsule, with an ablative heatshield and expendable launch vehicles...
Sad and kind of pathetic, really: just how far backwards they've gone. The '60 Dyna-Soar was more advanced.
NASA is not going to allow the development of a reusable system that would lead to gutting their bloated workforce (10-20k, to turn-around the Shuttle). You U.S. taxpayers get to piss away billions more on some stupid Kennedyesque moondirt stunt.
At this rate, TRULY routine space access will never happen.
acsial 3 years ago
The sooner this become real and not a NASA animation the better ! The Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2030 !!!
curtis4028 3 years ago
WOW ! The sooner this happens the better ! Afterwards on to Mars by 2029 !!!
curtis4028 3 years ago
Very nice Animation ;-)
BrutusCass 3 years ago
bien...gracias....saludos....klasse...
danke....gruesse....
class...thanks.....greets....
klaus la palma
traumvermittlung 3 years ago
I wonder what the moon hoaxers are going to say about that.
TomSFox 3 years ago 2
They'd say something like, "Well, you can't NOT prove they DIDN'T go..."
jimwalsh2001 3 years ago 2
One thing is sure. They will never admit their mistake.
A11ex 3 years ago 4
As long as something has happened, there will be someone who believes that it didn't and it's all a lie. And vice-versa.
Welcome to Earth, home of the Idiots.
Lucky astronauts get to leave.
michaeldim1 3 years ago
When the Americans and the Soviets have both told so many lies, fabricated so many things, secretly assassinated so many individuals, undermined so many regimes, backed up many despots then no wonder many people doubt the lunar landings of the late 1960s and 1970s.
deliciousonionsoup 3 years ago
@michaeldim1 Good that you label yourself "idiot", so I can just sit back and nod.
joroma77 1 year ago
@joroma77 Sure, yw.
michaeldim1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they will probably just recycle this video after NASA claims to have landed on the moon for a "second time". hah
I used to think the lunar conspiracy theory was a bunch of BS until I started looking at the pictures of the lunar surface NASA published. The photos are doctored so poorly its ridiculous. That was before the days of photo shop, obviously, so it was very easy to spot.
They will have much better technology to fake their second attempt, maybe they'll fool us next time.
andyzohoury 2 years ago
O dear god, please tell me you're kidding.
TomSFox 2 years ago
i was half joking about faking a new lunar landing, they have the technology to do it now, of course.
but, in the 60's NASA was pressured into getting to the moon, mainly by money, and hence a lot of the footage released on landing appears to be staged.
Also, the module was so small its impossible to have fit 2 men with space suits inside and they be able to even move an inch!
Many of the photos have be doctored, with light coming not only from the sun, but many other diff angles as well.
andyzohoury 2 years ago
there are other sources of light (re;reflected light and the light bulb)
verstwo2 2 years ago 2
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. As you said, they could NOT move inside the lander.
The shadows are a result of highly reflective lunar dust and rough terrain.
neverhoodyn 2 years ago
Oh you. They landed on the moon 6 fucking times allready you uneducated bastard.
neverhoodyn 2 years ago
it was fake
killertboy16 2 years ago
@neverhoodyn hahahahaha good one
joroma77 1 year ago
@joroma77 oh you mean back in the early 70's, and then ceased to go there for the next three decades....
joroma77 1 year ago
@joroma77 correction.. FOUR decades
joroma77 1 year ago
@joroma77
hahahahahaha, no.
Look up "Mythbuster moon" on youtube. Mythbusters did a whole episode on this subject. They recreated a minature scene with material VERY close to lunar dust and almost identical lightning and they got the same results. Nice try though.
neverhoodyn 1 year ago
@andyzohoury
How to Proove We Landed On the Moon:
1. Get a big laser
2. Find the coords of the mirrors we left
3. Get a telescope with a photomultiplier
4. shoot the laser at the mirror
5. that blip on the PM tube is light coming back
6. ?????
7. Q.E.D.
zantrua 1 year ago 3
@zantrua
hehe, yeah there is no doubt we have been to the moon, I never claimed we didnt. I'm just stating what is a well-know fact: many of the photographs and other materials NASA released documenting the lunar landing appear to be at the very least doctored in some way. That in and of itself doesnt indicate the landing was a hoax, but it brings into question NASA's motivation for producing such materials.
andyzohoury 1 year ago
@andyzohoury
Well-known
[Citation Needed]
zantrua 1 year ago
@zantrua doesn't prove anything because the mirrors can be set via landers.
