Whether the conspiracy was possible or if there was a motive for faking the landings, is a big part of the moon hoax. Many conspiracy […]
Continue Reading Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Why Fake a Moon Landing?
I would like to point out the Apollo 11 press conference. take a look at Neil Armstrong, he is very nervous and is very very thoughtful of the words he chooses.Michael Collins seems to be somewhat normal looking,as far as his composure.Then Buzz Aldrin has a stern “not gonna give you no answer”type face.
You don’t even have to be a professional to figure their body language.it is so noticeable of a guilty composure!
Why would any of their composure be so nervous as if they had something to hide. Supposedly they accomplished a great feat they should have been very happy, but this wasn’t the case.
Just more evidence that leads the people to not believe their story.
“I would like to point out the Apollo 11 press conference. take a look at Neil Armstrong, he is very nervous and is very very thoughtful of the words he chooses.”
If you knew anything about Neil Armstrong you would understand that he is a very quiet and reserved person who does not enjoy public speaking. Being “shy” does not make him a liar.
“Then Buzz Aldrin has a stern “not gonna give you no answer”type face.”
The astronauts were mostly military test pilots who were used to dealing with machines and talking in precise technical terms with engineers. They were thrown into the public eye unexpectedly and some didn’t handle it very well. Again, this isn’t proof that they were lying.
“You don’t even have to be a professional to figure their body language.it is so noticeable of a guilty composure!”
I think you’re seeing things the way you want to see them. Sure, they don’t appear completely comfortable in front of the cameras, but that doesn’t mean they’re lying. Many people get nervous when they do public speaking, it’s not a sign that they are being untruthful.
“Supposedly they accomplished a great feat they should have been very happy, but this wasn’t the case.”
Yeah… just look at the grumpy looks on their faces in this picture:
America always wanted to be the super powers..and so, the will play even the dirtiest games to achieve it !
Coming to the subject,we need not get nervous when we are proud of such a great achievement..but why would Neil be Nervous? It itself clearly shows that its the begining of a conspiracy ..Never believe the media or the Decision Makers…we cannot even think of the ideas and dirty way their mind works !!!!
why haven`t they gone back to the moon in almost 50 years
I would like to ask the question: How did NASA fit the lunar rover on the spaceship? someone please answer this question!
The rovers were folded up and mounted on the outside of the Lunar Module (LM).
You can see what I mean in the following picture…
I see that, however, i believe that we did go to the moon… but i wonder why we have not gone back ever since!?
There are two main reasons we haven’t gone back to the moon.
1. It’s REALLY expensive. The Apollo Program cost $25 billion (which would be around $170 billion in today’s dollars). Many people considered continuing to go to the moon after beating the Russians a waste of money (I don’t agree, but I don’t get to decide what NASAs budget is).
2. Politics. One President will announce plans to return to the moon, another President will scrap those plans. NASA will be stuck in Low Earth Orbit until both political parties can agree on a long term goal (going to the moon, or to Mars, for example).
Apollo happened at a special time in American history. The United States was competing with the Soviets and this justified the cost of going to the moon for many people. Without that kind of competitive rivalry the United States has a hard time justifying an expensive space program today.
People saw Apollo as a race against the Russians. After the race was won people didn’t see the point in continuing to run.
The third reason is that it’s still really *hard*. It’s not trivial to engineer manned spacecraft and man-rated launchers, even with the last 40 years of experience, and getting out of Earth’s gravity well is no easier now than it was then. Getting off the ground and to Earth orbit is literally more than half of the battle of any space mission. We’ve squeezed every ounce of performance out of conventional liquid and solid rockets we can get. There are systems that can feasibly be built with current technology and offer greater performance to orbit, but tend to be *very* environmentally unfriendly (nuclear thermal, pulsed nuclear).
There is really no need to go back to the moon we haveeverthing we needed from that landing
When I think of the moon landings I think “Wow, if we did go how come all the science that is coming now – i.e. WATER – is so new.” Seems if we went to the moon, water would have been easy for these astrodingbats to have found but that never happened because we never went.
Water is *rare* on the Moon; in fact, it’s pretty limited to craters at the poles that are constantly in shadow. There are elements on Earth that are rare enough that if you aren’t sampling in the exact right place, you’d never know they were there.
The Apollo missions sampled a *tiny* portion of the lunar surface. All of the sites are on the near side, and most were chosen mostly for ease of landing than scientific interest. Notably, all got plenty of sunlight during a lunar “day”, so any water near the surface would have long since boiled off into space.
This is why missions like Clementine and LRO and LCROSS are so valuable; they provide a global overview of the Moon, and provide some context that was missing from the Apollo missions. They’re also a helluva lot cheaper than sending people.
There is plenty we still *don’t* know about the Moon.
if nasa got men to land on the moon with the technology in 1969 how come with the tremendous leaps in technology has nasa never attempted a moon mission and landing again?
First of all, they DID do it again. Apollo 11 was not the only mission to the Moon… there were 6 landings (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17), one aborted landing (Apollo 13), and two lunar orbiting missions (Apollo 8 and 10).
