# Moon landing anniversary



## happytown (10 July 2009)

as the 40th anniversary of the moon landing approaches

and

recognising what man walking on the moon represents to all of us (living and those who have walked our planet and gazed up at the night sky and wondered over millenia)

cheers to the imagination
cheers to the technical expertise
cheers to the accomplishment
cheers to the beginning
cheers to what is to come (for this repeat above cycle)

for those interested the following docos may prove fascinating

NASA 50 years of space exploration (9 parts [approx 8 hours], all original footage, no recent voiceovers or interviews, just 8 hours of historical footage, including approx 25 mins on the moons surface)

When we left earth The nasa missions (3 parts [approx 2.5 hours], original footage with recent interviews plus additional bonus and extra historical footage [several hours])

From the earth to the moon (12 parts [approx 9 hours], hbo dramatisation, not doco)

[note they are all us-specific], cheers to the russians as well

other non moon-specific

Hubblecasts
NASA hd shorts

some free sky-gazing software

celestia
stellarium

one day i want to take a picture just like this (cheers )


----------



## Timmy (10 July 2009)

Great stuff - thanks happytown!  July 20?


----------



## Mr J (10 July 2009)

One of the greatest achievements of our species, and I doubt many of us give it any thought. I hope to see a Mars landing in my lifetime.


----------



## skyQuake (10 July 2009)

it was faked!

wear tin foil hats!

buy gold etc.

:


----------



## Timmy (10 July 2009)

skyQuake said:


> it was faked!
> 
> wear tin foil hats!
> 
> ...




Jest away ... they will be along soon enough ...


----------



## happytown (10 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> July 20?




right timmy

would like to see similar courage and vision on that scale in human endeavour today

cheers


----------



## Naked shorts (10 July 2009)

happytown said:


> one day i want to take a picture just like this (cheers )




Start saving your pennys, There is a company thats selling trips for $100M. 

http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Lunar.welcome


----------



## Calliope (10 July 2009)

Seeing the moon landing was probably the most memorable event in my life. After 40 years it is still hard to accept the reality that they could achieve this amazing feat with the technology then available. The team that put them there was brilliant, but there is no doubt that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins had the "right stuff."


----------



## Mr J (10 July 2009)

It's almost unbelievable that they could achieve it within less than a century of flight, and just a few decades of computers and modern rocketry.


----------



## rico01 (10 July 2009)

On google earth you can see the entire mars surface inch by inch if you want.
 anybody know where we can see  satelite images of the moon surface ormaybe the landing site if it really exists?


----------



## Krusty the Klown (10 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Seeing the moon landing was probably the most memorable event in my life. After 40 years it is still hard to accept the reality that they could achieve this amazing feat with the technology then available. The team that put them there was brilliant, but there is no doubt that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins had the "right stuff."




I wasn't born then, but I think it is still the most phenomenal achievement of humankind so far.....

And yes, think about the technology compared to now.... I did hear that there was more computing power in a desktop computer than the entire Apollo program - and I heard that 10 YEARS AGO!!!!


----------



## happytown (10 July 2009)

rico01 said:


> ...
> 
> the landing site if it really exists?




apollo 11 20/07/69 *mare tranquillitatis lunar lat 0.67N lunar long 23.49E*
apollo 12 19/11/69 crater lansberg lunar lat 2.94S lunar long 23.45W
apollo 14 05/02/71 fra mauro luanr lat 3.67S lunar long 17.46E
apollo 15 30/07/71 hadley rille lunar lat 26.11N lunar long 3.66E
apollo 16 20/04/72 descartes lunar lat 8.60S lunar long 15.31E
apollo 17 11/12/72 taurus-littrow lunat lat 20.17N lunar long 30.80E
lunar surveyor 1 02/06/66 flamsteed p lunar lat 2.45S lunar long 43.21W
luna 2 13/09/59 lunar lat 29.10N lunar long 0.00E (first probe on moon)
luna 9 03/02/66 planitia descensus lunar lat 7.08N lunar long 64.37W (first soft landing)
luna 13 24/12/66 lunar lat 18.87N lunar long 62.05W
luna 16 21/09/70 lunar lat 0.68S lunar long 56.30E (returned soil samples)
luna 17 17/11/70 lunar lat 38.28N lunar long 35.00W (first moon rover drove 10.5kms)
luna 20 21/02/72 lunar lat 3.57N lunar long 56.50E (returned rock samples)
luna 21 15/01/70 lunar lat 25.51N lunar long 30.38E (moon rover drove 37kms)
luna 24 18/08/76 lunar lat 12.25N lunar long 62.20E (core sample at depth of 2m)

