Need your Feedback:Why haven't we spacewalked on the moon since the 60's?

[daze23]

he's saying Russia isnt an issue now and that we should go ahead and admit that we lied about going.

because we didn't lie about going

 

[Mr Uncle Leroy]

anybody remember when they sent that missile to the moon to blow a chunk out of it awhile ago? i think sometime early this year or very late 2011

missile to the moon? sounds like war

 

[theworldismine13]

he's saying Russia isnt an issue now and that we should go ahead and admit that we lied about going.

oh ok

but either way the reason people believe that we didn't go to the moon is because of lack of education, a lack of science education specifically

what puzzles you is not that we went to the moon, what puzzles you is basic science

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

missile to the moon? sounds like war

NASA "Moon Bombing" a Hit, But LCROSS Impact Invisible?

But the much-hyped moon show that had been expected to accompany the impact turned out to be a flop—no billowing plumes of dust and ice visible through backyard telescopes or on NASA TV. The low-impact impact had one NASA expert musing that LCROSS may have struck a "dry hole."

"We Saw the Impact," NASA Says

Whether or not sky-watchers could see the LCROSS crashes, NASA insists they happened.

"We had telescopes [as wide as] 32 inches [81 centimeters], and nothing was seen," said Siegfried Jachmann, vice president of the Salt Lake Astronomical Society in Utah.

Weather conditions at Utah's Stansbury Park Observatory Complex were everything an astronomer could ask for this morning, Jachmann said.

"The moon is very high in the sky, right on the meridian," he said. "It's perfectly placed right above Orion ... If anyone would've had a shot of seeing it, it was us."

Despite the disappointment, he said just after impacts, "the mood is good."

Moon Impact Highly Visible Via "Imagination Filter"?

Several hundred miles west in San Diego, California, there was some debate about whether the impacts had been visible from Earth.

"We have some people who say they saw it," said Bob Austin, president of the San Diego Astronomy Association. But that could be the result of what he called an "imagination filter."

this was 09 seems like it was just yesterday

 

[Mr Uncle Leroy]

NASA sent a "missile" to "moon" for "water", but NASA wont go there again? ok

there is a war brooding

 

[Mr Uncle Leroy]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHcMP6K6Avs"]Alien Moon: Why NASA never returned to the Moon EnigmaTV Part2/3 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agCD2A2z-qc"]Alien Moon: Why NASA never returned to the Moon EnigmaTV Part3/3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daze23]

NASA sent a missile to moon for water, but NASA wont go there again? ok

it's easier, cheaper, and less risky to send machines. I don't think it's hard to understand

 

[stealthbomber]

38 posts later and its a conspiracy thread

 

[Mr Uncle Leroy]

it's easier, cheaper, and less risky to send machines. I don't think it's hard to understand

In a modern military, a missile is a self-propelled guided weapon system. Missiles have four system components: targeting and/or guidance, flight system, engine, and warhead. Missiles come in types adapted for different purposes: surface-to-surface and air-to-surface (ballistic, cruise, anti-ship, anti-tank), surface-to-air (anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic), air-to-air, and anti-satellite missiles.

 

[daze23]

In a modern military, a missile is a self-propelled guided weapon system. Missiles have four system components: targeting and/or guidance, flight system, engine, and warhead. Missiles come in types adapted for different purposes: surface-to-surface and air-to-surface (ballistic, cruise, anti-ship, anti-tank), surface-to-air (anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic), air-to-air, and anti-satellite missiles.

what's your point?

 

[Bilz]

I don't understand. you think the horizon looks too close?

imagine this picture with a black sky

it's hard to see how far he is from the horizon

It's not just that the horizon looks too close, it's that the horizon is often curved in most of the pictures. It should be flat.

 

[Bilz]

i dont even know what this means, it has nothing to do with what i was saying, i was just saying that we should have built space stations before going to the moon and go from the space stations to the moon as opposed to going directly to the moon

and why wouldnt you able to see the curvature of the moon? that doesnt make any sense, the moon is way smaller than the earth so common sense would tell you that the curvature would be much more distinct

and why do you say russia wasnt an issue anymore, the USSR didnt break up until the 1990s

I was just making a sarcastic remark about what the pictures of the moon seem to indicate.

You would not see the curvature of the moon. The moon may not be the saem size as earth but it is still a huge land mass. You would see flat land for as far as the eye can see. It is way too large to give the impression that you are standing on top of it or on the side of it. Except for mountains, you would see flat land in all directions from any vantage point.

 

[daze23]

It's not just that the horizon looks too close, it's that the horizon is often curved in most of the pictures. It should be flat.

do you have an example? I just looked at a bunch of pics, and didn't see it

not to mention it could just be the distortion of a wide-angle ('fisheye') lens

 

[Mr Uncle Leroy]

...

the point