[J-Man]

That's right folks, it's been 50 long years, some peoples lifetime since we supposedly walked on the moon 238,000 miles away (he he) excuse me while I giggle.

Why has no one returned? Why haven't we returned? It's not like we don't have $20 TRILLION laying around to spend in a couple short years. We do.

No folks, it's because a lifetime later it's pretty clean it was all a lie, just like the fact the earth is flat as Kansas with the Sun and Moon the same size in a dome above us. In fact the moon isn't even round, it's a flat circle projecting it's own cool soothing light.

People really need to stop trying to justify a "never did happen" 50 years later, they look down right stupid with their rhetoric.

[StinkyOne]

China has a lunar orbiter, a probe on the surface, and are working on a manned mission. The moon self-illuminates exactly like it would be illuminated via the Sun. How convenient. I'm guessing you have no idea why that "self illumination" forms perfect crescents, huh?

[Roundy]

China has a lunar orbiter, a probe on the surface, and are working on a manned mission. The moon self-illuminates exactly like it would be illuminated via the Sun. How convenient. I'm guessing you have no idea why that "self illumination" forms perfect crescents, huh?

Yo, I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

[J-Man]

China has a lunar orbiter, a probe on the surface, and are working on a manned mission. The moon self-illuminates exactly like it would be illuminated via the Sun. How convenient. I'm guessing you have no idea why that "self illumination" forms perfect crescents, huh?

So you agree, it's all one big lie ! Sooo many people tried to cover it up for sooo long.

Not this guy from NASA, he admits like you that we can't leave. I'll add "EVER"

[J-Man]

This guy from NASA is a critical thinker for reals not like the bozo's here. He explains in simple terms, we can't do it, not yet, maybe someday (he he) giggling again, no sonny, never....You're trapped under the dome.

Can you imagine the mail still delivered by horse and buggy? We're supposed to believe we haven't learned anything in 50 years.

[Rekt]

That's right folks, it's been 50 long years, some peoples lifetime since we supposedly walked on the moon 238,000 miles away (he he) excuse me while I giggle.

Why has no one returned? Why haven't we returned? It's not like we don't have $20 TRILLION laying around to spend in a couple short years. We do.

No folks, it's because a lifetime later it's pretty clean it was all a lie, just like the fact the earth is flat as Kansas with the Sun and Moon the same size in a dome above us. In fact the moon isn't even round, it's a flat circle projecting it's own cool soothing light.

People really need to stop trying to justify a "never did happen" 50 years later, they look down right stupid with their rhetoric.

NASA has been hamstrung by poor funding and a lack of priority. If we had the money, we could go back there easily. But the Vietnam War, and expenses of it, sucked NASA dry. They had Apollos 18, 19, and 20 planned, but they were scrapped and the Saturn V boosters (Which had already been built) either sent to museums or used for Skylab. The Apollo program cost 110 BILLION dollars, and if you factor in the cost of separate research and previous programs the cost was  (excuse my pun) astronomical. The US government didn't have the motive to spend any money on space after we trounced those dang commies.

[3DGeek]

NASA has been hamstrung by poor funding and a lack of priority. If we had the money, we could go back there easily. But the Vietnam War, and expenses of it, sucked NASA dry. They had Apollos 18, 19, and 20 planned, but they were scrapped and the Saturn V boosters (Which had already been built) either sent to museums or used for Skylab. The Apollo program cost 110 BILLION dollars, and if you factor in the cost of separate research and previous programs the cost was  (excuse my pun) astronomical. The US government didn't have the motive to spend any money on space after we trounced those dang commies.

We certainly could do another Apollo-style mission - but those missions were really dangerous.   NASA's intent with Orion is to "Do It Right" - not to expose astronauts to damaging solar radiation or the Van Allen belts without protection.   43% of Apollo astronauts have had cardiovascular disease - likely due to complications as a result of the radiation hit they took.

