I think we need a much better, and less ballistic, way of breaking from Earth’s gravity. Sitting on top of a metal tube full of flammable gasses and liquids is asking for trouble.

http://www.spaceref.com/telescopes/Can- ... -Moon.html


You can't see anything with telescopes.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/flash.htm ... ge=english

apparently so, maybe they will be kind enough to take some pictures of them with the next moon mission that orbits the moon …

There hasn't been one since 1972.

but it seems there maybe one soon which will also crash a module into the surface so the other part of the craft can take samples …

You want to hear rocket noise... in the vacuum of space?

The only noise I heard was the noise coming from the microphones embedded in the personal atmosphere created inside the space suits.

The most plausible argument is the vertical landing thing. But it's not a show stopper. They had flight controls that working in zero gravity for manoeuvring the lander around so it would be fairly easy to get the thing the right way up. After that it's just a matter of slowing it down.

@MrStevenRogers good point about the Mars Race. Why go there? We "know" there is nothing of too much interesting there. The only reason I can think of is for researching the results of deep space flight on humans. Possibly with a view to going deeper.

They would have to have an immense ship though to take even one person (never mind many people) to Mars. The 2 day trip to the moon is a trip down the road compared to the 12 month journey it takes to get to Mars. People would need living space, exercise space, sleeping quarters, lab space and that would all have to be fitted into a projectile and shot at 12,000mph at a tiny little dot in the distance.

If that happens during my life time I would be amazed!

There is one now.

It's called LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) also combined with the LCROSS (can't remember the name) but basically they send a science lab into orbit around the moon and then they send a great big rocket ploughing head on into a deep crater and the science lab flies through the resulting dust cloud collecting data about what it has found before crashing head on into the moon also.

They are using it (as well as the camera) to find potential water ice and good landing spots for the Constellation mission.

No that's impossible, but the microphones aren't in space. I want to hear rocket noise in the small cramped pressurised cabin, a few feet above the rocket, where the microphones are, what we get is total serene silence, and a cocky american going "whadda ride, whadda ride", yeah mate, you focus on launching yourself off an alien world 260 thousand miles away from any atmosphere, rather than providing sound bites for the viewers.

i hope it happens in my life time
the requirements for the mission if launched from the moon would be far less then launching a mars mission from Earth
its just a lot of work to build a moon base then ship the components to the moon base to build a craft to go and then return from mars

but this has only come about after the unmanned mars missions that have happened and the yanks don't spend this much unless there is a good return on that spending as they are not in competition with anybody, so that makes me think 'what have they found' …

ps
if anybody wants a good conspiracy. where are the remains of a 100 ton, 124' wing spanned, Rolls Royce twin engined RB211 boeing 757 aircraft that hit the pentagon. bear in mind each RB211 engine weighs 6 tons each mounted with an internal weight for the solid engine block of 3.65 tons. please Mr president can we have our engines back, both of them when they are found …

I didn't think the lunar module was pressurised though?

In fact, only the ascent stage was pressurised IIRC. The microphones would have been inside the helmets of the space suits the astronauts are wearing.

TBH, you can argue all you want. I believe it happened and I have come to that belief after seeing evidence and footage. You won't change my belief.

I agree with Foggy.

I saw an interview with the guy who took the pictures. He was very elderly, and told with huge amounts of pleasure how it had been modified by basically glueing on lolly pop sticks to the controls so he could use it from inside a space suit. Maybe he was describing a film set, but I believed him.

Well mars is massively rich in certain raw materials. It's in essence just an interplanetary gold rush.

Whether we actually landed on the moon or not - personally, I believe we did because i think faking it would actually have been harder than doing it - the fact is the technology that was developed as part of the push to go to the moon has massively benefited the human race. Even if it was all faked, the long term effect of trying has been good for every single person on Earth. A kick of impetus along the same lines now is entirely welcome, IMO.

Jon

Name one bit of technology developed in the 1960s by NASA that has benefited anyone, please.

Don't say Teflon and Velcro.

Now, I've been through the whole "faked" routine, and come out the other side. At one stage I was of the opinion that the Apollo 1 accident scared the authorities enough they decided to fake it all rather than actually risk any more lives.

Now I'm of the opinion they actually did land Apollo 11 on the surface of the Moon (I recall someone showed telescopic evidence somewhen). However, the resulting photos of that mission are so perfect they seem too good to be true. There's a convincing argument the film may have been damaged by radiation while they were there and the whole set had to be staged back on Earth...

As for the other missions, I'm pretty certain a dozen US test pilots went to the Moon and came back safely. They brought back rocks. They left experiments on the surface that have still been used up until quite recently. I think they did it.

This Wikipedia article proves reasonably interesting.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

There's a truck load more that aren't so kiddy friendly.

Thanks, Prof. I'm happy now.