Can We Return Man to the Moon? »

Posted by: JessicaLaurie 2 months, 1 week ago

23 Comments Reflect Report this Story

3.4

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 0

Propped: 124

Comments: 23

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Once you've used the moon as your trampoline, you spend the rest of your life waiting for a second turn on the ride. It's no surprise, then, that Gene Cernan and Alan Bean, two Apollo-era astronauts who have bounded on the lunar surface, are thrilled with NASA's plans to return Americans the moon

Read Full Story at time.com

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 23

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

Nixie
May 12, 2008, 10:15 a.m.
The question is: Has man ever really been to the moon?

10 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  GHOSTWHOWALKS
  May 12, 2008, 10:35 a.m.
  What makes you think they haven't?
  
  9 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    Nixie
    May 12, 2008, 10:44 a.m.
    Well, the fact that they were able to land that thing ever-so-gently on the moon, but had to crash into the ocean when they came back to earth. And the fact that when we send people up now, it takes a tremendous amount of fuel to get up into space, how did the moon missions travel all the way to the moon, land, and then still have enough fuel in that little capsule to take off again and return to earth? And something else I heard on a documentary but have not really looked into; the radiation feild between earth and the moon. How did they get through it unscathed? According to the documentary, that question is still unanswered. Also, who was filming them getting out of the ship? Wouldn't the camera guy have been the first man on the moon? The whole film looks staged, written out and performed. There's just something odd about it. I'm not saying I doubt completely, but there are some questionable things about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been faked.
    
    8 RepliesReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      Dionys
      May 12, 2008, 12:03 p.m.
      " Well, the fact that they were able to land that thing ever-so-gently on the moon, but had to crash into the ocean when they came back to earth."
      It's this funny thing called gravity. There's not as much on the moon.
      If you want to prove man has been to the moon, you can take a laser and aim it at the mirrors put in place on the moon by the astronauts way back when.
      Go get some basic education in physics.
      
      2 RepliesReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        HannibalBarca
        May 12, 2008, 9:57 p.m.
        Gravity ????huh
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        geokerkid
        May 28, 2008, 1:25 a.m.
        Wow that was certainly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. First of all, the Moon is less than six times smaller than Earth so I'm sure they had an easy time landing a 200-pound spacecraft on the moon. The moon's surface is like sand which would make it easy to land. How do you think they landed Titan's probes? Mars' probes? I'm sure they didn't have any Oceans to land in.
        The Ocean was used to make it easier to land but thats not necessarily the reason they used the Ocean. They landed the spacecraft in the ocean so the salt would kill any microbes that could be harmful to the population on Earth.
        And what did you mean? "Gravity ????huh" what?! Don't you know what gravity is? If you don't then I suggest reading an easy-level book named "Outer Space" it'll explain the basics of gravity. Everyone knows what gravity is, jeeze.
        
        Reply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      1-2-Oscar
      May 12, 2008, 3:13 p.m.
      The vehicle which landed on the moon, the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), was designed specifically for that purpose and was unable to transport the astronauts back to Earth. It was able to accommodate two men for a short period of time, while the third orbited the moon. The return to Earth was done in the three-man vehicle which carried them from Earth into moon-orbit. Reentry to Earth was therefore accomplished by a vehicle whose primary purpose was to withstand the stresses of liftoff and the rigors of traverse to the moon (including shielding its occupants from solar radiation). Because it was much heavier (and stouter) than the LEM, it was also able to withstand "crash(ing) into the ocean" upon return.
      The"documentary" you saw must have been put together by a moron, if he did not realize that two separate vehicles were used, and that the LEM was part of the payload of the larger vehicle.
      
      Reply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      BuffaloJ
      May 12, 2008, 6:07 p.m.
      "How did they get through it unscathed?"
      They didn't...Numerous times during the missions, the astronauts would close their eyes and would see flashes of light - this was from cosmic radiation. Most of those astronauts have cataracks now...
      When I was little I wanted to be an astronaut. Once I learned of the cosmic radiation and the lack of shielding my desire went away:)
      
      Reply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      Mdiar
      May 12, 2008, 6:25 p.m.
      Well Nixie the fuel needed in space to travel is less then on the Earth. Its because of the atmosphere of the Earth. The radiation field is actually not all that powerful compared to what some people like to think... it won't fry you, like was thought fifty years ago. The person filming WAS the first person on the moon. That was the second person on the moon you see leaving, no footage actually exists of the whole "small step for man" moment. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the flag, actually. That's been explained to be moving due to the wobble, no atmosphere=less resistance to a wobble when you force something into the ground.
      
      2 RepliesReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        Nixie
        May 12, 2008, 9:26 p.m.
        The flag doesn't bother me. I've heard people say "Why is it standing out? There's no wind to unfurl it!" and to me you can clearly see that there is a pole at the top to hold it like that. Who wants to see the American flag all folded up against the post? Makes sense to me. And the wobble makes sense.
        This whole thread was a joke gone wrong anyway. I was kidding to begin with. But I did see a documentary a while back that brought up those questions, and they seem as logical as a lot of the conspiracies you hear. I don't really think they faked it, but if it was revealed that they did, it wouldn't shock me. If I really thought is was bogus, I would have looked into it more and known crazy retorts to the answers everyone gave. :D
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        Mdiar
        May 12, 2008, 11:38 p.m.
        Heh, I see. The moon landing is one of those 9/11 conspiracies... its been debunked time and time again, but a few followers of it remain. Alot of the reason for that is because the debunking doesn't ever seem to get the same publicity as the actual conspiracy, particularly ones that make sense. I'm from Missouri and I don't believe most conspiracy theories in the end. I saw a documentary that gave both sides of the moon landing one not so long ago and basically showed point for point how the conspiracy was incorrect, even down to the lack of stars in the pictures (camera type, I always assumed they were on the daytime side of the moon myself).
        
        Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

Will1313
May 12, 2008, 10:51 a.m.
Well, the fact that they were able to land that thing ever-so-gently on the moon, but had to crash into the ocean when they came back to earth. And the fact that when we send people up now, it takes a tremendous amount of fuel to get up into space, how did the moon missions travel all the way to the moon, land, and then still have enough fuel in that little capsule to take off again and return to earth?
---
differences in gravity..

1 ReplyReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  mishandled
  May 12, 2008, 10:58 a.m.
  and older missions had used solid fuels, which burn completely up... later missions, i.e. Apollo used newer technologies of liquid fuels with separate oxidizer, allowing for shut off and re-ignition. Not to mention the Saturn V ICBM's were 3x's the size of Gemini and Mercury ICBM.
  
  Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

TheRealizer
May 12, 2008, 11:05 a.m.
NASA like most federal agencies is thirty or so years of on the job training for the taxpayer funded retirement.......

Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

1-2-Oscar
May 12, 2008, 3:16 p.m.
The Chinese have announced plans to send their own people to the moon. I don't know if they will lend the US enough money to send a competing expedition there.

3 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  Dionys
  May 12, 2008, 6:51 p.m.
  They've lent the US enough to send a competing expedition there many many many times over. Only the US spent it invading a soverign nation for no particular reason.
  
  2 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    1-2-Oscar
    May 12, 2008, 9:54 p.m.
    Again, a humorless prick reveals himself.
    
    1 ReplyReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      HannibalBarca
      May 12, 2008, 9:59 p.m.
      pervert !!
      
      Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

netblogs
May 12, 2008, 7:49 p.m.
"Moon landing" Reloaded, another Hollyw... cough excuse me Nevada masterpiece ?
Come on ! who are they kidding, the flag weaving, the Van Allen radiation belts(to protect the astronauts the capsule would have needed 6 feet of ledge shielding).

2 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  smithichie
  May 12, 2008, 8:01 p.m.
  You left out that the moon is made of cheese and any visitors would have been attacked by the giant mice.
  
  Reply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  quackpot
  May 13, 2008, 8:56 a.m.
  They obviously hid behind the cow that was jumping over the moon at the time of their transit.
  
  Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

cloud15
May 12, 2008, 9:09 p.m.
The theory of men never really landing on the moon is interesting. The evidence is a little lacking, but the theory makes sense and there is a clear motive. This happened at the peak of the cold war and we had already been beat in regards to Sputnik. The United States would not have been wanted to be beat in another area that the people felt we were superior.
Not saying I think it was a hoax, but the idea is certainly intriguing.

1 ReplyReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  smithichie
  May 12, 2008, 10:55 p.m.
  It's not a theory that men never landed on the moon, it's an unsubstantiated claim. To be a theory, some of the hypotheses would have to be verified, instead under study they fall apart. Take the claim the flag was waving. Well, it was, but it wasn't waving because of wind, it was waving because of motion of the flag being placed on the pole, with no resistance we are used to here on Earth, the flag moved for quite a while afterwards.
  The very fact it was the peak of the cold war is the most convincing evidence the moon landing was real. If there was even the hint of a faked moon landing the Soviets would have spotted it.
  
  Reply | Report!

Submitted By:

Visit my web-site.

Also submitted:

Related Articles:

Why not submit a story?

Also Propping This Article

Groups Watching This

No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?

Got a Story?

Advertisement