40 fricken years ago, Mankind went to the Moon.

Overheal

Damn why didnt I plan this thread 10 minutes ago!http://gizmodo.com/5318915/look-theres-a-person-on-the-moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jT7l_99avk

Exactly 40 years ago now—at 10:56pm EDT, July 20, 1969—Neil Armstrong began his descent to the Moon's surface, slowly sliding down the Eagle's ladder. It was the pinnacle of the greatest human adventure in history. That Sunday, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins completed President Kennedy's plan to put a man on the Moon before the decade was over. 400,000 people and 20,000 companies and institutions worked in the project, putting together insanely great talent, knowledge, and ingenuity to achieve what most thought was impossible.
Today we celebrate three men's prodigious, almost miraculous trip across the void of space. We celebrate their courage and prowess, as well as the qualities of every single person who made it possible.
It was a small step for a man, but also for mankind. A giant leap, yes, but still a tiny step toward our destiny in the stars... if we could survive ourselves, that is. Here's hoping that we do. Here's hoping that we could make it again, and find our place in the Universe.


Or in the words of the Onion:

The Next planned Lunar Landing is appropriately scheduled for some time in 2019 using the Orion system. I'm guessing in July or thereabouts.

/Fake Landing Theories are all debunked. I dont wanna hear it. Conspiracies are thataway

---

>

kumate_champ07

http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html

Run_to_da_hills

It was all a hoax, I don't believe it. :pac:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055626199

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It was all a hoax, I don't believe it. :pac:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055626199

:eek:

Plug

We landed there all right. Amazing what they could do 40 years ago. A trip to mars would be cool.

connundrum

I would have thought that seeing as the moon landing went off so spectacularly 40 years ago, the Americans would have a shuttle bus going back and forward by now.

The improvements in technology and furtherment in research should have seen another moon landing by now.. surely?!

The whole lot of it seems a bit dodge to me.

Plug

connundrum wrote: »

I would have thought that seeing as the moon landing went off so spectacularly 40 years ago, the Americans would have a shuttle bus going back and forward by now.

The improvements in technology and furtherment in research should have seen another moon landing by now.. surely?!

The whole lot of it seems a bit dodge to me.

400000 people in volved. don't think its fake at all.
Theres no reason for them to go back up. i think they have a mission to mars planned.

Rented Mule

connundrum wrote: »

I would have thought that seeing as the moon landing went off so spectacularly 40 years ago, the Americans would have a shuttle bus going back and forward by now.

Pan Am airlines starting taking reservations to the moon after they landed.

I still have the letter confirming my reservation......on an airline that no longer exists. lol

4zn76tysfajdxp

connundrum wrote: »

The improvements in technology and furtherment in research should have seen another moon landing by now.. surely?!

There were other moon landings since, the latest being in 1972.

demanufactured

Man has never been to the moon, Its amazing what people will believe.

Run_to_da_hills

Plug wrote: »

We landed there all right. Amazing what they could do 40 years ago. A trip to mars would be cool.

Where is the "We", It was just three astronauts from the United states. You were probably not even born back then. :pac:

Wompa1

In an episode of Futurama they showed the original moon landing sight so I reckon it did happen

OldGoat

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Where is the "We", It was just three astronauts from the United states. You were probably not even born back then. :pac:

I was born way back then (:o) and it really did feel like 'We' achieved something. There was a real and palpable buzz around everywhere. News reports came streaming in from all parts of the globe and it really felt like the Earth was united by a common goal. It was a positive and life affirming achievement.
It was a day that changed a lot of peoples viewpoint as our place in greater scheme of things. It changed my perspective (for the better I like to think) by dragging me out of my provincial and egocentric views and into a larger arena of life.

alan4cult

I still believe it was a hoax and the more it goes on the more fake it looks.

seamus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Where is the "We", It was just three astronauts from the United states. You were probably not even born back then. :pac:

Actually, much of the world at that time was polarised (you were there) between communists and capitalists. Although the US was in the grips of McCarthyism, the rest of the "free" world felt equally threatened by the communist superpower, and the fact that they weren't separated by an ocean.

With the moon landing being basically an attempt to say "fnck you" by the Americans to the Russians, the rest of the western world allies themselves with this feeling and to a certain extent it really felt like a battle was won on one front.

