40 fricken years ago, Mankind went to the Moon.

Cookie_Monster · 21-07-2009 12:07PM

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

thelordofcheese · 21-07-2009 12:11PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:11PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:11PM

demanufactured wrote: »

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

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

rossie1977 · 21-07-2009 12:14PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:17PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:22PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:25PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:30PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:42PM

Anyone who believes the moon landings were faked is retarded.

Saibh · 21-07-2009 12:47PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:52PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:57PM

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 · 21-07-2009 12:58PM

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

daveyid89 · 21-07-2009 12:59PM

irish-stew wrote: »

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

...see above....

daveyid89 · 21-07-2009 01:12PM

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 · 21-07-2009 01:15PM

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 · 21-07-2009 01:20PM

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 · 21-07-2009 01:23PM

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 · 21-07-2009 01:23PM

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.

ScumLord · 21-07-2009 01:35PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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.

Ah I see. In time they'll have to build factories in space it's to much effort sending up everything from earth.

tba · 21-07-2009 01:40PM

a nice little documentary for those interested

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2E00EEA7422BFE8C

Cungi · 21-07-2009 01:42PM

To anyone who thinks we didnt land on the moon. When the Apollo missions landed they would have left flags, marks and golfballs etc.

If we didnt land, wouldnt the Russians have made a huge deal about it? :rolleyes:

thelordofcheese · 21-07-2009 01:52PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Ah I see. In time they'll have to build factories in space it's to much effort sending up everything from earth.

Not really much point, we'd have to ship the raw materials up there first.

I'd imagine that if we set up a lunar base, we'd take to literally, loading rockets with a payload of what's needed, firing it directly at the moon, and having it just do an airbag-mediated touchdown, like the Mars Pathfinder missions

ShooterSF · 21-07-2009 01:59PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Not really much point, we'd have to ship the raw materials up there first.

I'd imagine that if we set up a lunar base, we'd take to literally, loading rockets with a payload of what's needed, firing it directly at the moon, and having it just do an airbag-mediated touchdown, like the Mars Pathfinder missions

If that payload lands on the piece of the moon I bought on ebay. I'm keeping it.

thelordofcheese · 21-07-2009 02:00PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

If that payload lands on the piece of the moon I bought on ebay. I'm keeping it.

I annexed liberated the part of the moon you bought on Ebay yesterday. Your vile tyranny is over!

ShooterSF · 21-07-2009 02:05PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I annexed liberated the part of the moon you bought on Ebay yesterday. Your vile tyranny is over!

Not fair. I hardly got any tyranny at all

I shall report you to the United Nations of the Moon.

Captain Chaos · 21-07-2009 02:06PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Ah I see. In time they'll have to build factories in space it's to much effort sending up everything from earth.

There will be alot of raw materials that will still have to come from Earth unless we can start mining asteroids. You can't just start making stuff from nothing. If we wanted to go down the nuclear power route which I think will have to happen at some stage, the Uranium will have to me mined and processed here befre being put in a reactor in orbit.

GlobalStranger · 21-07-2009 02:07PM

:eek:

thelordofcheese · 21-07-2009 02:25PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not fair. I hardly got any tyranny at all I shall report you to the United Nations of the Moon.

What will they do? Write me a sternly worded moon letter?

HAHAHAHAHAHA, THE MOON WILL BE MINE!

40 fricken years ago, Mankind went to the Moon.

Comments