Now here are the big questions in which proves the moon landing is a hoax and try to answer them if i m wrong then
1-Why did the appolo program did stop the moment the USSR got the technology to track space crafts?
2-How come the astronauts did survive radiation outside the earth magnetic field in a process that even now we do not have the technology to handle??
There are too many question just not enough room to ask..
InitialDAmine 1 year ago
@InitialDAmine Thats two questions, and 1 the USSR could track spacecraft long before the landing, after all they build a craft that impacted the moon before the USA landing. 2 radiation can be reflected and absorbed, yes they would have received higher radiation doses than when on earth but not high enough to cause immediate damage to the body
theoneandonly690 1 year ago
@theoneandonly690 there is a difference between tracking and a space craft sending it status and position, the best thing USSR could do till mid 70s was to track about half the way to the moon.
As for radiation,the astronauts might survive the flight if they are lucky enough, but for sure the radiation would causes cancer and other radiation related deseases where the apolo program astraunots are suprislingly healty ....
InitialDAmine 1 year ago
@InitialDAmine
Those two questions are easily answered.
1. That never happened. The Russians always had the ability to track the Apollo missions, same way they tracked their own space flights all along.
2. The radiation field isn't that intense, they went through it easily and only recieved 1 rem while doing so.
All moon hoax questions are based on bullshit and ignorance.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJomogogo You could have took one min to read what is written in this same page before like acting as ignorant, but here i ll copy it for you could do till mid 70s was to track about half the way to the moon. As for radiation,the astronauts might survive the flight if they are lucky enough, but for sure the radiation would causes cancer and other radiation related deseases where the apolo program astraunots are suprislingly healty
InitialDAmine 1 year ago
Science!! It works bitches!!
10secstomeltdown 3 years ago 11
Very cool, but it made me wonder just how much space junk is floating around out there. I suppose it's just a matter of time before it becomes a problem.
otissimo9 3 years ago 2
Space is extremely big. We could launch all garbage on earth into space and probably wouldn't notice. Every planet in the universe could launch all their garbage into deep space, and we'd be fine.
MTGandP 3 years ago
mtgand: you are wrong when it comes to garbage that is in orbit around earth. those pieces can destroy sattelites, or the international space station, or anything that is on its way into space.
scientists put a lot of effort into tracking all parts that can be detected, they are constantly following them and planning their missions so that there will be no collisions (except for smaller parts that are more difficult to detect but still deadly).
kurtilein3 3 years ago 2
Yes, what I meant was deep space debris. It's harder to get stuff into deep space, but there's a lot of room there. Maybe launching garbage into the asteroid belt; there's already lots of stuff flying around over there.
MTGandP 3 years ago
mtgandp:
have you ever calculated the amount of energy it takes to get 1 kilogram of material to leave earths orbit?
your idea really doesnt make sense. with that amount of energy and worktime and money, you could hire scientists to completely decompose your 1 kilogram of garbage into the chemical elements it consists of, and you would still have money/worktime/energy left to make something else out of the sulfur, hydrogen, iron, oxygen, potassium, chlorine, that you got out of it.
kurtilein3 3 years ago 2
Alternatively why not just clear up your own rubbish instead of dumping it in orbit, on the moon, in space or on another planet?
deliciousonionsoup 3 years ago
That's the best solution yet.
MTGandP 3 years ago
as well as all that stuff that comes off the launch vehicles falls back to earth. they release the parts low enough that the earths gravity does pull them down.
josiahdallas 3 years ago
neat! .. When does it happen?
Namari12 3 years ago
*****
michaelispan 3 years ago
Is there some kind of plan to actually do this. I seem to recall there was some talk about making a permanent station on the moon? Something about a launch platform to go to other places. Or are some people just making that up?
Disthron 3 years ago
awesome video
RedOrangeSystem 3 years ago 2
Hopefully one day, we can all have a chance at space travel.
lifeisgummo 3 years ago 3
we do, but we just need a lot of cash :D
robinvan1983 3 years ago