The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Did you know that after 50 years the goverment has to release all information about major events that happened 50 years ago?
So what will we find out in the next decade or so?
Did an alien spacecraft really crash at Roswell?
Do area 51 know more about UFO's and aliens then they like to admit?
The horrors of the Second World War.
Was the moon landing a hoax?
What about the things we will find out about in about 50 years?
Exactly what info did the Americans get before September 11?
Have the goverment already foiled a major terrorist plot in the UK?
Is Bin Laden still alive or have the US caught him?
So what will we find out in the next decade or so?
Did an alien spacecraft really crash at Roswell?
Do area 51 know more about UFO's and aliens then they like to admit?
The horrors of the Second World War.
Was the moon landing a hoax?
What about the things we will find out about in about 50 years?
Exactly what info did the Americans get before September 11?
Have the goverment already foiled a major terrorist plot in the UK?
Is Bin Laden still alive or have the US caught him?
Page:
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> And that is to build a base for future international space
> exploration. It would be expensive, but would/could/should greatly
> reduce the cost of future launches to Mars or anywhere else, due to
> launching from lower gravity.
Are you insane? Perhaps when space flight is as regular as the london tube, this might be a viable option, but just to establish a permanent lunar base would be ludicrously expensive. Just getting a craft into space costs enough, but having to ship up hundreds of tonnes of material to put a base down bumps the price very quickly. And then what? You want to build and launch the craft from there as well? More materials, more cost. And with production, launching and testing on that scale, a base would be impossible to maintain without regularly replenished supplies of oxygen, water, energy and fuel.
If, and that's a big "IF", the moon happens to have a sustainable supply of water (lunar ice...) on it, then short term, sustaining the base wouldn't be a problem, but long term, the supply cannot last, and the lunar base would require imported materials again.
Not much point in a lunar base of that sort anyway. If you want to construct and launch ships in lower gravity, then just construct them in space. Simple.
But as far as going back to the moon goes, there is nothing to go back for. So far as we are aware, there are no vital minerals or resources, nothing worth mining or harvesting, no life, no weather no interest. Surely Mars is a better challenge to turn attention to? Huge planet which may or may not have once had life on it (probably not!!), weather patterns, ancient geology and geography, and the possibility of raw materials worth gathering.
The moon, while a huge influence on the earth's weather and life systems, is essentially boring for use as a human tool.
> And that is to build a base for future international space
> exploration. It would be expensive, but would/could/should greatly
> reduce the cost of future launches to Mars or anywhere else, due to
> launching from lower gravity.
Are you insane? Perhaps when space flight is as regular as the london tube, this might be a viable option, but just to establish a permanent lunar base would be ludicrously expensive. Just getting a craft into space costs enough, but having to ship up hundreds of tonnes of material to put a base down bumps the price very quickly. And then what? You want to build and launch the craft from there as well? More materials, more cost. And with production, launching and testing on that scale, a base would be impossible to maintain without regularly replenished supplies of oxygen, water, energy and fuel.
If, and that's a big "IF", the moon happens to have a sustainable supply of water (lunar ice...) on it, then short term, sustaining the base wouldn't be a problem, but long term, the supply cannot last, and the lunar base would require imported materials again.
Not much point in a lunar base of that sort anyway. If you want to construct and launch ships in lower gravity, then just construct them in space. Simple.
But as far as going back to the moon goes, there is nothing to go back for. So far as we are aware, there are no vital minerals or resources, nothing worth mining or harvesting, no life, no weather no interest. Surely Mars is a better challenge to turn attention to? Huge planet which may or may not have once had life on it (probably not!!), weather patterns, ancient geology and geography, and the possibility of raw materials worth gathering.
The moon, while a huge influence on the earth's weather and life systems, is essentially boring for use as a human tool.
> This is a complete lie boy.
> Documents are scheduled to be released at the beginning of each year,
> from around 30 years in the past.
>
> However, if it is necessary, documents can be withheld for another 30,
> 50 even 100 years.
>
> And no files HAVE to be released.
He's right. If it's not in the public interest to release them, then they won't release. Some sensitive documents will NEVER be released. And we'll be none the wiser.
> Documents are scheduled to be released at the beginning of each year,
> from around 30 years in the past.
>
> However, if it is necessary, documents can be withheld for another 30,
> 50 even 100 years.
>
> And no files HAVE to be released.