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/07/28/moon-disease-apollo-astronauts-more-likely-to-die-of-heart-probl/

That kind of thing was an acceptable risk during the cold-war era when the Apollo program was being run.  We had to beat the Soviets to the moon no matter what - so GIGANTIC risks were taken.

These days, a 43% chance of cardiovascular disease would be UTTERLY unacceptable.  Even the 5% risk of dying that every astronaut takes in launching into space is going to be reduced in the Orion program.

This time around, they want to do it RIGHT.

Doing it right takes more time and money - but if we want to keep manned missions in space, that's a "must have" kind of a thing.

(Of course, we might argue that manned missions are a terrible idea - but that kind of think is beyond NASA's control.  If the US government says "Go to Mars" - then that's what they'll work towards doing.)

The decision to abandon the last few Apollo moon missions was taken in part for cost reasons - but mostly because the risk of failure was far FAR too great.

We were amazingly lucky that only two Apollo missions failed (Apollo 1 and Apollo 13)...the odds were much higher than that.

Returning people to the moon is unnecessary and expensive.   We have a small mountain of moon rocks to study from Apollo - and there are now new Moon rovers trundling around up there gathering more data - but there is only just so much we need to know.   The Moon isn't actually a very interesting place.  We've found that moon rocks have the same composition as Earth rocks (more or less) - and that's an interesting fact - but we really don't need to look much harder at those.   We've found that there is water ice on the moon (but putting men onto the moon completely missed that important finding).   We've also found Helium 3 - which is very interesting - but we found that out with telescopes and spectrometers...not boots on the ground.

So the enormous cost of a new moon mission is really hard to justify.  Better to spend the money going to Mars.

The Orion program is an interesting thing politically.  Recent US presidents have demanded return flights to the moon, trips to land on a comet or asteroid and a mission to Mars...the tech teams at NASA have to switch gears about every 4 to 8 years as the politicians flip-flop around.

So rather than designing a spacecraft with one very specific target (as we did with Apollo) - then tossing the technology aside when we didn't have a use for it anymore - this time around, NASA are spending whatever money they are given on a general-purpose deep-space "system" - including rockets and capsules - that will be useful for any of the likely missions they'll be called upon to perform.

This is a smart way to proceed IMHO...build a universal capability - then apply it to whatever missions are in demand next.

Personally, I think Elon Musk will beat them to it.   NASA should concentrate on rovers and things like that - let the private sector handle the other stuff.

[TomInAustin]

That's right folks, it's been 50 long years, some peoples lifetime since we supposedly walked on the moon 238,000 miles away (he he) excuse me while I giggle.

Why has no one returned? Why haven't we returned? It's not like we don't have $20 TRILLION laying around to spend in a couple short years. We do.

No folks, it's because a lifetime later it's pretty clean it was all a lie, just like the fact the earth is flat as Kansas with the Sun and Moon the same size in a dome above us. In fact the moon isn't even round, it's a flat circle projecting it's own cool soothing light.

People really need to stop trying to justify a "never did happen" 50 years later, they look down right stupid with their rhetoric.

NASA has been hamstrung by poor funding and a lack of priority. If we had the money, we could go back there easily. But the Vietnam War, and expenses of it, sucked NASA dry. They had Apollos 18, 19, and 20 planned, but they were scrapped and the Saturn V boosters (Which had already been built) either sent to museums or used for Skylab. The Apollo program cost 110 BILLION dollars, and if you factor in the cost of separate research and previous programs the cost was  (excuse my pun) astronomical. The US government didn't have the motive to spend any money on space after we trounced those dang commies.

Another problem is that while there were plans, the end products were almost custom in each case.  The plans were modded on the spot and this was long before there were CAD programs to store changes.  Each section was built by different contractors as well and many no longer exist and most have been swallowed up in mergers.  Bottom line is we would have to start from scratch to replicate the Apollo program.   

There is an amazing series of videos on YouTube about the major Apollo sub systems from the suits to the command module.  My favorite one was on the navigation system that was built by MIT.  The computer programs were literally written in wires.  If a wire went through a gate it as a 1, if not it was a 0 (iirc).   