[courtesy of chong, lim and ang, photographic atlas of the moon, cambridge uni press] 

on a day 6 moon mare tranquillitatis is the largest dark splotch visible at the equator equiv on the moon's surface - apollo 11 landing site at top NE corner of mare tranq

cheers


----------



## mayk (10 July 2009)

Now off to mars. I doubt with a price tag of .5Trillion dollar that is going to happen anytime soon. 
Think of it this way, NASA could have sent two manned missions to Mars and back, for the cost of Iraq war. 

But I am hopeful that with the advent of plasma thrusters it would be possible sooner rather then later. Next big thing in space is travel without booster rockets. 

Mars fascinates me more than the moon. Moon you can always spot at night, but mars that is a different story. Interplanetary is more exotic. 

Recently they had a whole article on Mars travel in a scientific magazine. It is also interesting that people in 1960s thought that by 2010 we would have colonized Mars... I think it might be possible by 2110.


----------



## darkside (10 July 2009)

My friends at work wanted to watch Apollo13 for the aniversary , but i hadn't seen the first 12 so i wouldn't have known what was going on !


----------



## ghotib (10 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Seeing the moon landing was probably the most memorable event in my life. After 40 years it is still hard to accept the reality that they could achieve this amazing feat with the technology then available. The team that put them there was brilliant, but there is no doubt that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins had the "right stuff."



Yep!! To this day I think that "Houston, the Eagle has landed" is the single most exciting sentence of the 20th century. 

Though Apollo 8, the first one to go round the other side of the moon and the one that produced the first photo of Earthrise, was probably the most eye-opening of the Apollo missions. I still have the Sydney Morning Herald front page with that picture. 

Ghoti (Space Groupie)


----------



## Krusty the Klown (10 July 2009)

darkside said:


> My friends at work wanted to watch Apollo13 for the aniversary , but i hadn't seen the first 12 so i wouldn't have known what was going on !




LOL


----------



## Krusty the Klown (10 July 2009)

ghotib said:


> Yep!! To this day I think that "Houston, the Eagle has landed" is the single most exciting sentence of the 20th century.
> 
> Though Apollo 8, the first one to go round the other side of the moon and the one that produced the first photo of Earthrise, was probably the most eye-opening of the Apollo missions. I still have the Sydney Morning Herald front page with that picture.
> 
> Ghoti (Space Groupie)




Agreed. Still produces chills when hearing the recording.

I remember reading they only had about 10 seconds of fuel left when they touched down. That's a bit too close for me if I was Buzz Aldrin!!!!


----------



## nulla nulla (10 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Seeing the moon landing was probably the most memorable event in my life. After 40 years it is still hard to accept the reality that they could achieve this amazing feat with the technology then available. The team that put them there was brilliant, but there is no doubt that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins had the "right stuff."




Unless of course the whole thing was an American scam to prove they had superior technology to the Russians in which case it is the anniversary of the landing that nevertook place.
Which could explain why the Hubble Telescope capable of taking photo's of deep space can't take photo's of the alleged landing sight. Regan ultimately admitted that the lazer star wars technology was bull****. Nixon couldn't lie straight in bed. More proof needed.


----------



## Naked shorts (10 July 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> Unless of course the whole thing was an American scam to prove they had superior technology to the Russians in which case it is the anniversary of the landing that nevertook place.
> Which could explain why the Hubble Telescope capable of taking photo's of deep space can't take photo's of the alleged landing sight. Regan ultimately admitted that the lazer star wars technology was bull****. Nixon couldn't lie straight in bed. More proof needed.




Hey Nulla, my drugged deluded friend, take a lesson in optics and you will be humbled.


