The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I hope that the Goverment isn't going to use the 50 year rule to announce the following:
"We regret to announce that 50 years ago we discovered a vast asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. We estimated at the time, that it would take 51 years to reach our planet."
"We regret to announce that 50 years ago we discovered a vast asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. We estimated at the time, that it would take 51 years to reach our planet."
Belldandy wrote:
> 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 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 ?
I agree with belldandy, the other reason they have never been to the moon again is because there is no need.
It would be a waste of time and money.
The moon is uninhabitid and there is nothing else to learn about the moon.
> 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 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 ?
I agree with belldandy, the other reason they have never been to the moon again is because there is no need.
It would be a waste of time and money.
The moon is uninhabitid and there is nothing else to learn about the moon.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> I personally love all this conspiracy theory stuff. When the truth
> comes out, I'd care a lot less.
I'd have to agree, there is the theory that governments cannot talk about 'Aliens' because it may cause hysteria if they announce there is life on other planets....big deal...most people believe there is anyway whether we're in contact with them or not!
> I personally love all this conspiracy theory stuff. When the truth
> comes out, I'd care a lot less.
I'd have to agree, there is the theory that governments cannot talk about 'Aliens' because it may cause hysteria if they announce there is life on other planets....big deal...most people believe there is anyway whether we're in contact with them or not!
I personally love all this conspiracy theory stuff. When the truth comes out, I'd care a lot less. Not saying I don't want to know the answers though. :0)
If the moon landing turned out to be a hoax in the end, I'd just laugh. I'd talk with my friends about how it's "a great big pile of a**e", and that's about it. I'd find it interesting.
The past has gone. I've learnt enough from it to never fully trust anything already.
If the moon landing turned out to be a hoax in the end, I'd just laugh. I'd talk with my friends about how it's "a great big pile of a**e", and that's about it. I'd find it interesting.
The past has gone. I've learnt enough from it to never fully trust anything already.
Has anyone noticed though that we went to having spitfires in WW2 to having the Blackbird in 1957 which could hit Mach 3 (3 times the speed of sound) to landing on the moon in the late 60's, very quickly...i mean that is some impressive technological advance to be able to go from a Spitfire in WW2 to landing on the moon...
...And since then, where has the technological advances been - Surely the Stealth didn't take twice as long to create (late 60's to early 90's - 40 years) as is did to go from the spitfire to the moon landing (20 years)!
...And since then, where has the technological advances been - Surely the Stealth didn't take twice as long to create (late 60's to early 90's - 40 years) as is did to go from the spitfire to the moon landing (20 years)!
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I resent the implication that anyone who doesn't believe the moon
> landing happened is a geek and/or conspiracy theorist.
Okay then, where is the absolute undeniable proof of it being a hoax ? Not theoretical reasoning, I mean hard damning evidence to suggest it never happened ? Has one single person ever come forward and claimed to be part of it ? Has one single dethbed coffession ever been uttered about it ? Erm...nope. You're really telling me that the 3 who went on the Apollo 11 mission have never once ever let it slip that it was a hoax ? That they never told anyone around them ? So yes, anyone who doesn't believe it is indeed a conspiracy theorist, and you said the geek word, not me :)
> The US rushed to "the moon" to beat the USSR. Isn't it even
> remotely suspicious that they've never gone back? When computers used
> valves and filled rooms, they managed to put a man on the moon - which
> by all accounts would be difficult to do even today? If they could
> land men on the moon gently in the 60's, why are they still having
> trouble landing unmanned craft on Mars? Why all the airbags and fancy
> landing solutions?
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 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 ?
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. The fact that computer used valves and filled rooms is somewhat an exageration isn't it ? Even so just under 30 years ago we'd cracked the secrets of making an A bomb, with these same computers and technology.
The problem with Mars is the distance, you've got to launch, fly, orbit and entry and land the thing, all in piece Anything mechanical can be faulty or problematic for the slightest of reasons, hence the problems they have with it. A manned landing of mars is probably going to be easier because it will involve people who are really there, not a program or remote controllers.
> As already stated, I DID believe in the moon landing. But for me, the
> facts about radiation alone are reasonable cause for doubt.
Because, despite your bit about the belt, there is other info to the contrary saying the radiation would not be to dangerous levels. Anyone - I mean in general here, not you - who says we never went to the moon is themselves ignoring a hell of a lot of facts.