A side note to that story was the inertial navigation system that was tested in an aircraft that flew from east coast to west coast on auto pilot and missed by less than a mile or so.  Not bad considering the poor fools were using a round earth model.

[J-Man]

50 years and just to risky. Um huh

I don't buy it at all. We have money coming out our kester, fools willing to one way ticket to Mars so safety is NOT an issue. These excuses which is what they are, just trying to cover the fact we never went to the moon and never will.

Musk is a shill for the .gov, $5 billion in tax payer dollars.

[Rekt]

50 years and just to risky. Um huh

I don't buy it at all. We have money coming out our kester, fools willing to one way ticket to Mars so safety is NOT an issue. These excuses which is what they are, just trying to cover the fact we never went to the moon and never will.

Musk is a shill for the .gov, $5 billion in tax payer dollars.

There are no one-way tickets with NASA. WHEN, not IF, we go to Mars the astronauts will go and return to Earth safely. The government has money, but we spend 600 BILLION dollars on our proud military. Not much left for NASA after we spend the rest on welfare.

[3DGeek]

50 years and just to risky. Um huh

I don't buy it at all. We have money coming out our kester, fools willing to one way ticket to Mars so safety is NOT an issue. These excuses which is what they are, just trying to cover the fact we never went to the moon and never will.

Musk is a shill for the .gov, $5 billion in tax payer dollars.

The "one-way" ticket to Mars was from the "Mars One" group - theirs is essentially a suicide mission.  People did sign up for it though.  The entire premise was that you'd have to survive until Mars One sent more landers - which would be paid for by filming a "reality show" on Mars.   If the TV show flops - then you're dead.

Not a very good deal.

But the Mars One group has essentially fallen apart.

SpaceX (Elon Musk's company) is still doing well.

That said - I don't think Musk's idea for a Mars colony will work either.   He allows 4 tons of cargo per person in his big manifesto document - but I calculate that it takes an acre of HEATED greenhouses to feed one person - and 8 acres of solar panels to capture enough sunlight to heat them.   4 tons doesn't even pay for enough solar panels...let alone all the other stuff you might need.

I disagree about safety not being an issue.  We need the astronauts to actually GET THERE and be moderately healthy and able to complete the mission when they get there.  So a measure of safety is required.

[Dither]

I believe we will eventually go to Mars and to the Moon.

It can't happen right now because there is too much freedom of information.
Citizens are awake now and would be all over any planed deceit of that magnitude.
Just try to do 911 again, you would have a revolution on your hands.

But when society becomes wonderfully oppressive, and we are being murdered for our views.
Then yes, we will head to Mars and the Moon and meet space aliens and residents from other dimensions.

 

[TheSchwa1337]

China has a lunar orbiter, a probe on the surface, and are working on a manned mission. The moon self-illuminates exactly like it would be illuminated via the Sun. How convenient. I'm guessing you have no idea why that "self illumination" forms perfect crescents, huh?

When seen, the world will be awe struck! Good news right?

New technology and all.

[3DGeek]

China has a lunar orbiter, a probe on the surface, and are working on a manned mission. The moon self-illuminates exactly like it would be illuminated via the Sun. How convenient. I'm guessing you have no idea why that "self illumination" forms perfect crescents, huh?

Self-illumination really doesn't work as a theory.

You only need to get a moderately good pair of binoculars and look at the crescent moon.   You can CLEARLY see the shadows cast by tall mountains and crater rims.  A self-illuminated moon couldn't do that.

This photo was taken by a 2 meter telescope in Chile...



Go to this link to see it at full resolution: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Crescent_Moon_ESO.jpg

Look at the "terminator" (the edge of the shadowed area) - you can see the tops of mountains just catching the last rays of sunlight as the sun sets (or rises) over the lunar horizon.  (Sadly the FE weird-assed laws of perspective would REALLY screw that up!)

