Were the Americans on the moon?
Dispense with preliminaries and foreplay.Here is the reason why the Americans could not fabricate the video:
In 2009, the fortieth anniversary of the flight of Apollo 11 automatic interplanetary station LRO executed a special assignment — spent surveying the areas of landings of lunar modules earth expeditions.
And here fotochki
Let's discuss the main arguments of the conspiracy theorists.
The pictures are too many inconsistencies, cocok
Here all the arguments: http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm
Radiation belt cocok
This belt starts from 400 to 1300 km depending on longitude. There is a second belt at an altitude of 17,000 km, but it is weaker. Astronauts on Gemini 11 went up to 1300 km, but for some reason didn't die. The Soviet Union launched turtles living around the moon, but they also survived, a miracle probably.
And pachimu the booster of the Saturn 5, the most powerful in history, is no longer used? Kok
The launch of a proton - about $ 70 million. Launch Saturn 5 - 1 billion 200 million dollars. I hope it is clear.
Saturn 5 never existed ahahah
Yeah. The station skayleb, which were raised by this booster is also never existed. And the fact that it was visible from Earth with the naked eye it's nothing.
And I Ani balshe militat? kokk
Question section I'm an idiot. First, Voyager 2 flew over Uranus in 1986, but there is no one more puciato fiction. Galileo went to Jupiter in 1995, but pochemuto there no one else was. And so on. Second, the program was closed due to lack of funding. The cost of the program was 22 billion dollars(the money of those times). It is very much clear that more money nobody will give.
And pachimu not litut right now? You can also slitti huh?
No you can not. Too expensive. And it is unnecessary to explore Mars much more effective.
I like the flag developing Ms. there is no wind.
Imagine for a moment that everything was shot in pavilione. From then indoors the wind? Do not you think that you are a young conspiracy theorist, an idiot? And, as for reason, it is many times spend too much time that I'm not even going to mention it.
And one more thing. In one of the expeditions of an astronaut conducted experiments. He dumped simultaneously from the same height, a feather and a stone. They fell at the same time. It turns out that this forge is required in all Studio air pump? Is this too much?
Tokrem
All photos from all Apollo posted NASA made just for the Hasselblad, not so difficult to calculate as you might think.
Of course. Because their exact number and no one hides.
the photographer and tell him that it took blind a camera on the belly, without adjustments.
Means they could. If photographs can be faked, the video is not present:
Alexfor
Cunning plan — to write the answer so that I didn't see the notice about him. But I watch the subject, not only for the notification :)
And that this data is not useful to study the same moon or in the construction and accommodation bases on it?
No one is saying that manned missions are completely useless. They just now inappropriate.
But what I remember most is the Sputnik or Gagarin?
It seems that Gagarin, but it subjectively. Besides, public opinion is not an argument in favor of the priority of one or another scientific and technical activities.
Exactly. But it turned out that Newtonian is a small part and a special case. if the same thing suddenly be true for the Einstein?
To identify the boundaries of applicability of the second is not good for experimenting with macro objects, moving with the usual skorostyami.
how the hell crater has become a testing ground, not a place to study?
I do not understand what is the issue.
and the crater has a depth of 100 meters for example.
Important is not the depth and steepness of slopes. And it makes no sense to specifically get into hard to reach places, when not yet investigated available.
Moreover, for the same money it is possible to provide a fundamentally different scope. Manned mission cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars would be to investigate whatever small region, as do the current Mars Rovers. Yes, astronauts will be able to move faster, overcoming more difficult obstacles, but at the same a hundred billion Mars can be littered with hundreds of Mars Rover Curiosity level, and compact as a Sojourner, you can create even more.
And the man can increase the length of the drill and the Rover?
I don't know what equipment you'll be able to afford to take people. But again — you can send a lot of machines with different set of tools that will be easier and more profitable one well-equipped and manned ship.
Generally carried out.
"Outside the program" — a loose concept. Anything in any case does not hold: the set of equipment is limited. In the framework of resources available, and automatic machine can be used for something not originally planned.
What solar panels can't break at all?
May break everything. But if the problem will damage, less than the cost of protection against it, such means to use it is unwise.
And that, to get the ship from the Earth to the present missile and overload in the interplanetary - religion does not allow?
I didn't say that. Cargo to orbit, in any case, will be displayed missiles, realistic prospects for them yet. And it's one of the problems, because they are expensive and not very lifting. One small ship to fly around Mars (no landing) you can start using heavy missiles, but to create a database and provide two-way interplanetary messages on Mars will have many things to build that will require a large number of launches to deliver everything you need. Even the ISS was built more than 10 years and spent a total of $150 billion.
About plasma engines, so that would have made the flight fairly short, not yet established. The need to increase capacity in 1000 times, for their power will require a nuclear reactor (not to be confused with Raagam). http://www.popmech.ru/technologies/9350-plazmennyy-motor-40-dney-do-marsa
not remembering the costs of course.