> But then if your mind is made up, why confuse it with facts?
This is the greatest mystery of the forums...:)
~~Belldandy~~
> I resent the implication that anyone who doesn't believe the moon
> landing happened is a geek and/or conspiracy theorist.
Okay then, where is the absolute undeniable proof of it being a hoax ? Not theoretical reasoning, I mean hard damning evidence to suggest it never happened ? Has one single person ever come forward and claimed to be part of it ? Has one single dethbed coffession ever been uttered about it ? Erm...nope. You're really telling me that the 3 who went on the Apollo 11 mission have never once ever let it slip that it was a hoax ? That they never told anyone around them ? So yes, anyone who doesn't believe it is indeed a conspiracy theorist, and you said the geek word, not me :)
> The US rushed to "the moon" to beat the USSR. Isn't it even
> remotely suspicious that they've never gone back? When computers used
> valves and filled rooms, they managed to put a man on the moon - which
> by all accounts would be difficult to do even today? If they could
> land men on the moon gently in the 60's, why are they still having
> trouble landing unmanned craft on Mars? Why all the airbags and fancy
> landing solutions?
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 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 ?
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. The fact that computer used valves and filled rooms is somewhat an exageration isn't it ? Even so just under 30 years ago we'd cracked the secrets of making an A bomb, with these same computers and technology.
The problem with Mars is the distance, you've got to launch, fly, orbit and entry and land the thing, all in piece Anything mechanical can be faulty or problematic for the slightest of reasons, hence the problems they have with it. A manned landing of mars is probably going to be easier because it will involve people who are really there, not a program or remote controllers.
> As already stated, I DID believe in the moon landing. But for me, the
> facts about radiation alone are reasonable cause for doubt.
Because, despite your bit about the belt, there is other info to the contrary saying the radiation would not be to dangerous levels. Anyone - I mean in general here, not you - who says we never went to the moon is themselves ignoring a hell of a lot of facts.
> But then if your mind is made up, why confuse it with facts?
This is the greatest mystery of the forums...:)
~~Belldandy~~
On the whole Russian thing:
After already putting a man in space, I think it could still be too late to 'lose' the space race.
If they knew the US landing to be a hoax, it seems likely they couldn't prove it, with evidence no better than what the US could 'produce'. Add to that an international audience for whom seeing is believing, who don't want to entertain doubt.
Meanwhile, any protest would make them look like sore losers who couldn't stop whinging, and if they were to kick off about it, the bad feeling in the cold war would be escalated in a way they probably didn't want.
Maybe the Russians didn't want to debate it.
Again, pure speculation, but to me it makes the Russian thing seem inconclusive at best.
As for communist ideology, one of the practical flaws of communism has always been the corruption it breeds. Why not here?
As for the Americans disproving any conspiracy theories, if they start they'll have to explain every single one, or it'll look even more suspicious.
A big waste of their time, to solve a problem they probably don't really care about.
Area 51? Where do governments test their new hardware or conduct research? It has to be somewhere, why not there? Could be aliens, but certainly not necessarily.
I know someone who's school was, apparently, next to a military base that wasn't on the map. Apparently.
Back to the moon, I'm not convinced either way, but I thought I'd throw some more thoughts into the thread.
After already putting a man in space, I think it could still be too late to 'lose' the space race.
If they knew the US landing to be a hoax, it seems likely they couldn't prove it, with evidence no better than what the US could 'produce'. Add to that an international audience for whom seeing is believing, who don't want to entertain doubt.
Meanwhile, any protest would make them look like sore losers who couldn't stop whinging, and if they were to kick off about it, the bad feeling in the cold war would be escalated in a way they probably didn't want.
Maybe the Russians didn't want to debate it.
Again, pure speculation, but to me it makes the Russian thing seem inconclusive at best.
As for communist ideology, one of the practical flaws of communism has always been the corruption it breeds. Why not here?
As for the Americans disproving any conspiracy theories, if they start they'll have to explain every single one, or it'll look even more suspicious.
A big waste of their time, to solve a problem they probably don't really care about.
Area 51? Where do governments test their new hardware or conduct research? It has to be somewhere, why not there? Could be aliens, but certainly not necessarily.
