The Apollo Moon Landings are Science Fiction
December 30, 2005 by bart-sibrel
Filed under Science
The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth. How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone? How could they have powered air conditioning in two hundred fifty degree heat for three days with batteries? Why is the “second round” of “returning” to the moon estimated to be no earlier than half a century after the first? (Would there be a fifty-year span between the first and second trips across the Atlantic in an airplane?)
Please click on the link below to open the linked website:
The Apollo Moon Landings are Science Fiction
Those were two failures out of about one-hundred-thirty. Space travel is a dangerous business, a lot things can go wrong when you have that much rocket fuel, traveling at that speed while being required to keep a crew alive, they don’t call it rocket science for no reason. In the Apollo program we lost three men just during a test exercise (latter dubbed Apollo 1). And we actually (or if you want “claimed”) went to the moon nine times(8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17), only walked on it six times(11,12,14,15,16,17).
And the reason why we haven’t returned is the cost, the 60s we had Cold War money, a dead president’s dream and the need to beat the Soviets (Search Soviet manned lunar program).
The logic about returning is that it’s argued there’s no put to it (because we would have to build a new heavy lift rocket, new spacesuits, new launch vehicles…) unless we build a base and it much harder to live somewhere than it is to just visit, the International Space Station has receive regular supply visits to keep it operational.
With airplanes it was about learning how to glide (the aerodynamics of lift), and developing more powerful internal combustion engines(circa 1904). With rockets they go straight up and burn fuel, and a lot of it and there isn’t really a more efficient way to do it. Different fuels have been developed but there hasn’t been a jet engine type revolution to the rocket business.