Why has nasa only been to the moon once?

Started by Fire2 pages

Euhm Magee, according to the NASA website they are going to the moon and apparantly they want to stay there

How We'll Get Back to the Moon

My apologies, didn't know they were planning on returning to the moon any time soon.

np man, but everyone in this thread seems to be obsessed with facts anywayz, Still think that moon colony stuff reads like something out of an old sci-fi comic

Yea it does sound quite interesting. But when you watch as much discovery channel as I do it doesn't seem quite so sci fi lol. All they need is a shit rake of plants, irigation and wat not, just imagine a space station on the moon.

Originally posted by PVS
there was one overall set of missions: apollo.

maybe you just misunderstood

Apollo 13 😖mart:

I know it's possible, it's not that I just don't see the point of it, would you or anyone for that matter be willing to sit up there for months on end? I wouldn't that's for sure.

about the sci-fi it's just so typical for old sci-fi stuff to have a moon base.

Originally posted by Magee
NASA are planning a set of missions to mars for 2020 or something. There is no reason to go back to the moon, we know more about it than we do our own planet.

The whole shadow thing is complete bs. Its simply due to the moon having such a rough and uneven surface that the shadows are not parallel as they should be.

No stars in the background I hear you say lol. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of photography can easily put this one to rest. Any brightly lit foreground object must be photographed with a very short exposure time. Otherwise, the image will be badly overexposed. Any background pinpoint light sources like, say stars that are literally trillions of miles further away will not show up at all. Likewise, if the photographer wants to capture the background stars, he is going to have to use a very long exposure time, which means that the foreground will be totally washed out in one blob of overexposed light. It's really as simple as that.

Do I even have to address the camera thing, just sheer stupidity lol.

Oh but the Van Allen radiation belts I hear you say. Simple, all they had to do was send it through the belts at high speeds (25,000mph) avoiding long term exposure and keeping their dose down to just 1 rad which is below any harmful limit.

So instead of just saying oh but the radiation would kill them, do some research and rethink your opinion. 🙂

i can only presume that this is in response to my post rather than the one quoted...so given that you accuse me of stupidity then quote the wrong person...or give the wrong response to someone else...then i would say the rethink should be on your part

i can understand your arguments about the texture of the moons surface distorting shadows but they simply dont explain a 45 degree difference in direction as in some pics

and given that NASA confirmed that no artificial lighting was used on the landings...it leaves alot of issues

also if you had read my post...it wasn't me simply stating that the radiation would kill...it was a NASA physicist involved in the projects at the time

That's nonsense, Jaden- you can see angle deviations like that all the time in real life. Shadows do not work in the parallel lines the conspiracy theorists require ANYWHERE. You could put together an experiment to so such deviation in shadows in a few minutes using a few objects and a torch.

It is simple perspective. A shadow line travelling on a slope will appear to be going in a different diection to one not on a slope, and these things are not clearly distinguishable to the average onlooker.

Meanwhile, the best statistics on radiation we have- and readings taken at the time- show that there is no lethal dose involved in going to the moon.

A similar shadow deviation in a standard Earth photograph.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A similar shadow deviation in a standard Earth photograph.
Jesus, is that a Sasquatch in that photo?

Originally posted by jaden101
i can only presume that this is in response to my post rather than the one quoted...so given that you accuse me of stupidity then quote the wrong person...or give the wrong response to someone else...then i would say the rethink should be on your part

Sorry If i offended you, it wasn't really aimed at your post I was just replying to Fire then i got carried away with that bs conspiracy.

They've never been.

I am a lazy dumbass