I know someone who's school was, apparently, next to a military base that wasn't on the map. Apparently.
Back to the moon, I'm not convinced either way, but I thought I'd throw some more thoughts into the thread.
VenomByte wrote:
> Something like 60% of Americans don't believe they landed on the moon,
> so if it is a hoax, it hasn't exactly convinced everyone.
Most of America still thinks Britain is run by the monarchy.
> Something like 60% of Americans don't believe they landed on the moon,
> so if it is a hoax, it hasn't exactly convinced everyone.
Most of America still thinks Britain is run by the monarchy.
Belldandy wrote:
> So anyone who suggests the USA and USSR worked together on this
> really should get their head out of conspiracy books and web sites,
> and go read some real history.....
I resent the implication that anyone who doesn't believe the moon landing happened is a geek and/or conspiracy theorist.
The US rushed to "the moon" to beat the USSR. Isn't it even remotely suspicious that they've never gone back? When computers used valves and filled rooms, they managed to put a man on the moon - which by all accounts would be difficult to do even today? If they could land men on the moon gently in the 60's, why are they still having trouble landing unmanned craft on Mars? Why all the airbags and fancy landing solutions?
As already stated, I DID believe in the moon landing. But for me, the facts about radiation alone are reasonable cause for doubt.
But then if your mind is made up, why confuse it with facts?
> So anyone who suggests the USA and USSR worked together on this
> really should get their head out of conspiracy books and web sites,
> and go read some real history.....
I resent the implication that anyone who doesn't believe the moon landing happened is a geek and/or conspiracy theorist.
The US rushed to "the moon" to beat the USSR. Isn't it even remotely suspicious that they've never gone back? When computers used valves and filled rooms, they managed to put a man on the moon - which by all accounts would be difficult to do even today? If they could land men on the moon gently in the 60's, why are they still having trouble landing unmanned craft on Mars? Why all the airbags and fancy landing solutions?
As already stated, I DID believe in the moon landing. But for me, the facts about radiation alone are reasonable cause for doubt.
But then if your mind is made up, why confuse it with facts?
Belldandy wrote:
> Indeed we don't, but the craft only took just under na hour passing
> through the Van Allen belt, not enough time to be dangerously
> exposed....
In March 1959, Van Allen stated that the inner belt extended from 1500 to 3000 miles and the upper belt from 8000 to 55000 miles. This was based on info received from Pioneer 4.
Later the same year, Van Allen corrected that info to a maximum distance of 64000 miles - an increase of 9000 miles over the Pioneer 4 data and 41000 miles compared to the figures still given by the scientific community today.
NASA has always emphasised that the astronauts travelled through the belts quickly, staying less than an hour in these intense zones of radiation.
The belts actually extend to at least 54,000 miles out, and are twice the depth compared with data generally available from NASA. Any astronaut would therefore have spent over two hours in each direction, absorbing high levels of radiation for a total of approximately four hours.
In fact, NASA themselves stated that Apollo 8 astronaut Frank Bormann suffered nausea and diarrhoea after his passage through the Van Allen belts, as a result of the radiation exposure.
And that's not taking into account natural solar radiation beyond the belts, and the intense radiation given off by solar flares.
The Earth's magnetic field protects astronauts from many potentially lethal effects of space travel up to about 500 miles. 1969 and 1970 were years of high solar radiation. Those on the "moon landing" flight would have experienced exposure to some of the highest levels in the 11-year solar cycle.
In 1958 Carsbie Adams stated that small meteorites striking a spacecraft would explode upon impact and might penetrate the hull. Larger meteorites would pass through the craft "as if it were made of cheese". Constant ethcing by meteorites would destroy any exterior protective surface and reduce reflectivity, which would increase the heat of the craft. A puncture by even one meteorite would ensure explosive decompression of the the ship with the loss of all life on board. Aluminium was particularly susceptible, while stainless steel fared better.
At the time of these assessments, it was understood that to build a craft strong enough to resist all impacts would be impossible. It came down to a decision based on how much of the craft needed special protection, given that every square foot of hull added 2lbs of weight. Adequate coverage could then run into tons, mass which the Americans were not capable of putting into orbit.