You know, you were there.

I wasn't.

Rowley Birkin QC

The faked moon landings conspiracy theory is an exceptionally silly theory in the pantheon of silly theories.

Mr Benevolent

alan4cult wrote: »

I still believe it was a hoax and the more it goes on the more fake it looks.

Yore Ma's fake too btw.

Das Kitty

bigkev49 wrote: »

The faked moon landings conspiracy theory is an exceptionally silly theory in the pantheon of silly theories.

It's also very disrespectful to those who lost and risked their lives.

Really looking forward to the Ares missions, Mars would be fab.

--Kaiser--

bigkev49 wrote: »

The faked moon landings conspiracy theory is an exceptionally silly theory in the pantheon of silly theories.

+ 1 , except for 'silly' I would put 'retarded'

thelordofcheese

connundrum wrote: »

I would have thought that seeing as the moon landing went off so spectacularly 40 years ago, the Americans would have a shuttle bus going back and forward by now.

The improvements in technology and furtherment in research should have seen another moon landing by now.. surely?!

The whole lot of it seems a bit dodge to me.

There's nothing there, it's a barren, lifeless rock.

I mean i've been to leitrim once, that doesn't mean i want to keep going back.

squibs

40 years ago we could put people on the moon. 33 years ago, we could fly a large number of people in comfort from Europe to US supersonically in a few hours. Today we can do neither. I know that technically, we still have the ability, and it's more about commerce, but still - sometimes we seem to be going backwards

wudangclan

If you believed there's nothing up his sleeve, then nothing is cool

KTRIC

There is no reason to go back , yet.

The moon will be used as a stepping stone for the Orion mission though. Nasa are concentrating on this for the next couple of years.

Biggins

KTRIC wrote: »

There is no reason to go back, yet.

The Americans, the Chinese and the Russians are quietly hoping to some day take advantage of the surface covering of helium-3 (He3)- purportedly an ideal fuel for fusion reactors but almost unavailable on Earth.

While the U.S. space agency has neither announced nor denied any desire to mine helium-3, it has nevertheless placed advocates of mining He3 in influential positions. For its part, Russia claims that the aim of any lunar program of its own--for what it's worth, the rocket corporation Energia recently started blustering, Soviet-style, that it will build a permanent moon base by 2015-2020--will be extracting He3.

The Chinese, too, apparently believe that helium-3 from the moon can enable fusion plants on Earth. This fall, the People's Republic expects to orbit a satellite around the moon and then land an unmanned vehicle there in 2011.
Nor does India intend to be left out. (See "India's Space Ambitions Soar.") This past spring, its president, A.P.J. Kalam, and its prime minister, Manmohan Singh, made major speeches asserting that, besides constructing giant solar collectors in orbit and on the moon, the world's largest democracy likewise intends to mine He3 from the lunar surface. India's probe, Chandrayaan-1, will take off next year, and ISRO, the Indian Space Research Organization, is talking about sending Chandrayaan-2, a surface rover, in 2010 or 2011. Simultaneously, Japan and Germany are also making noises about launching their own moon missions at around that time, and talking up the possibility of mining He3 and bringing it back to fuel fusion-based nuclear reactors on Earth.



A bit for the techies amid us:

Advocates of He3-based fusion point to the fact that current efforts to develop fusion-based power generation, like the ITER megaproject, use the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle, which is problematical. (See "International Fusion Research.") Deuterium and tritium are both hydrogen isotopes, and when they're fused in a superheated plasma, two nuclei come together to create a helium nucleus--consisting of two protons and two neutrons--and a high-energy neutron. A deuterium-tritium fusion reaction releases 80 percent of its energy in a stream of high-energy neutrons, which are highly destructive for anything they hit, including a reactor's containment vessel. Since tritium is highly radioactive, that makes containment a big problem as structures weaken and need to be replaced. Thus, whatever materials are used in a deuterium-tritium fusion power plant will have to endure serious punishment. And if that's achievable, when that fusion reactor is eventually decommissioned, there will still be a lot of radioactive waste.


