1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Moon landing - a conspiracy?

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by El_Guero, Jul 22, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    This has turned into one of the better (more fun) threads in awhile ...

    ;)

    Yes, there were several fatal accidents before the Apollo moon launches and then no fatal ones during the moon landings.

    That to me would be one of the stronger, "this was staged for publicity" angles to take for a conspiracy theorist.

    Personally, it is difficult to believe that an organization like NASA would go from a pretty bad series of mishaps to working pretty well during the moon shots and back to occasional mediocrity. I do believe we did the moon shots, but if there was a true gap of credulity, I think it would be here.
     
  2. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's the ticket!

    "I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Apollo 13.

    What possible reason to fake a failure?
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some folks just need the tin foil hat award.:thumbs:
     
  5. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There was only a single fatality accident before the space shuttle program. (Apollo I, as mentioned earlier.) There were several failures early in the program (including the Redstone and Atlas missiles) but they resulted in no casualties.
     
  6. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    This can't have been a conspiracy or else Pancho would have told us!!:laugh:

    Bro Tony
     
  7. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wouldn't you like to know more about the people who think it was faked?

    I mean education level, income, similar demographics. I think that would be fascinating reading.
     
  8. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Awwww....3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 12:30 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

    Lady Eagle,
    Moderator :flower:
     
  9. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    El_Guero said:

    I gotta admit. There is ONE strong point to be made against the landings. I don't think this point was made very well. We had alot of 'accidents' before the moon landings, and I do not remember any accidents during the moon landings.

    Well, unless you count the aforementioned Apollo 13. Also, it's less well-known (though no secret) that Armstrong and Aldrin had to find somewhere else to land the Eagle at the last minute, and were this close --><-- to having insufficient fuel to take off again.

    Of course the manned rocket launches were safer than the unmanned ones. NASA used the unmanned flights as tests to make sure the vehicles would be safe for manned flight. The technology was pretty reliable by the time Apollo 11 launched. In striving to reach the moon, NASA found a successful balance between risk and safety.

    By contrast, the reason the Russian space program seemed to take off more quickly than the American, at least at first, was because Kruschev was obsessed with space-race "firsts," so the Soviets took many unnecessary risks to accomplish them. For example, they were the first country to put more than one man in space - by cramming them into a one-man capsule and leaving out the spacesuits - but the American Gemini program was the first to do it with a purpose-built spacecraft.

    As a result, the Soviet space program had at least four fatalities caused by faulty equipment, and many injuries. When Brezhnev succeeded Kruschev, he took a much more cautious approach. The Soviet space program faltered, because where Kruschev was too reckless, Brezhnev was too careful.
     
    #29 Ransom, Jul 24, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2006
  10. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    One other thing that benefitted the Soviet program was that instead of scrapping one program (Mercury, then Gemini) then starting on another (Gemeni, then Apollo), they built upon technology that had already been proven. But, yes, they did take unnecessary risks.
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hope of Glory said:

    One other thing that benefitted the Soviet program was that instead of scrapping one program (Mercury, then Gemini) then starting on another (Gemeni, then Apollo), they built upon technology that had already been proven. But, yes, they did take unnecessary risks.

    Even so, the American space program may have been done in three phases, but it still had a single goal: to put a man on the moon and bring him safely back to Earth. The Mercury program put a man into orbit. That having been accomplished, the Gemini program developed the advanced spaceflight techniques (such as in-orbit rendezvous), that would be needed for Apollo, the goal of which was to send men to the moon. Each project did build on the previous one.

    If anything, the space race exemplified the fable of the tortoise and the hare. The Soviets were the first out of the gate, but it was the American's slow and steady pace that won the race.
     
  12. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I believe there is different fuel tanks for the descent and ascent modules of the LEM. As I understand it, they nearly ran out of fuel on the descent engine, which could have resulted in a crash landing, making take-off of no consequence. The ascent pod had its own engine and fuel, while the base of the LEM was the launch pad.
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    closed at 0130 EDT
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...