Other factors to consider:
The launch weight of the LM of Apollo 11 was 14.82 tons. This was increased to 16.18 tons on later LM models. The LM was stowed fully loaded on top of the third stage of the Saturn V rocket. Being uniquely designed to fly in the vacuum of space, the LM's structure was so delicate (according to many sources) that it could not support its own weight in an Earth environment. Yet the same LM would have had to endure the maximum thrust of the Saturn V's first and second stages at full acceleration - which amounts to at least 7G's - an equivalent weight of 103.74 tons. How did it survive?
According to the scenario published by NASA themselves, the LM could not have landed on the moon or taken off again! According to NASA, the LM consumed more than half its own weight in fuel during the decent stage, which should have brought the amount of propellants down to around 8 tons for the LM's decent stage. Eagle's decent tanks held 8 tons of fuel, and the ascent tanks held 2.3 tons. Armstrong allegedly landed with 2% of available fuel remaining. He overshot the landing site by 1000 feet, which apparently cost an extra 40 seconds, leaving 400lbs of fuel in the decent tanks. If 400lbs is 2% then 100% is 20000lbs which is around 9 tons - one ton MORE than the they started out with at launch.
> Indeed we don't, but the craft only took just under na hour passing
> through the Van Allen belt, not enough time to be dangerously
> exposed....
In March 1959, Van Allen stated that the inner belt extended from 1500 to 3000 miles and the upper belt from 8000 to 55000 miles. This was based on info received from Pioneer 4.
Later the same year, Van Allen corrected that info to a maximum distance of 64000 miles - an increase of 9000 miles over the Pioneer 4 data and 41000 miles compared to the figures still given by the scientific community today.
NASA has always emphasised that the astronauts travelled through the belts quickly, staying less than an hour in these intense zones of radiation.
The belts actually extend to at least 54,000 miles out, and are twice the depth compared with data generally available from NASA. Any astronaut would therefore have spent over two hours in each direction, absorbing high levels of radiation for a total of approximately four hours.
In fact, NASA themselves stated that Apollo 8 astronaut Frank Bormann suffered nausea and diarrhoea after his passage through the Van Allen belts, as a result of the radiation exposure.
And that's not taking into account natural solar radiation beyond the belts, and the intense radiation given off by solar flares.
The Earth's magnetic field protects astronauts from many potentially lethal effects of space travel up to about 500 miles. 1969 and 1970 were years of high solar radiation. Those on the "moon landing" flight would have experienced exposure to some of the highest levels in the 11-year solar cycle.
In 1958 Carsbie Adams stated that small meteorites striking a spacecraft would explode upon impact and might penetrate the hull. Larger meteorites would pass through the craft "as if it were made of cheese". Constant ethcing by meteorites would destroy any exterior protective surface and reduce reflectivity, which would increase the heat of the craft. A puncture by even one meteorite would ensure explosive decompression of the the ship with the loss of all life on board. Aluminium was particularly susceptible, while stainless steel fared better.
At the time of these assessments, it was understood that to build a craft strong enough to resist all impacts would be impossible. It came down to a decision based on how much of the craft needed special protection, given that every square foot of hull added 2lbs of weight. Adequate coverage could then run into tons, mass which the Americans were not capable of putting into orbit.
Other factors to consider:
The launch weight of the LM of Apollo 11 was 14.82 tons. This was increased to 16.18 tons on later LM models. The LM was stowed fully loaded on top of the third stage of the Saturn V rocket. Being uniquely designed to fly in the vacuum of space, the LM's structure was so delicate (according to many sources) that it could not support its own weight in an Earth environment. Yet the same LM would have had to endure the maximum thrust of the Saturn V's first and second stages at full acceleration - which amounts to at least 7G's - an equivalent weight of 103.74 tons. How did it survive?
According to the scenario published by NASA themselves, the LM could not have landed on the moon or taken off again! According to NASA, the LM consumed more than half its own weight in fuel during the decent stage, which should have brought the amount of propellants down to around 8 tons for the LM's decent stage. Eagle's decent tanks held 8 tons of fuel, and the ascent tanks held 2.3 tons. Armstrong allegedly landed with 2% of available fuel remaining. He overshot the landing site by 1000 feet, which apparently cost an extra 40 seconds, leaving 400lbs of fuel in the decent tanks. If 400lbs is 2% then 100% is 20000lbs which is around 9 tons - one ton MORE than the they started out with at launch.
Page: