Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken from Dublin
No man (never mind twelve! what planet are you guys on???) has ever landed on the moon and no man will in the foreseeable future as we are nowhere near the technological levels required.
|
What technological levels are required to get men to the Moon? Manned spaceflight is a well practised science now. Sending unmanned probes to the Moon is also well-practised. If both the US and USSR could soft-land unmanned probes on the Moon by remote control from Earth, what's so hard about landing a manned craft?
Quote:
|
You can't even send astronauts into low earth orbit nearly 40 years later without killing several of them - what is it now? 17 deaths or something?
|
The shuttle has failed catastrophically twice, both for well understood technical reasons and bad amangement. The Soyuz, which is far closer in design concept to Apollo than the shuttle, has been a highly successful transport to low Earth orbit for forty years.
In the past month there have been two disastrous passenger aircraft crashes, with the loss of hundreds of lives. Does that mean that during WWII we couldn't send squadrons of men in 1940s technology aircraft on bombing raids over enemy territory?
Quote:
|
Yet you believe 12 were sent with 1960's technology to the moon, to walk around, play golf and drive cars up there and delivered them back safely to the Earth???
|
Yes, because the sheer volume of evidence points no other way. Do you even know just how much material there is documenting the devlopment, construction and execution of those missions?
Quote:
|
Carl Sagan - America's most famous astronomer - never promoted the lie in his lifetime and in one of his last interviews stated that the Apollo program was just about intimidating other nations and beating the Russians, just falling short of stating it was a cold war exercise lest he be demonised by brainwashed fanatics like yourselves.
|
I admire your ability to creatively twist that quote from 'it was a political stunt' to 'it was faked'. Do you really not see a difference?
Quote:
|
Later on in the same interview he stated that NASA's greatest achievements were the Viking missions to Mars.
|
So? Can you think of no way in which remotely landing an unmanned vehicle on a planet millions of miles away with a radio delay of anything from 5 to 20 minutes and then having it send back pictures
and do worthwhile science with no human within 50 million miles could be considered a greater achievement than sending a few men a couple of hundred thousand miles?
Quote:
|
In 1994 NASA's chief administrator admitted/let slip in a British TV interview that no astronaut can travel above 400 miles until it can be figured out how to protect them from lethal cosmic radiation.
|
Context please. This gets trotted out a lot, and everyone who thinks it relates to Apollo overlooks the fact that he was talking about missions to Mars or setting up bases on the Moon, i.e.
long duration flights. Duration is a critical factor in exposure to radiation of any kind. A few days may be safe, but a few months can be lethal.
Do you have any actual evidence to support your contention it was fake, or must we be bombarded with yet more innuendo and context-free misquotes?