----------



## nulla nulla (10 July 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> Hey Nulla, my drugged deluded friend, take a lesson in optics and you will be humbled.




Not drugged;
Not your friend; 
and not deluded. 
Prove they were ever there, show some independant evidence.


----------



## Naked shorts (10 July 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> Prove they were ever there, show some independant evidence.




What would it require for you to be satisfied?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 July 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> What would it require for you to be satisfied?



Hubble photos of the landing sites showing flags, rovers, and craters under the landing gear.


----------



## Timmy (11 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hubble photos of the landing sites showing flags, rovers, and craters under the landing gear.




I don't think so.
Tin hat brigade would just claim they were faked.  By Elvis.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> I don't think so.
> Tin hat brigade would just claim they were faked.  By Elvis.




Timmy,
Are you saying that if the hubble was used to take photos and show what I would like to see that the tin hat brigade would say they were fake? And Elvis faked them?


----------



## Timmy (11 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Timmy,
> Are you saying that if the hubble was used to take photos and show what I would like to see that the tin hat brigade would say they were fake? And Elvis faked them?




The Elvis bit was a joke.


----------



## nunthewiser (11 July 2009)

must be true


----------



## Naked shorts (11 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hubble photos of the landing sites showing flags, rovers, and craters under the landing gear.




Why does it have to be a Hubble telescope photo? It is impossible for the Hubble telescope to get an image of high enough resolution. It would require an optical telescope with an "effective" diameter of 90m to get the resolution needed.

(I say "effective" because its possible to have two telescopes of smaller diameter parallel to each other, achieving a higher power then if they were just combined into one large telescope)

As I said before, once you take a course in optics and get into the math of it, you begin to understand why the Hubble telescope cant take a high enough resolution photo.





So besides getting a telescope to do something that it impossible, what else do you need to be satisfied that the moon landing happened?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 July 2009)

Naked shorts


> Why does it have to be a Hubble telescope photo? It is impossible for the Hubble telescope to get an image of high enough resolution. It would require an optical telescope with an "effective" diameter of 90m to get the resolution needed.
> 
> (I say "effective" because its possible to have two telescopes of smaller diameter parallel to each other, achieving a higher power then if they were just combined into one large telescope)
> 
> As I said before, once you take a course in optics and get into the math of it, you begin to understand why the Hubble telescope cant take a high enough resolution photo.



Please excuse my ignorance of optics and the mathematics of optics etc. 

Would a very good telescope mounted onto an orbiting module provide enough quality conditions to see the landing spots?


----------



## Naked shorts (11 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Naked shorts
> 
> Please excuse my ignorance of optics and the mathematics of optics etc.
> 
> Would a very good telescope mounted onto an orbiting module provide enough quality conditions to see the landing spots?




A optical telescope with an of diameter of 90m attached to an orbiting module would provide a high enough resolution to make out the foot prints left by the astronauts. 

So its quite clear that such a telescope wont be created anytime soon, so what do you need to be convinced?


----------



## nulla nulla (11 July 2009)

In the 1970's it was boasted that orbiting satelites were capable of taking photographs with sufficient resolution to identify a 20c coin lying on the ground. Galileo was able to invent a telescope centuries ago using optics (specifically callibrated ground lenses and mirrors by local glass workers) and prove from astral observations that the moon orbited the Earth and the Earth orbited the sun.
The allegation that a 90metre diameter lense would be needed to provide sufficient resolution to see the alledged landing site(s) and the items alledged as left behind (launch pads, moon buggy, flags flapping in nonexistant wind etc) is simply spin put out by NASA.
Given the advances in technology since Galileo, it should be possible for an Earth based telescope to built to identify these alledged sites. The Hubble is only refered to in discussions as "Why can't the Hubble telescope pick up the sites" as the spin doctors would have us believe that this is the most powerful telescope arround in the best environment.


----------



## nulla nulla (11 July 2009)

Here is a google link for those interested in reading the hoax theories and the NASA spin in response. Both arguments are flawed. 
Make up your own mind. For me the jury is still out.


----------



## spooly74 (11 July 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> Unless of course the whole thing was an American scam to prove they had superior technology to the Russians in which case it is the anniversary of the landing that nevertook place.
> *Which could explain why the Hubble Telescope capable of taking photo's of deep space can't take photo's of the alleged landing sight*. Regan ultimately admitted that the lazer star wars technology was bull****. Nixon couldn't lie straight in bed.




The Hubble telescope would burn out its lens if it open its shutters to take a picture of the moon. 
There _are_ images available of the landing site but they are not of a good enough quality for the skeptics.



> More proof needed.




Moon rocks?


----------



## spooly74 (11 July 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> The allegation that a 90metre diameter lense would be needed to provide sufficient resolution to see the alledged landing site(s) and the items alledged as left behind (launch pads, moon buggy, flags flapping in nonexistant wind etc) is simply spin put out by NASA.



I can see a Jumbo jet flying 30,000ft over head, yet struggle to see a snail at the end of my garden. 
Spin indeed


----------



## sam76 (11 July 2009)

still not as good as the chk-chk boom girl.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2009)

The word "hero" is used pretty lightly these days, but Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins and all the other people who went into space in those days were true heroes.

I was very impressed with Buzz Aldrin's interview with Kerry O'Brien the other night. He had serious problems adjusting to life after leaving the space program.




> KERRY O'BRIEN: You've talked subsequently about what you referred to as the trauma of being put on a pedestal. You'd think some people might lap up the glory, but you found it tough.
> 
> BUZZ ALDRIN: Yeah, I didn't look forward to a celebrity status. We certainly didn't have the accoutrements that went along with celebrity status. I didn't have a bodyguard, I didn't have a Cadillac, I didn't have a scad of people around supporting what I was doing. I went back to the service I came from as an individual, 11 years away from the Air Force, challenged to do something that I didn't understand very much about. The test pilot school was not the avenue that I'd participated, and I began to feel a little bit unchallenged in a way that I felt comfortable in coping with. So I retired from the service, and that led to even more of a sense of, "Where am I? What am I doing? What should I be doing? Have I sorta come up short? Have I failed to choose - make the right choices?"




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2618443.htm


----------



## spooly74 (11 July 2009)

Apollo-11 40th Anniversary celebration and Reunion

19th - 22nd July 2009 in Canberra Australia

http://www.jsaxon.org/space/hsk/Reunions/40th2009/

http://www.livefromthemoon.tv


----------



## bassmanpete (11 July 2009)

The smallest object that Hubble can resolve at the distance of the Moon is approximately 60 metres. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is currently in low Moon orbit and its camera can resolve objects as small as half a metre so will be able to photograph the lander & moon buggy. Sceptics will still claim the photos are faked; evidence means little to people with closed minds.

To all the sceptics answer me this, why did the Soviets cancel their manned moon landing programme? Or were they in on the conspiracy too? Which leads to the conclusion that the whole of the Cold War was a hoax too. Yeah, sure.


----------



## ghotib (11 July 2009)

Radio National. The Science Show. Just starting, a full show about the Apollo programme. 

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm


----------



## Naked shorts (11 July 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> In the 1970's it was boasted that orbiting satelites were capable of taking photographs with sufficient resolution to identify a 20c coin lying on the ground. Galileo was able to invent a telescope centuries ago using optics (specifically callibrated ground lenses and mirrors by local glass workers) and prove from astral observations that the moon orbited the Earth and the Earth orbited the sun.
> The allegation that a 90metre diameter lense would be needed to provide sufficient resolution to see the alledged landing site(s) and the items alledged as left behind (launch pads, moon buggy, flags flapping in nonexistant wind etc) is simply spin put out by NASA.
> Given the advances in technology since Galileo, it should be possible for an Earth based telescope to built to identify these alledged sites. The Hubble is only refered to in discussions as "Why can't the Hubble telescope pick up the sites" as the spin doctors would have us believe that this is the most powerful telescope arround in the best environment.




Nulla, why do you insist on beating a dead horse. It is simply PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the Hubble telescope to get the required resolution. Satellites can see high resolution of the earth because the earth is only 300km away. The moon is 380,000km (which they can measure using the mirrors the Apollo teams left there). 

So besides getting a telescope to do the impossible, what do you need to be satisfied???!?!?!