You can see that sunlight isn't reaching into the bottoms of those deep sunlit craters close to the terminator - and that tall mountains are clearly casting shadows.

You don't need a (potentially faked) telescope image to see these things.   Your own eyes and a decent pair of binoculars on a clear night is good enough.

So the self-illuminated moon idea is very easily busted.

[Antithecystem]

I'm not a flat earther, but I have respect for flat earthers and I agree with J-Man.
I don't believe we went to the moon, no one and nothing has ever proven it to me.
And then when they say things like: we have to figure out how to get passed the Van Allen belts before we go, it's awfully, awfully suspicious to say the very least.

For the sake of argument, let's say they went to the moon 50 years ago, the astronauts got some radiation poisoning, and now some of them seem to be suffering from some cancers as a result, althou we don't know that for sure, because lots of people get cancers as they get older.

Firstly, if most of them were able to live long, relatively healthy lives, how bad could the risk be?
They have no problem sending people into harms way for wars we know are really over wealth, resources and power, why would they give care if there's some increased risk of suffering cancers later on in life, when they could be undertaking the most amazing voyages humanity has ever attempted, to the Moon, Mars and Venus?

Secondly, if the technology was able to shield the astronauts sufficiently many're still alive and relatively healthy, you think by now after 50 years, the technology would be several times better, and the already minor risks substantially less.

I mean if the risks aren't much worse than the risks of being a heavy chain smoker, why would Nasa stop doing the most phenomenal thing humanity could possibly be doing, just cause the astronauts could suffer some negative effects taking a mere 10 years off their lives, I'm not buying it, who cares?
The risks are relatively minor and not greater than the risks many soldiers, even athletes or extreme sports enthusiasts routinely undertake.

Thirdly, it's not like they're not aware of the risks or they're being held at gunpoint, these're grown men, why not permit them to KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY take these relatively minor risks in order to do the most extraordinary things humanity is at present capable of doing?

Finally if the risks were worth sending them back then, why wouldn't the risks be worth sending them now, did we discover the Allen Belts were 10 times worse than we thought they were, and if so, how did they make it through them back then, was it a fluke, was there a small window in the belts they just happened to go through that allowed them survive that'd be exceedingly difficult or impossible to locate today, or are the Van Allen belts somehow 10 times hotter now than they were back then?
It doesn't add up.

No it sounds more like the real reason is: the Van Allen Belts would absolutely incinerate the astronauts, instantly burn them to a crisp, no chance of survival with the level of technology we have let alone had.
This is just one discrepancy among the many that've been brought to my attention, but the burden is on the one making the claim anyway.

Some shoddy video footage that could've been easily produced by Stanley Kubrick back in the day, in fact he could've done a much better job, and some mineral deposits that're locked away in a vault somewhere no one can review unless authorized, it being almost impossible to be authorized, and many of the rocks and things mysteriously disappearing, is proof of nothing, if anything it's proof of the opposite: we never went.

[TomInAustin]

I'm not a flat earther, but I have respect for flat earthers and I agree with J-Man.
I don't believe we went to the moon, no one and nothing has ever proven it to me.
And then when they say things like that: we have to figure out how to get passed the Van Allen belts before we go, it's awfully suspicious to say the very least.

Okay...let's say they went to the moon 50 years ago, and the astronauts got some radiation poisoning, and now some of them seem to be suffering from some cancers and things as a result, althou we don't know that for sure, because every one gets cancer and things as they get older.
Firstly, if most of them were able to live long, relatively healthy lives, how bad could the risk be?
They have no problem sending people into harms way for wars we know are really over wealth, resources and power, why would they give a shit if there's some increased chance of suffering cancers later on in life when it comes to undertaking the most amazing voyages humanity has ever attempted to the Moon, Venus and Mars?

Secondly, if the technology was able to shield the astronauts enough many're still alive and living relatively healthy lives, you think by now, after 50 years, the technology would be several times better already, and already minor risks substantially less.

