It's Too Hard To Go Back to the Moon -- What a Joke!
"I personally believe that China will be back on the moon before we are," NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in a low-key lecture in Washington two weeks ago, marking the space agency's 50th anniversary, still a year away.
"I think when that happens, Americans will not like it. But they will just have to not like it."
Griffin's candor startled many in the space community, but insiders acknowledge the reality. China has pulled off two manned spaceflights with its own rockets and is eager to head for the moon.
NASA has a 2020 deadline for returning Americans to the moon. China would like to beat that.
snip
The U.S. is "more technically advanced. We certainly could be back on the moon faster than the Chinese, but we don't have the political will and therefore the resources to do it," said Joan Johnson-Freese, head of the Naval War College's national security decision-making department.
Oh bullshit.
The WHOLE Apollo program cost $135 billion in 2006 dollars.
One moon flight would cost far less than $135 billion, particularly with technological advances, but let us say it would cost $50 billion because we'd have to design and build new rockets.
$50 billion is only one-ninth of the (horribly bloated) Pentagon budget-- and that doesn't even include the Iraq war costs!
Is $50 billion really such an obstacle for this country?
Or is there another reason we can't go to the moon? The same reason we didn't go before?
UPDATE: To be a bit more explicit, this is the reason the moon landings were faked and why no human is going to the moon in the near future.
The 2020 deadline is a joke.
The whole point is, if we really wanted to go to the moon AND we were capable of it, we could do it in the next two years. And we probably would have done it in the past 30 years as well. We wouldn't be saying we're going to do it 13 years from now.
posted by spooked at 9:13 PM
15 Comments:
What would we go there in, Spooky? You think we have some spare Saturn V's sitting around? The US nor the Rooskies have a launch platform capable of reaching the moon, dumbshit. We did with the Saturn V.
An entirely new launch system and vehicle would have to be developed, test flown and built.
What to do when we got there, too. These wouldn't be a temp site like the lunar bases of the early 70's.
But then again that incredible scientific mind of yours doesn't think we went in the first place.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Oh....I forgot.
fuck you.
"""What to do when we got there, too"""
excuses excuses etc...
by the way, what is the actual temperature on the lunar surface?
make sure to pack your magic in-suit AC units!
and your magic in-suit heating units as well!
moron.
Yes, it's so fucking hard to go to the moon now that we are about 100 times more technologically advanced than in the 1960s.
I am calling bullshit.
If you want to believe the official fantasy, be my guest.
Refer to my article here in June summarizing the laughably bogus Apollo Landings Hoax:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/06/last-great-american-tv-fakery-before.html
And never forget the discussion we had here about the "Lunar Rover" whose front and back tracks do not show up on some "Lunar" photos. And how the bogus Clavius "forum" "explained" this: When they got to a "bump in the road", the Astro-nots/Actor-nauts picked up the Rover and carried it! (Instead of vice-versa.)
Much on youtube taken from the several good videos on the Apollo Hoax.
That other regimes also pretend to be going to the Moon is just more proof of the global conspiracy (while pretending to be adversaries) that I have explained elsewhere. Recall the Chinese ["Communists"] were given advanced rocketry and nuclear know-how by the Clinton Admin.--and should have led to Clinton's hanging for treason.
All smoke and mirrors.
Anonymous Physicist
And notice the anonymous retard at the top--likely swart of bullshit, or a comrade from Langley or Ft. Meade, actually said we had "lunar bases of the early 70's."
This troll is the first to claim that the U.S. regime had "lunar bases" on the Moon in the 1970's.
I guess when you get going lying, it's hard to stop at the official lies, and one proceeds well past it.
A real Luna-tic.
Anonymous Physicist
It's sad enough that you go around billing yourself as a physicist when it's clear that you know absolutely nothing about science.
But when you show that you have no idea what commonly used words like TEMPORARY mean, that's just plain retarded.
Baby low yeild [sic]. We knew it was you...
Those "lunar bases" sure were temporary--try ZERO seconds, shill.