But there are several reasons why no one has returned to the Moon since 1972. The biggest reason is that it is extremely expensive. Few countries can afford to spend billions of dollars to send people to the Moon, they have more important priorities. Even the United States with it’s huge budget has a hard time justifying such an expensive space program.
The second reason is that even if the cost wasn’t an issue, it is still a very difficult (and dangerous) thing to do. Just getting people into low Earth orbit is something only three countries have been able to do.
And then you have interference from politicians. You’ll see one government announce plans to return to the Moon and then the following government will cancel those plans. It’s difficult for NASA to set long term goals when the political climate changes so often. If NASA is ever going to accomplish anything as great as Apollo again it will require the cooperation of both the Democratic and Republican parties for a long period of time, and that kind of cooperation is rare.
I think I’ve answered this exact question several times already.
In a nutshell:
1. It’s expensive. Apollo wound up costing over US $170 bn in 2005 dollars, which is a lot for any single program. We weren’t running the kinds of deficits in 1960 that we are now, and people were screaming about the cost back then. Any modern lunar program would wind up costing at least US $200 bn, partly because of pork-barrel politics, but mostly because…
2. It’s hard. It doesn’t matter how advanced your electronics and computers are, it still takes 9 – 10 km/s delta-V to reach Earth orbit (although if you make it to LEO, you’re halfway to just about anywhere in the inner solar system). Liquid-fueled rocket engines haven’t advanced that much beyond Apollo days, mainly because they were about as advanced as they could get already. Any gains have been incremental (a few more seconds Isp, a few more N of thrust, etc.). A manned lunar mission means a super-heavy lifter, which means a new launcher built from scratch (what the Ares V would have been before it was cancelled). Current heavy lifters such as the Delta-IV Heavy can’t do the job; they can’t lift enough mass to orbit. And they’re not man-rated. Building spacecraft to keep people alive between here and there hasn’t gotten any easier, either; it still takes so much mass, it still takes so much engineering. Again, any improvements over Apollo-era systems would be incremental.
3. National priorities have changed since 1960. We’re not in the middle of a dick-waving exercise with the Soviet Union; there’s no Soviet Union left to compete with. There’s no reason to send people to the Moon except to do basic exploration, and technology has advanced to the point where we don’t need to send people to do basic exploration anymore.
There are plenty of people who would love to build on the Apollo legacy, but they’re outnumbered by the people who aren’t willing to pay for it.
thay made it so that is that.
They haven’t gone back to the moon because it’s going to be much harder to fake a moon landing now that we have very advanced color cameras
We spend most of our budget (trillions) on war, blowing up other people and our planet, instead of using that money so we as the human race can explore our galaxy. Pathetic, we need a new Government. We are de-evolving.
The moon is a dead wasteland. Why would we go back? What possible profit could there be in a return to the moon? Are we going to be able to obtain something there that we can not acquire here?
No. There is nothing on the moon compelling enough to return. We’ve “been there, done that.” I’ve been to the Grand Canyon a few times, spending quite a sum each time to make the trip. I have no desire to duplicate a redundant effort considering the expenditure involved.
A return to the moon is pointless, by any and every practical measurement. Feed our poor and end our wars first, then turn your eyes toward frivolous endeavors with no tangible benefits.
Are there REALLY this many ignorant people on this planet, or are they just disproportionately vociferous?
I’m really hoping it’s #2 — or we’re all doomed.
You said US was loosing in Space Race with Soviet. That;s not entirely true because the Americans were catching up fast the soviet achievement in space.
Especially, the americans equalized their achievement in space exploration with Gemini program.
With Gemini 3 launched in March 1965 carrying John Young,Gus Grissom, the astronauts changed for the first time the orbit of the space craft. ( the soviet spacecraft couldnt because they were controlled by the mission control)
With Gemini 4 launched in June 1965 carrying Jim Mcdivitt,Edward White, Edward white did a space walk longer than Alexey leonov who was the soviet cosmonaut who did the spacewalk for 12 minutes in March of that year. Edward white walked in space for 21 minutes.
The Astronauts in Gemini 5 launched later in 1965 were in space for 1 week.They broke the record set by the soviets with the flight of Vostok 5(The cosmonaut stayed in space for 5 days)
Gemini 6 and 7 carrying Wally Schirra,Tom Stafford and Jim Lovell and Frank Borman achieved a very close rendez vous within the distance of 1 meter between two spacecrafts. The soviet already did that but the distance between two manned spacecraft was longer. And the astronauts in gemini 7 were on Earth for 2 weeks. With Gemini 10, 11, 12, the docking in space was made possible by the americans. Not the soviets. And the technique of the Extra vehicular Activity aka Spacewalk was being developped by the Americans while in the other hand, the soviet didnt do the same after the very first spacewalk they did with Voskhod 2 in 1965. And mentionning the space station is not right because the soviet space station Mir was launched in 1986 way long after the gemini/apollo program. And the Salyut which was the first spacestation was launched in 1971 to equal the americans on the moon. So, To say that US was loosing with the launch of the first space station is not logic. However, we should thank to Mr Nixon for cutting the NASA budget. If we continued with apollo program without budget cut, we could have achieved a significant progress in Space Exploration.