I mean if the risks are not much worse than the risks of being a heavy chain smoker, why would Nasa stop doing the most phenomenal thing humanity could possibly be doing, just cause the astronauts would suffer effects and take 10 years off their lives comparable to a chain smoker, I'm not buying it, who cares?
They would be aware of the risks and if they chose to take them, so what, why would not permit them to knowingly and voluntarily take those relatively minor risks in order to do the most extraordinary things humanity is at present capable of doing?
The risks are relatively minor and not greater than the risks many soldiers and even athletes or extreme sports enthusiasts undertake.
No it sounds more like the real reason is the Van Allen belts would absolutely incinerate the astronauts, instantly burn them to a crisp, no chance of survival with the level of technology we have let alone had.

If the risks were still worth it to send them back then, why wouldn't the risks be worth it to send them now, did we discover the Allen belts were 10 times worse than we thought they were, and if so, how did they make it through them back then, was it a fluke, was there a small window in the belts they just happened to go through that allowed them survive that'd be difficult or impossible to locate now, or are the Van Allen belts for some reason 10 times hotter now than they were back then?
It doesn't add up.

This is just one discrepancy among the many that've been brought to my attention, but the burden is on the one making the claim anyway.
Some shoddy video footage that could've been easily replicated by Stanley Kubrick back in the day, in fact he could've done a much better job, and some mineral deposits that're locked away in a vault somewhere no one can review unless authorized and it's almost impossible to be authorized if not impossible, and many of the rocks and things mysteriously disappearing, is proof of nothing, if anything it's proof of the opposite, we never went.

The real deal breaker was money.   The people were sold on teh idea but after a few missions it got boring.  The same way war and terror are sold to us now to sell bombs and bullets, the public was sold on space.  Seems the war salesmen are better.

[StinkyOne]

The Apollo astronauts were exposed to 5 rem of radiation during their moon missions. About the equivalent of 10 CT scans. Not immediately dangerous, but definitely raised their risk of cancer down the road. (increased risk doesn't mean you definitely are going to get it) Manned space flight is expensive (you have to take all your supplies with you), dangerous (see shuttle accidents), and doesn't return better science. Once we proved we could go to the moon, there really wasn't a reason to spend the money/risk lives to keep going. NASA doesn't receive unlimited funds. They have to spend their money on what returns the best science. The moon...kinda boring.

You also have to take views on safety into account when comparing missions today vs in the 1960s. People today are far more risk adverse than they were. Anyone who grew up in the 70s or before can attest to that. With the desire to reach Mars, the moon becomes an important first step, so we may go back, but we won't do it like it was done in the 60s.

[Antithecystem]

Okay Austin, okay Stinky, I guess that works, anyone have any objections to that?

[J-Man]

Okay Austin, okay Stinky, I guess that works, anyone have any objections to that?

You're entitled to believe in what ever you like.

War=Killing or Murder Tom likes that one. It is one of the 10 commandments.
Money=Root of all EVIL Stinky likes this one.

The reason we never went back is because we never went in the first place.

There is a war going on for sure, satan vs GOD
We also get so obsessed with money that we can never make it to heaven because of it, our love of money. That's the verse about it's easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.

If one can give all worldly possessions away and trust in God to supply what one needs, he will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams. He promises us that, most can't or won't do it, soooo, loser !

[StinkyOne]

Okay Austin, okay Stinky, I guess that works, anyone have any objections to that?

You're entitled to believe in what ever you like.

War=Killing or Murder Tom likes that one. It is one of the 10 commandments.
Money=Root of all EVIL Stinky likes this one.

The reason we never went back is because we never went in the first place.

There is a war going on for sure, satan vs GOD
We also get so obsessed with money that we can never make it to heaven because of it, our love of money. That's the verse about it's easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.

If one can give all worldly possessions away and trust in God to supply what one needs, he will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams. He promises us that, most can't or won't do it, soooo, loser !

I've actually read a fair amount of the Bible and I don't remember it saying the moon was unreachable. BTW, did you type this message on a worldly possession?