Helium-3 advocates claim that it, conversely, would be nonradioactive, obviating all those problems. But a serious critic has charged that in reality, He3-based fusion isn't even a feasible option. In the August issue of Physics World, theoretical physicist Frank Close, at Oxford in the UK, has published an article called "Fears Over Factoids" in which, among other things, he summarizes some claims of the "helium aficionados," then dismisses those claims as essentially fantasy.
Close points out that in a tokamak--a machine that generates a doughnut-shaped magnetic field to confine the superheated plasmas necessary for fusion--deuterium reacts up to 100 times more slowly with helium-3 than it does with tritium. In a plasma contained in a tokamak, Close stresses, all the nuclei in the fuel get mixed together, so what's most probable is that two deuterium nuclei will rapidly fuse and produce a tritium nucleus and proton. That tritium, in turn, will likely fuse with deuterium and finally yield one helium-4 atom and a neutron. In short, Close says, if helium-3 is mined from the moon and brought to Earth, in a standard tokamak the final result will still be deuterium-tritium fusion.
Second, Close rejects the claim that two helium-3 nuclei could realistically be made to fuse with each other to produce deuterium, an alpha particle and energy. That reaction occurs even more slowly than deuterium-tritium fusion, and the fuel would have to be heated to impractically high temperatures--six times the heat of the sun's interior, by some calculations--that would be beyond the reach of any tokamak. Hence, Close concludes, "the lunar-helium-3 story is, to my mind, moonshine."
Close's objection, however, assumes that deuterium-helium-3 fusion and pure helium-3 fusion would take place in tokamak-based reactors. There might be alternatives: for example, Gerald Kulcinski, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has maintained the only helium-3 fusion reactor in the world on an annual budget that's barely into six figures.
Kulcinski's He3-based fusion reactor, located in the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin, is very small. When running, it contains a spherical plasma roughly 10 centimeters in diameter that can produce sustained fusion with 200 million reactions per second. To produce a milliwatt of power, unfortunately, the reactor consumes a kilowatt. Close's response is, therefore, valid enough: "When practical fusion occurs with a demonstrated net power output, I--and the world's fusion community--can take note."
Still, that critique applies equally to ITER and the tokamak-based reactor effort, which also haven't yet achieved breakeven (the point at which a fusion reactor produces as much energy as it consumes). What's significant about the reactor in Wisconsin is that, as Kulcinski says, "We are doing both deuterium-He3 and He3-He3 reactions. We run deuterium-He3 fusion reactions daily, so we are very familiar with that reaction. We are also doing He3-He3 because if we can control that, it will have immense potential."


The reactor at the Fusion Technology Institute uses a technology called inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC). Kulcinski explains: "If we used a tokamak to do deuterium-helium-3, it would need to be bigger than the ITER device, which already is stretching the bounds of credibility. Our IEC devices, on the other hand, are tabletop-sized, and during our deuterium-He3 runs, we do get some neutrons produced by side reaction with deuterium." Nevertheless, Kulcinski continues, when side reactions occur that involve two deuterium nuclei fusing to produce a tritium nucleus and proton, the tritium produced is at such a higher energy level than the confinement system that it immediately escapes. "Consequently, the radioactivity in our deuterium-He3 system is only 2 percent of the radioactivity in a deuterium-tritium system."
More significant is the He3-He3 fusion reaction that Kulcinski and his assistants produce with their IEC-based reactor. In Kulcinski's reactor, two helium-3 nuclei, each with two protons and one neutron, instead fuse to produce one helium-4 nucleus, consisting of two protons and two neutrons, and two highly energetic protons.
"He3-He3 is not an easy reaction to promote," Kulcinski says. "But He3-He3 fusion has the greatest potential." That's because helium-3, unlike tritium, is nonradioactive, which, first, means that Kulcinski's reactor doesn't need the massive containment vessel that deuterium-tritium fusion requires. Second, the protons it produces--unlike the neutrons produced by deuterium-tritium reactions--possess charges and can be contained using electric and magnetic fields, which in turn results in direct electricity generation. Kulcinski says that one of his graduate assistants at the Fusion Technology Institute is working on a solid-state device to capture the protons and convert their energy directly into electricity.
Still, Kulcinski's reactor proves only the theoretical feasibility and advantages of He3-He3 fusion, with commercial viability lying decades in the future. "Currently," he says, "the Department of Energy will tell us, 'We'll make fusion work. But you're never going to go back to the moon, and that's the only way you'll get massive amounts of helium-3. So forget it.' Meanwhile, the NASA folks tell us, 'We can get the helium-3. But you'll never get fusion to work.' So DOE doesn't think NASA can do its job, NASA doesn't think that DOE can do its job, and we're in between trying to get the two to work together." Right now, Kulcinski's funding comes from two wealthy individuals who are, he says, only interested in the research and without expectation of financial profit.
Overall, then, helium-3 is not the low-hanging fruit among potential fuels to create practical fusion power, and it's one that we will have to reach the moon to pluck. That said, if pure He3-based fusion power is realizable, it would have immense advantages.