So because they're almost all and rests. Who is going to work for free? Of course, the developed countries could reduce military budgets and invest more in space exploration... But this science can not do anything, like to offer something low-cost in the field of manned flights.
Committed committed but not yet built. Aznachit have human crews.
Opportunities planetokhods gradually grow. It is enough to compare the same Curiosity and Sojourner. By the way, there is another point: the astronauts — not the scientists, the lander laboratory. Astronauts like machines will collect materials for research, will hold all sorts of measurements and processing it will still be on the Ground experts.
On topic: http://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/4234
Opensource projects, eh, that old dupe evergreen. Well, as some of them like Kaka any address in America. They did not fly, and a bunch of nonsense to the uneducated. And let's savor it with joy.
stalker7162534
I'm not surprised considering everything that happens between America and Russia now.
Sanctions sanctii....
I do not know whether there were Americans on the moon or not, but one thing is for sure - 2 billion for the United States is not money. So the arguments about the fact that America is too expensive to fly to the moon is ridiculous. If they were there, and then ceased to fly, that's certainly not financial...
han298
The money is from those who believes.
A small example. In Moscow metro began fix all the transitions. Knock down the walls with good tiles, and replace the brittle socket. Each year will need to change. And someone will make a profit. This is a tiny example. Not even going to touch on Large projects. Where are the billions spent on what is unknown.
stalker7162534
Oh, and the US trilliardy and billions of dollars do not understand what leave, so another question, where corruption is more... Just the local government and with the people sharing are not forgotten, because no one is outraged... But think about the numbers: the United States spends on weapons 600 billion. So much on weapons does not waste one in the world. We spend only about 70 per year. And this despite the fact that our weapon is the best in the world, even USA today admit it. And for a moment, the value of the F-22 Raptor is slightly more than $ 2 billion. (just think of the number!) Our equivalent is the MIG 29. Cost - passerine 30 million... On. The cost of the M1 Abrams is about $ 6 million per unit. (by the way, this tank worth the money - a mystery... probably hurt a lot of money spent on advertising... but that Raptor is worth 2 billion no less a mystery, even the newest T-50 in the concept stage for more than one $ 100 million...) the cost of the latest T-14 Armata - passerine 400 thousand dollars apiece... So comments about the fact that the United States can save me just fun... And please refrain from such stupid comments, such as: Yes, we have weapons shit, and therefore cheap. or the US all the weapons for 10 generations older and it is worth the money, so no one else compete with him will not be. or even more delusional how do you do such figures take, they're not real. I do not believe - look on the Internet, the benefit of this information is in the public domain. So I repeat 2 billion for the United States is penny. Oh, and the weapons industry is just a tiny example)))
Wing42
Of course, I understand that the theme is old, I just saw it in another topic a day, which has been discussed, and then the friend took off referring to this topic here, so I decided that the above comments will be more appropriate in this thread, nezhli the one I saw. Referring now, if you're interested...
Спойлерhttp://forums.playground.ru/talk/pochemu_lyudi_perestali_letat_na_lunu-915622/
han298
Oh, and the US trilliardy and billions of dollars do not understand what
All clear.
600 billion dollars
Do. But the lunar program so none stand out.
this despite the fact that our weapon is the best in the world, even USA today, it is recognized
Firstly, it is nonsense. Secondly, nobody recognized.
So I repeat 2 billion for the United States is penny.
It is necessary to speak to those who invests. And Yes, the implementation of the lunar program have not 2 but 100 billion.
kile[Natural sick all over the country one such]
Well, it's a dispute about anything. What the arguments do not lead - you will all itsprivate. Ponavydumyvali have some numbers, some sentences from my post and try to prove that you are right. And for a moment, about money in your post about the 2 billion and written.(which are allocated on the first flight; it's clear that today, inflation and the money is needed for such an expedition more than in the 60-70-ies, but I think 10 billion will be enough. And for America, 10 billion is also not a special problem. Especially if the moon is valuable.(I'm talking about Helium-3) And about 100... Well, maybe they need and 100, eventually need something and the government and NASA to eat... And 10 billion target, and 90 - a nice bonus for cutting...) And all that I have written, you can Google on the Internet... Maybe you are just too lazy, but these things are not my problem...
han298
Maybe you are just too lazy
I'm not lazy, I'm all googled.
Ponavydumyvali have some numbers, some sentences
Have highlighted the most important. The rest are not interested.
in your post about the 2 billion written
This is only for one launch. Development of all equipment and other things will just take these 100 billion.
if the moon is valuable.(I'm talking about Helium-3
Mankind will learn to use the helium 3 hardly at the end of this century.
Moreover, the development of heavy rocket is nearing completion. It will spend 39 billion And if we add here Orion, the lunar module and so on, just weaving and out.
kile[Natural sick all over the country one such]
I'm not lazy, I'm all googled.
I guess we have the Internet, some different...
Have highlighted the most important. The rest are not interested.
Well, you're not the first answer... And I don't know how to argue with arguments of this kind...
This is only for one launch. Development of all equipment and other things will just take these 100 billion.
Funny. I thought it was designed in the '60s and the late' 60s successfully flew to the moon... Why develop this missile for the second time? In my opinion once is enough, and then you can simply improve... As they say: Why reinvent the wheel twice?
Mankind will learn to use the helium 3 hardly at the end of this century
And perhaps that's why a liter of gas costs almost $ 1,000...
han298
Funny. I thought it was designed in the '60s and the late' 60s successfully flew to the moon... Why develop this missile for the second time? In my opinion once is enough, and then you can simply improve... As they say: Why reinvent the wheel twice?
This is a very common misconception. The answer lies in the history of space exploration. The answer is long, write it to me laziness. You'll know if the interest will be.
And perhaps that's why a liter of gas costs almost $ 1,000...
No, not so. In any case, to use helium 3 in a fusion reactor so far.
kile[Natural sick all over the country one such]
This is a very common misconception. The answer lies in the history of space exploration. The answer is long, write it to me laziness. You'll know if the interest will be.
One of the main reasons of early termination of the lunar program of the USA after three flybys of the moon manned ships (including one — "Apollo 13" — emergency), and six successful landings on the moon (originally planned two fly manned vehicles and 10 landings) was its high cost. Oh, and so it is deeply is hidden in the history of space exploration? And there's so much to tell? Well, apparently I was wrong, USA is easier to cut the headstock with the help of military programs, nezhli space... Apparently even the Helium-3 would pay for the cost of construction and production of this gas on the moon, while all funds would have to send to the destination, and not to cut... That is unprofitable, and at the same time saw nothing... and the average U.S. tax is much easier to impress big and shiny gun, nezhli incomprehensible, needed for scientific purposes with Helium-3...
No, not so. In any case, to use helium 3 in a fusion reactor so far.
Maybe so, that's just what a bad luck: a Few hundred thousand liters of helium-3 was developed under the nuclear weapons programmes, but these stocks are already inadequate for the existing demand (in the US). So as it is impossible to call Helium-3 unclaimed on the market... And so, after all, in some areas it can use, since there is a steady demand... and to learn to use it as nuclear fuel needs constant experiments on them, and this is also the cost of the gas...
han298
han298 wrote:
2 billion for the United States is penny.
Where did this figure take? In the late sixties for the Apollo program took 25 billion. How much will it be today?
han298 wrote:
Especially if the moon is valuable.(I'm talking about Helium-3
Well, what, then, Armstrong and Aldrin scored a couple of cans of this third kheliya? They were on the moon. And Schmitt and Cernan were there as many as 75 hours. Could a couple of drums of helium to fill. (and all this for 25 billion of the then money).
Spoiler
han298 wrote:
the value of the F-22 Raptor is slightly more than $ 2 billion
Unit cost US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009)[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
han298 wrote:
The cost of the latest T-14 Armata - passerine 400 thousand dollars apiece...
The manufacturer said that as of 2015 the cost of the tank is 250 million rubles[106]. (approximately $ 4 million at today's exchange rate)
USA never landed on the moon, and all the arguments are not credible, and more like a justification. What I saw, I was not impressed. Photo montage of multiple images in different places. Video shot at 60 frames and slowed down to keep the dust flew beautifully. Height and amplitude jump is the same as on earth.
Porsche911GT3RS wrote:
amplitude jump
What is a miracle? Buddy, don't be lazy, explain what the amplitude of the jump.
Porsche911GT3RS
60 frames and slowed
Watch the video in the first post and don't bring such nonsense.
stalker7162534
Where did this figure take? In the late sixties for the Apollo program took 25 billion. How much is it going to be today
I may be not understand, but in my opinion this figure is provided in the main theme of this blog... it is Clear that the program costs more than a rocket launch, but it was developed and has been more or less successful... And the launch cost is 2 billion. Well, indeed, I have myself figured out, translated into today's money, the figure of the launching of missiles is about 50 billion As I wrote above, I question removed, of the profit for the US, no, the money allocated to the program will be extremely targeted. Easier in a pocket to put the defense money.
Well, what, then, Armstrong and Aldrin scored a couple of cans of this third kheliya? They were on the moon. And Schmitt and Cernan were there as many as 75 hours. Could a couple of drums of helium to fill. (and all this for 25 billion of the then money).
Ask them, I'm here with? But in General he read about Helium-3.(pour?!) The easiest way to get it exactly on the moon.
Solarpro Raptor I'm sorry, yesterday was a bit sleepy, kopirnul value is not Raptor and B-2... That he is worth so much, the Raptor, Yes 150 million the same thing about the Armata, when translated into dollars zero was wrong. It is also my fault. But anyway all the same in both cases, the difference is obvious, albeit not the same space as the fault of my sleepiness)