He's right. If it's not in the public interest to release them, then they won't release. Some sensitive documents will NEVER be released. And we'll be none the wiser.
Arsenal_mania wrote:
> Actully small documents of infomation is released each year, mainly
> ones that aren't to fascinating but after 50 years all documents have
> to be released.
This is a complete lie boy.
Documents are scheduled to be released at the beginning of each year, from around 30 years in the past.
However, if it is necessary, documents can be withheld for another 30, 50 even 100 years.
And no files HAVE to be released.
> Actully small documents of infomation is released each year, mainly
> ones that aren't to fascinating but after 50 years all documents have
> to be released.
This is a complete lie boy.
Documents are scheduled to be released at the beginning of each year, from around 30 years in the past.
However, if it is necessary, documents can be withheld for another 30, 50 even 100 years.
And no files HAVE to be released.
Chances are they've probably released all the sensitive info but we all missed it. However with my eagle eye i spotted one such bit of information in my local rag.
*Big flashing letters on front taking up almost the whole of page*
Matthew Kelly is a kiddie fiddler!!!! lock him up and throw away the key. Read the public's mad outrage at him even though they don't actually know whether he's guilty or not. Pages 5-27 will have gobby Miss Battleaxe mouth off about this subject with no facts at her disposable.
*in the corner in about size 4 font. good job i was going over paper with a magnifying glass*
Alien life discovered all around the Universe. They hope to meet with humans and give us the secret of eternal life. Read more sometime in a few years when we've finally got over the outrage of the latest fad we rag papers like to cause upset about.
*Big flashing letters on front taking up almost the whole of page*
Matthew Kelly is a kiddie fiddler!!!! lock him up and throw away the key. Read the public's mad outrage at him even though they don't actually know whether he's guilty or not. Pages 5-27 will have gobby Miss Battleaxe mouth off about this subject with no facts at her disposable.
*in the corner in about size 4 font. good job i was going over paper with a magnifying glass*
Alien life discovered all around the Universe. They hope to meet with humans and give us the secret of eternal life. Read more sometime in a few years when we've finally got over the outrage of the latest fad we rag papers like to cause upset about.
hmmm although there is a freedom of information act in america have you ever seen a released document?
they are full of blanked out pages essentially making a mockery of the bill
They whiteout huge parts of sensitive info which they say is still to sensitive to release
the truth being you will never know the full story for sure.
they are full of blanked out pages essentially making a mockery of the bill
They whiteout huge parts of sensitive info which they say is still to sensitive to release
the truth being you will never know the full story for sure.
Azul²°°³ wrote:
> Anyway, I know this is sort of off the current topic/argument, but
> it's every year info is released, not every 50 years.
>
> You may continue.
> :-D
Actully small documents of infomation is released each year, mainly ones that aren't to fascinating but after 50 years all documents have to be released.
> Anyway, I know this is sort of off the current topic/argument, but
> it's every year info is released, not every 50 years.
>
> You may continue.
> :-D
Actully small documents of infomation is released each year, mainly ones that aren't to fascinating but after 50 years all documents have to be released.
Anyway, I know this is sort of off the current topic/argument, but it's every year info is released, not every 50 years.
You may continue.
:-D
You may continue.
:-D
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>
> In my view, there is a need to go back to the moon, if we have been
> there.
>
> And that is to build a base for future international space
> exploration. It would be expensive, but would/could/should greatly
> reduce the cost of future launches to Mars or anywhere else, due to
> launching from lower gravity.
>
> Apart from that, if you've been to the moon once, and you know you can
> do it, why not test and perfect your methods by returning, before
> looking to venture further afield? The next time they tried, they
> failed (Apollo 13), so surely they should be looking at the moon again
> before even contemplating Mars?
No, do you know how much it costs to launch spacecrafts? For instance one man had to pay 13 million ( probably a million or so went a profit to nasa but still!)and this was just to go into space add on equipment to get to the moon and youv'e got a lot of money to fork out, and for what to perfect landing on planets. Notice how men aren't going into space on a daily or weekly basis more like a few times a year.
NASA will simply review what they done right when they actually landed on the moon and look at what they did wrong on appolo 13, thus giving them a perfect guide of the do's and don'ts to space travel.
>
> In my view, there is a need to go back to the moon, if we have been
> there.
>
> And that is to build a base for future international space
> exploration. It would be expensive, but would/could/should greatly
> reduce the cost of future launches to Mars or anywhere else, due to
> launching from lower gravity.
>
> Apart from that, if you've been to the moon once, and you know you can
> do it, why not test and perfect your methods by returning, before
> looking to venture further afield? The next time they tried, they
> failed (Apollo 13), so surely they should be looking at the moon again
> before even contemplating Mars?
No, do you know how much it costs to launch spacecrafts? For instance one man had to pay 13 million ( probably a million or so went a profit to nasa but still!)and this was just to go into space add on equipment to get to the moon and youv'e got a lot of money to fork out, and for what to perfect landing on planets. Notice how men aren't going into space on a daily or weekly basis more like a few times a year.
NASA will simply review what they done right when they actually landed on the moon and look at what they did wrong on appolo 13, thus giving them a perfect guide of the do's and don'ts to space travel.
Arsenal_mania wrote:
> I agree with belldandy, the other reason they have never been to the
> moon again is because there is no need.
In my view, there is a need to go back to the moon, if we have been there.
And that is to build a base for future international space exploration. It would be expensive, but would/could/should greatly reduce the cost of future launches to Mars or anywhere else, due to launching from lower gravity.
Apart from that, if you've been to the moon once, and you know you can do it, why not test and perfect your methods by returning, before looking to venture further afield? The next time they tried, they failed (Apollo 13), so surely they should be looking at the moon again before even contemplating Mars?
> I agree with belldandy, the other reason they have never been to the
> moon again is because there is no need.
In my view, there is a need to go back to the moon, if we have been there.
And that is to build a base for future international space exploration. It would be expensive, but would/could/should greatly reduce the cost of future launches to Mars or anywhere else, due to launching from lower gravity.
Apart from that, if you've been to the moon once, and you know you can do it, why not test and perfect your methods by returning, before looking to venture further afield? The next time they tried, they failed (Apollo 13), so surely they should be looking at the moon again before even contemplating Mars?
Belldandy wrote:
> Okay then, where is the absolute undeniable proof of it being a hoax ?
Where is the proof that it isn't? Why blindly take NASA's word that it happened?
> Has one single dethbed coffession ever been uttered
> about it ?
Why would they? They're considered heroes and they've made a lot of money off of it, for themselves and their families. Why destroy all that? Far worse secrets have been taken to the grave.
> Putting men on the mon was, as you've said, a race. It was who could
> do it first, not who could clock up the frequent flier miles to the
> moon. Once the first mission was done, and the related PR and public
> appeal won with it, there was little need to go back when unmanned
> probes could grab samples e.t.c
Apollo 1 was a disaster, killing three astronauts. Over 21 months before the next test, the Apollo capsule had 5,000 changes made to it, but Apollo 2 to 5 all had hundreds of failures.
Apollo 6 was a complete washout - the 2nd stage didn't light, it didn't achieve Earth orbit, and there were 20 major failures in the flight. No significant changes were made from Apollo 6 to 7, yet Apollo 7 was supposedly perfect.
Apollo 8 was supposed to re-enter Earth atmosphere at twice the speed as Apollo 7, and was the first containing humans - yet no unmanned vehicle was sent first to test the theory. Bit risky, isn't it? Considering previous disaster and all...
> Supposing it was a hoax, explain
> Apollo 13 ? Even though they could not land on the moon why sabotage a
> mission that could have been hoaxed again ?
Maybe the Apollo 13 mission was itself a hoax, to persuade "the public" that another moon trip was too risky, and stop them asking "why haven't we been back?" and other awkward questions? (This *isn't* something I have ever thought of before - it's just something that came to mind as I was typing.)
> There was little to be gained from the near disaster and it would
> further endanger the Apollo 11 conspiracy by involving more people.
> Then of course they'd have had to fake up the recovery of the capsule
> from the ocean, and fake effects on said capsule of being in space and
> rentry. If anyhting Apollo 13 goes to prove Apollo 11 was real.
Not at all. Any space flight and re-entry would give the same 'effects' - it didn't have to go anywhere near the moon. I'm not questioning space flight, only a moon landing.
> The problem with Mars is the distance, you've got to launch, fly,
> orbit and entry and land the thing
Just like with the moon.
> Anything mechanical can be faulty or problematic for the slightest of
> reasons, hence the problems they have with it.
Again, the same with the moon landing. And considering that NASA went with the lowest bidders on all of technology used (in many cases awarding contracts to lesser qualified companies because the directors were NASA officials) - and considering that previous Apollo tests were disasters, killing several astronauts - isn't it just a little naive to assume that everything went perfectly on the moon landing flight?
> Because, despite your bit about the belt,
And the bit about the weight/fragility of the LM, and the fact that they appear to have taken more fuel than the LM could carry... ;-)
> there is other info to the contrary saying the radiation would not be
> to dangerous levels.
Space is *full* of radiation, at all times! Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) is a danger, as are the intense levels given off by solar flares (SPE's - Solar Particle Events). Any one of these - and others - could be a killer, let alone all of them combined.
*IF* they ever landed on the moon, it would have been probably the single luckiest space flight ever - nothing went wrong with equipment known to be unreliable; there was conveniently little or no radiation in the areas of space that they passed through; they suffered no meteorite strikes; and there were no solar flares in a year of the highest possible solar activity.
> Okay then, where is the absolute undeniable proof of it being a hoax ?
Where is the proof that it isn't? Why blindly take NASA's word that it happened?
> Has one single dethbed coffession ever been uttered
> about it ?
Why would they? They're considered heroes and they've made a lot of money off of it, for themselves and their families. Why destroy all that? Far worse secrets have been taken to the grave.
> Putting men on the mon was, as you've said, a race. It was who could
> do it first, not who could clock up the frequent flier miles to the
> moon. Once the first mission was done, and the related PR and public
> appeal won with it, there was little need to go back when unmanned
> probes could grab samples e.t.c
Apollo 1 was a disaster, killing three astronauts. Over 21 months before the next test, the Apollo capsule had 5,000 changes made to it, but Apollo 2 to 5 all had hundreds of failures.
Apollo 6 was a complete washout - the 2nd stage didn't light, it didn't achieve Earth orbit, and there were 20 major failures in the flight. No significant changes were made from Apollo 6 to 7, yet Apollo 7 was supposedly perfect.
Apollo 8 was supposed to re-enter Earth atmosphere at twice the speed as Apollo 7, and was the first containing humans - yet no unmanned vehicle was sent first to test the theory. Bit risky, isn't it? Considering previous disaster and all...
> Supposing it was a hoax, explain
> Apollo 13 ? Even though they could not land on the moon why sabotage a
> mission that could have been hoaxed again ?
Maybe the Apollo 13 mission was itself a hoax, to persuade "the public" that another moon trip was too risky, and stop them asking "why haven't we been back?" and other awkward questions? (This *isn't* something I have ever thought of before - it's just something that came to mind as I was typing.)
> There was little to be gained from the near disaster and it would
> further endanger the Apollo 11 conspiracy by involving more people.
> Then of course they'd have had to fake up the recovery of the capsule
> from the ocean, and fake effects on said capsule of being in space and
> rentry. If anyhting Apollo 13 goes to prove Apollo 11 was real.
Not at all. Any space flight and re-entry would give the same 'effects' - it didn't have to go anywhere near the moon. I'm not questioning space flight, only a moon landing.
> The problem with Mars is the distance, you've got to launch, fly,
> orbit and entry and land the thing
Just like with the moon.
> Anything mechanical can be faulty or problematic for the slightest of
> reasons, hence the problems they have with it.
Again, the same with the moon landing. And considering that NASA went with the lowest bidders on all of technology used (in many cases awarding contracts to lesser qualified companies because the directors were NASA officials) - and considering that previous Apollo tests were disasters, killing several astronauts - isn't it just a little naive to assume that everything went perfectly on the moon landing flight?
> Because, despite your bit about the belt,
And the bit about the weight/fragility of the LM, and the fact that they appear to have taken more fuel than the LM could carry... ;-)
> there is other info to the contrary saying the radiation would not be
> to dangerous levels.
Space is *full* of radiation, at all times! Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) is a danger, as are the intense levels given off by solar flares (SPE's - Solar Particle Events). Any one of these - and others - could be a killer, let alone all of them combined.
*IF* they ever landed on the moon, it would have been probably the single luckiest space flight ever - nothing went wrong with equipment known to be unreliable; there was conveniently little or no radiation in the areas of space that they passed through; they suffered no meteorite strikes; and there were no solar flares in a year of the highest possible solar activity.
Page: