Isn't it obvious what NASA is tryna to do...
 

interest in the space program is going down

so, to create drama, they're giving daily reports of how the astronauts have to do a space walk to repair tiles on the underbelly of the craft so that it won't explode on re-entry...

pssf...this is pathetic...cuz, they've been going into space for damn near 30 years, how come it hasn't been a problem before

instead of creating contrived drama, why not really spur the public's interest by going to MARS.

NASA=

Not
A
Straight
Answer

why do u say it was staged?

^^cite evidence or examples to corroborate your assertion

^^Ya'll still haven't cited examples to support your claim that it was staged

^^^MOST ALL those "examples" are coincidences and inaccuracies...

#1...U can have a footprint without water in the dust...if the dust is thick enough, the grooves in ur shoe WOULD leave an impression

those theories are absurd



space suits are air conditioned


and who knows if Nasa has a special film developed for situations like that...

C'mon...ridiculous

^^^then u choose to believe outlandish postulations and theories...

as a science person, it makes more sense to believe whats more logical than farfetched

and suggesting the US staged a moon landing is ludicrous

i believe they didnt do it. It was all too much of a coincidence that russia was years and years ahead of nasa in space exploration then cuz of the war in america, morale was down so they decided to do sumthin big, i saw that show as well lol but i just dont think its possible for us to land on another planet.

ok hows this for a slice of pie.


no gravity on the moon right? which means no air or wind? how come on the video that i saw the american flag was swaying like it was a windy day?

SIMPLE

There IS GRAVITY on the moon...just less than on Earth...EVERYTHING in space has gravity in the form of graviatation--i.e., the pull of everything in space on each other.

And, the answer to your second question is simple.

The FLag WaVED like that because there IS NO AIR...get it? It's called Inertia
**there is no wind resistance to STOP the flag FROM waving.
All they would have to do is Get the flag Moving manually and it would continue to move because OF the Lack of strong gravitational pull and lack of air.

:( i felt smart for a minute then

Because it takes 6 months to get to Mars, NASA has a hard enough time just with the 9 minute flight into space.. I would say by the time were like 80 they will just be sending humans there..

watch and wait...they're gonna return to the moon...and in less than 100 years, they'll begin building hotels and travel destinations on the moon

I say by the year 2106



and B-Mac...thats my point...it's challenging to get to MArs...but THAT could be the focus of the NASA program and the nation

imagine when we land on mars for the 1st time...that'll be awesome


I personally think Nasa is going in the wrong direction...have u seen the prototype for the "next" gen. shuttle...DEF. a step backwards

dunno WTF they're doing

WHAT?!?!!? man thats impossible. Inertia alone would jsut have one wave, not numerous ones. Nothing on a planet is perpetual thanks to gravity.

And how do you contest the numerous conflicting light sources in the photos, misplaced cross-hairs, and lack of indentation where the LEM supposedly landed??

How they gonna do that? There's millions of trillions of meteors that storm the earth every second, you dont' think they'll catch a few hundred million of em?

if u look at a wave flap, there is DEF. contact between the flag and the pole...that contact could create jus the right amt. of force through inertia to keep a flag "waving"...and since gravity is less of a factor, it would be possible. On earth, wind creates that effect. Though, there is no wind on the Moon. Why else wouldn't a flag keep moving on earth if you wave it? It's because gravity would pull downward on it and eventually stop it.


and as far as light goes, u have to realize that the space craft itself probably had light sources on it...Just because an article written by a conspiracy theorist said it didn't doesn't make it true.


Fact is, going to the moon is quite feasible and I believe more evidence exists to suggest they did it than not.

Oh...and for the people who argue that we didn't land on the moon because of the lack of a dust plume...Well...here's that Explanation.


ON earth, dust plums created by thrusters kick up dust because of the Air between the rocket and the ground...In other words, as the fuel jettisons from the rocket, it pushes downward on the air in between the thruster and the ground. On the moon, there is no AIR. So, as the gas jettisons out the thruster, it DOES NOT create a dust plume.



WE went to the moon.


1

millions of meterites hit earth every day as well.



always have...and we're still here


won't be forever...but that's life.

you should work for nasa q :cool:

no interest...

BUT...space travel interests me...esp. theories concerning space and time travel


thats a whole notha can of worms though

fascinating stuff :thumbup:

nah, no way. There is no way that a piece of cloth is going to absorb that much shock to perpetuate vibration and manifest as waves. Thats' simply unlealistic. The flag is no where near A: that rigid or b: going to multiply energy.

Youd have a valid argument about th light if the ship actually had lights on it. In not a single one of the pics can you see any light at all on the ship.

No one's mentioning dust plumes. I'm talking about a crator from where the ship's thrusters would have displaced material before it landed. And yes there would be a dust plume since it's GRAVITY that makes particles leave and treturn to the surface, not wind. That'd jsut make them move once they were airborne, not prevent them from becoming airborne.

That's all well and good but that dosent' adress how you foresee that any craft would not be decimated by the sheer amount of meteroites coming toward the earth as a craft is tring to exit it.

No i havent seen the next shuttle prototype.. Can you please provide a link i would like to see it..

you don't understand how Newton's 3rd law of motion works...and you're not understand why there ISN'T a crater...It's the same explanation why there aren't dust plumes.

When the rocket lands, the thrusters will not create a crater because there is no air in between where the Rockets are and the ground...It's the pushing down of AIR that creates dust plumes...

and when the rocket takes off, the gas from the thrusters Push against the rocket itself, not the ground or the air...how else do u think thrusters work in absolute space where there is ZERO AIR...


WE WENT TO THE MOON.

PS...and it's not gravity that makes things LEAVE the ground, but gravity is the force that pulls things inward toward the ground.--other forces aren't applicable in this situation--ie., centrifugal and centripetal forces...

Im talkin str8 gravity.

who knows what technology will be created by then to counter that...

but there will be a colony on the moon.


Nasa has already expressed interest...esp. for a permanent research station

and I predict that in another 200 years, there will be a colony or station on Mars.


and B-Mac...I don't have the link...I saw it on the news...it looks like a throwback to the Apollo program = BOOTY!

WHAT?! YOU don't understand how newtons third law of motion works son!! A force has to act on 2 surfaces in order for this to even be factual. It could be the surface of the inner blast shield of an afterburner and a planet (with the force being propusltion), or it could be a hand pushing against a wall. Weather there is no air or not (which ther ALWAYS is), there is still another force being acted upon. I suggest you read up on how JATO works, because with out that basic fundamental knowledge this discussion is going nowhere.

PS, afterburners are moving AIR in order for the ship it self to move, so to say there's no air functioning in space is rediculous. There may not be and WIND, but there is always air.






You still didn't adres the conflicting light sources.

And in this qote you say "who knows what technology WILL be created BY THEN to counter that. That's intersting seeing that you still don't now how it was countered for anyone to "go to the moon" as you say.

1st of all...all of these anti-moon visit theories are absurd conjectures due to inaccurate research...

the truth is this:

#1...The sun provides light...but the 2nd greatest light source is the moon itself...And when you mix in glare and bright white light due to various sources, including the moon's surface, you can get strange and unusual visual representations...that explains the crosshair "phenomenon"...the bright white objects bled into the surrounding areas and created that effect...


Also...Newton's 3rd law of motion says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

A) THRUSTERS work in ZERO AIR...which means it doesn't require AIR to push on


That require 2 Surfaces for Newton's law to be true.

Now, what are those two surfaces? SIMPLE

The Craft is the 1st object and the gas from the thrusters is the 2nd object

when a craft is in Absolute space (vacuum) it can still move because the thrusters push against the craft and the craft against the thrusters...NO WALL or AIR aside from the gas from thrusters is necessary...that's how it works



WE WENT TO THE MOON.


And as far as technology goes, I don't know...I'm not a space engineer...but these issues we're talking about with air and inertia are basic physics

it's real simple...Craters won't be created without the force of AIR creating them...

that's why the apollo craft DIDN'T create one


PS...Satellites are in constant motion around the earth...to say we couldn't go to the moon because of meteors is to suggest that HBO doesn't exist because satellites couldn't survive the constant bombardment.

nah
1

Russia barely wants to commit to this space station like the US has


I also recommend seeing the IMAX presentation on the Space Station


it's awesome

NASA is jus wastin mad money jus to go out there into space for no god damn reason while theres problem here in land they wanna escape their problems in space that is stupid......

1: Nope. Try agian. The moon reflects the sun's light so if anything it'd be an ambient light IF THAT while one were actually one it and it'd be coming form the surface itself. Not from a direct and focused secondary point. That dosent explain the crosshair phenominon at all seeing that the crosshair is BEHIND another image. All the light in the world wouldn't do that. Especially seeing that the object that broke the continuity isn't luminiscent in any way shape or form.


A: False again. First up, the craft landing on the moon would apply force against the craft AND the moon's surface. Not magically defy physics and only apply it to the craft. Secondly, thrusters (aka afterburners) ONLY work off air. Ever see a flame in space? Don't you need air (and fuel and spark) to have fire??? C'mon man, this is thirdgrade stuff. "Thrusters" as you keep callin it only works off the basic principals of air. And they're not called "thusters" they're called Afterburners. They're defined as this:

af·ter·burn·er Audio pronunciation of "afterburner" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ftr-bûrnr)
n.

1. A device for augmenting the thrust of a jet engine by burning additional fuel with the uncombined oxygen in the exhaust gases.

Wait.....did that just say oxygen??? damn....


You keep aying "we went to the moon" but haven't given a credible explaination yet. Sounds liek you dont' even know the fundamentals of a friggin fire.

actually the rockets bring up a supply of pure oxygen with them to direct the ship, and ignite the rockets that propel them off any surface which they may be on.

also, the moon is not a luminous object, it doesnt give off any light whatsoever, it simply reflects the suns.