Wazdakka

40 Hours ago I was on the moon..


Best drugs Ever..

Rented Mule

Biggins wrote: »

The Americans, the Chinese and the Russians are quietly hoping to some day take advantage of the surface covering of helium-3 (He3)- purportedly an ideal fuel for fusion reactors but almost unavailable on Earth.

Meanwhile, Cowen, Lenihan and Harney hope to take advantage of the buffet bar.

DEVEREUX

40 years! Will we get to mars in the next 40?

whadabouchasir

How long would it take us to fly a space shuttle to Mars?

sceptre

Biggins wrote: »

<snip post about helium-3>

It's nice to include an attribution and a link at the very least when it's someone else's writing. Mark Williams of MIT's Technology review is entitled to that at least for taking the time to write your post:)

thelordofcheese

whadabouchasir wrote: »

How long would it take us to fly a space shuttle to Mars?

Well, we wouldn't use a shuttle, but the current estimate is about a year either way.

Flying Abruptly

What i dont understand is why NASA are going back to the old Apollo type craft rather than building on what was learnt from the Shuttles. They're even re-hiring some of the Apollo engineers. Granted it is a tried and tested method and a big success but it just seems like a step-backwards to me. Orion and the Altair are just bigger CM and LM from the Apollo era, same can be said about the Ares V compared to Saturn V. Im open to corrections on this...

Cookie_Monster

Depends on the distance away it was at the time.
Probably 6 to 9 months

thelordofcheese

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

What i dont understand is why NASA are going back to the old Apollo type craft rather than building on what was learnt from the Shuttles. They're even re-hiring some of the Apollo engineers. Granted it is a tried and tested method and a big success but it just seems like a step-backwards to me. Orion and the Altair are just bigger CM and LM from the Apollo era, same can be said about the Ares V compared to Saturn V. Im open to corrections on this...

I'd imagine it's because the shuttle isn't exactly suited for the long distance trek to mars, whereas the old Apollo type craft were built with that mindset.

DamoDLK

squibs wrote: »

40 years ago we could put people on the moon. 33 years ago, we could fly a large number of people in comfort from Europe to US supersonically in a few hours. Today we can do neither. I know that technically, we still have the ability, and it's more about commerce, but still - sometimes we seem to be going backwards

Yes, this i believe was the first time mankind has ever gone back on technology, as opposed to improving on it and moving forward..

daveyid89

demanufactured wrote: »

Man has never been to the moon, Its amazing what people will believe.

Or have we?...... wait, no. We probably havent.....

rossie1977

whadabouchasir wrote: »

How long would it take us to fly a space shuttle to Mars?

its depends how far mars is from the earth at any given point, the distance can vary between only 55 million km away to 400 million km away

Captain Chaos

DamoDLK wrote: »

Yes, this i believe was the first time mankind has ever gone back on technology, as opposed to improving on it and moving forward..

The thing is the shuttle is just that, a short ranged shuttle, it will get 7 people and a small payload into LEO and thats about it. Getting to the orbit of the Hubble and back is near the limit of what the shuttle can do. TO further out you need a big ass rocket, its the only technology seeing as nuclear reactors are banned from space. If they were not you could take a shuttle style craft to the Moon and back.

thelordofcheese

Captain Chaos wrote: »

its the only technology seeing as nuclear reactors are banned from space.

Well, that's not technically true, they aren't so much banned from space as we've realised that rockets have a nasty habit of going BOOM every now and again, and it'd be nice if they weren't carrying a nuclear reactor at the time.

Which is why either a EO base or a moon one would make sense, we could launch nuclear powered rockets with impunity from there, and if it DID go tits up, we wouldn't be ruining our planet. Though i imagine either launchsite would be shafted.

Plus, we'd need less fuel given the lower gravity.

Flying Abruptly

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'd imagine it's because the shuttle isn't exactly suited for the long distance trek to mars, whereas the old Apollo type craft were built with that mindset.

I understand this. Maybe it'll just take time until (or if) a moon base is established where a craft like the Shuttle can take-off from Earth and land on the Moon on a landing strip. I just think the whole idea of strapping a big massive rocket to something seems crude

thelordofcheese

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

I understand this. Maybe it'll just take time until (or if) a moon base is established where a craft like the Shuttle can take-off from Earth and land on the Moon on a landing strip

It'd want to be a redesigned shuttle, becuase there is no way the current shuttle could make it that far, once it's discarded the solid fule boosters, there isn't much left in it.

Certainly not enough to go to the moon and back, i'd imagine.

Now if it started from Earth orbit, it'd probably be a lot easier.

120_Minutes

Anyone who believes the moon landings were faked is retarded.

Saibh

120_Minutes wrote: »

Anyone who believes the moon landings were faked is retarded.

You could start a thread over in Ranting & Raving about that :pac:

asdasd

Man has never been to the moon, Its amazing what people will believe.

I still believe it was a hoax and the more it goes on the more fake it looks.

Either there was a breakout at an ayslum, or the Conspiracy Forum linked here.

daveyid89

asdasd wrote: »

Either there was a breakout at an ayslum, or the Conspiracy Forum linked here.

its one of those popular conspiricies that people love to believe in. like 9/11 which will not be referenced furthur in this forum as we not doing conspiricies here)

people will just blindly say "ya they were totally filmed in a bunker somewhere", without even researching it themselves......
It happened....., if you disagree consider this....... Be Quiet!!... or go watch the xfiles

Mint Sauce

actually OP, 40 years ago hollywood made a film which we are celebrating its aniversary

daveyid89

irish-stew wrote: »

actually OP, 40 years ago hollywood made a film which we are celebrating its aniversary

...see above....

daveyid89

consider this.... 2+2 is 4, 2-2 is 0, 4,0, 40... exactly the number of years sine the moon landing, coincidence?, i think not. who was nowhere to be seen the night of the moonlanding?... Kyle!, who had the most to gain from hoaxing the moonlanding?, Kyle!, who was respnocible for the staged moon landing?,... Kyle!!!.... you almost got away with it you sneaky butt-hole!

ScumLord

KTRIC wrote: »

There is no reason to go back , yet.

But I left my phone there last week, those aliens will be running up a massive bill if we don't got back soon.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Which is why either a EO base or a moon one would make sense, we could launch nuclear powered rockets with impunity from there, and if it DID go tits up, we wouldn't be ruining our planet. Though i imagine either launchsite would be shafted.

Plus, we'd need less fuel given the lower gravity.

But how do you get the nuclear reactors to the moon? I wouldn't have thought building a reactor would be all that straight forward enough to make building them in space or the moon viable.

An Fear Aniar

One thing that made it difficult for me to believe it really happened was the calm demeanour of the astronauts during the landing and the exploration of the surface. However, new digitally enhanced footage has been released which puts my mind to rest:

.

seamus

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

I understand this. Maybe it'll just take time until (or if) a moon base is established where a craft like the Shuttle can take-off from Earth and land on the Moon on a landing strip. I just think the whole idea of strapping a big massive rocket to something seems crude

Maybe it is, but it's the most effective way of doing it. Simply "taking off" like a plane isn't all that feasible - the thing needs to be doing 25,000km/h (afaik) to break/reach orbit, which requires ****loads of thrust and fuel when you're fighting against earth's gravity.

thelordofcheese

ScumLord wrote: »

But how do you get the nuclear reactors to the moon? I wouldn't have thought building a reactor would be all that straight forward enough to make building them in space or the moon viable.

We built the ISS in orbit, to be fair.

But to be more accurate, what i meant was that spacecraft that have nuclear powered drives would be a bad idea to launch from earth incase we had another challenger style accident, as the reactor would be up and running when everything exploded. A flying chernobyl, if you will.

I'd imagine an inert system would be far less dangerous to ship.

And we have launched probes that were nuclear powered before, the Voyager probes, for instance, but they didn't fire up until they were deployed.