Spooky hits bottom and digs. Moon bases; aliens; hollow moon - it's too stoooopid for words...
And you wonder why you lack credibility...
The only ones who lack credibility here are you imbecile, and your swart.
The very existence here of each of you is proof 1. of the validity of what Spooked says, and 2. Conspiracy involving you that will be smashed.
Two guys making fun of a nitwit is proof of a conspiracy? Giggle...
Hey dumbasses... if the US faked the moon landings, the russians would have told the world and then laughed their asses off.
No laughing russians = no moon landing fakery.
"That other regimes also pretend to be going to the Moon is just more proof of the global conspiracy (while pretending to be adversaries)"
I don't buy that conspiracy view. The Chinese are genuine adversaries. America has sold and provided military technology to all sorts of adversaries in the past.
However, presumably, as adversaries, and given the Chinese do have the will, they would want to utilize a proven-more-than-once, almost 40 year old lunar technology (if it actually ever existed) with the advantage of hindsight, and technological advancement to hand, to at least begin to establish a presence on the moon (at the very least gaining experience), asap.
Indeed, why aren't they up there already? So I do sympathize with the view that the moon landings were faked.
As for Russians as whistleblowers, I think the FAQ at moonmovie.com has a good response to this.
http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=8
i) They didn't have the technology until late 1972 to detect deep space craft (was it any coincidence that "the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled" immediately after the Russians gained this?)
ii) A cost-benefit analysis would imply more to gain from maintaining a diplomatic stance ... the risk of cold-war -> war was always on the cards, and I reckon America could easily have waived it as envious propaganda if they promoted video fakery. The Russians don't advertise 9/11 as an inside job today, when they probably know very well it was, for a similar reason.
Wow... wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
First, "
i) They didn't have the technology until late 1972 to detect deep space craft"
Wrong, Russia launched the first of it's unmanned probes to the moon in 1959.
Anyone with three radio antennas would have known the American ship never left Earth orbit.
Second, "ii) A cost-benefit analysis would imply more to gain from maintaining a diplomatic stance ... the risk of cold-war -> war was always on the cards"
Russian weapons and equipment were used to kill thousands of american servicemen in Korea and Vietnam, but you think that telling the world theier moonshot failed would have caused a war?
Just admit you're wrong... you'll look like less of an idiot that way.
No laughing russians = no moon hoax.
"Just admit you're wrong... you'll look like less of an idiot that way."
That's not very polite, or open minded - you seem to be spoiling what I consider to be a very good blog by making personal attacks on those simply interested in discussing the points.
First, I didn't claim that they didn't have a manned landing on the moon - I said I was sympathetic to the view that they did not, for the main reason given, which I'd like to hear your response (hopefully without personal insult.)
From your actual response, on point ii)- I certainly wasn't implying it would necessarily have lead to a war - but it would have been a factor in a c-b analysis, as it no doubt was with Vietnam, the benefits being clearly more significant in the latter case, tipping the balance the other way.
If the anonymous physicist wants to promote the view that they were not real adversaries anyway then fine - that's another answer from a different set of assumptions. Perhaps those arguing more vehemently that there were no manned landings, but under the assumption of a real adversary, can provide other, perhaps stronger, reasons for why the lack of Russian response?
For point i) - for the Russian probes on the moon or orbiting during the Apollo missions, how would or could these, which were designed for imagery and types of radiation / ionisation detection in the vicinity of the moon, have relayed in any meaningful way that American did not land but maintained orbit on earth?
Luna-15, three days ahead of Apollo 11, Russians, America agree to take opposing trajectories to the moon, maintains contact for 4 minutes on attempted moon landing, probably crashing into a mountain on descent.
Luna-17 (Lunokhod 1 rover released, had one cone shaped antenna) - coincides with Apollo 14,15
Luna-19 (orbiter) - coincides with Apollo 16.
'tis interesting to note that Luna 21 had more sophisticated equiptment, e.g. could "perform laser ranging experiments from Earth" - it landed Jan 8 1973.
Post a Comment
<< Home