----------



## spooly74 (11 July 2009)

spooly74 said:


> The Hubble telescope would burn out its lens if it open its shutters to take a picture of the moon.



Oops, this is not correct.
Hubble has taken plenty of images of the moon, but it must not be in direct sunlight. Earthshine only.
Anyhooo, seeing as this is not what it was built for, it's a waste of resources.

Introducing LRO & LCROSS.


Looks like you won't have long to wait for your proof, Nulla. It launched last month.



> "We will look to photograph [one or more of] the Apollo landing sites with 0.5 meter resolution", said Tooley. The high resolution camera will also be targeted to find other US and Russian unmanned robotic landers and rovers. "Initial images may be available during the first month. The lower half of the Lunar Module (LM) should be easily visible as well as the lunar rover tracks and perhaps the science instruments"



http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001947/


----------



## Naked shorts (11 July 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Looks like you won't have long to wait for your proof, Nulla. It launched last month.
> 
> 
> http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001947/




No doubt that Nulla will suggest that the pictures generated are fake.


----------



## nulla nulla (11 July 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Oops, this is not correct.
> Hubble has taken plenty of images of the moon, but it must not be in direct sunlight. Earthshine only.
> Anyhooo, seeing as this is not what it was built for, it's a waste of resources.
> 
> ...





live video feed would be more convincing for the sceptics. not something computer enhanced by the spin doctors. Try to be objective Nakedshorts, it's nothing personal.


----------



## kam75 (11 July 2009)

Woderful picture there happytown.  I agree, would be something to be there looking back like that.

For anyone interested attending the Apollo-11 40th Anniversary celebration and Reunion (19th - 22nd July 2009) in Canberra Australia

here's a link and a list of the agenda.
http://jsaxon.org/space/hsk/Reunions/40th2009/


----------



## spooly74 (11 July 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> live video feed would be more convincing for the sceptics.



Here is one of the first images from the LRO mission. Resolution is 3 meters. 







http://cumbriansky.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/lro-and-the-apollo-hoax-believers/



> But I’ve always though that’s the one fundamental flaw in their argument. If NASA faked it, they didn’t just fake “it”, thay had to fake it SIX TIMES! There were six succesful Moon landings, so that means they had to fake six landings, six sets of EVAs, six of everything.
> 
> Think about that.


----------



## Naked shorts (11 July 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> live video feed would be more convincing for the sceptics. not something computer enhanced by the spin doctors. Try to be objective Nakedshorts, it's nothing personal.




The moon landing *was* a live video feed... 450million people watched it happen. 

How is a live video feed today, with all the technology we have that makes faking something like that a hell of a lot easier, going to make you believe otherwise?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 July 2009)

> Naked shorts
> The moon landing *was* a *live video feed... 450million people watched it happen.*



..from a projected image on a screen which news crews had to film of the first landing - hence the terrible image. 

People will defend the alleged landings because they are not ready to accept the alternative as reality. I have no answers, but believing the official story is rather hard to swallow. It is much akin to believing in Santa Claus when a kid. (Yes, he really does fit down the chimney! (Let's ignore the fact he has a gut and probably can't fit down it)


----------



## Naked shorts (11 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> ..from a projected image on a screen which news crews had to film of the first landing - hence the terrible image.



He said a live feed would do it for him, he didn't mention anything about the quality. 



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I have no answers, but believing the official story is rather hard to swallow.



Does you life really suck that much that the only way to get excitement is to believe in conspiracy theories? 

If you had done any serious proactive investigation into the allegations, you will find they are not true.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 July 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> Does you life really suck that much that the only way to get excitement is to believe in conspiracy theories?
> 
> If you had done any serious proactive investigation into the allegations, you will find they are not true.



Let's not get emotional about it. I won't villify you for your views and I am happy to accept that you believe the official story. Conspiracy theories are theories before the incident. Conspiracies are after the incident - the transition from theory to conspiracy is marked by the event in question. 

Your second line presumes that I have not looked into the issue - serious proactive investigation as you like to put it. Speculation on what you do is not important. Let's stick to the accomplishment that a shrinking majority choose to believe. 

For some light reading and source of the quote below:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...n-landing-the-doubts-persist-115875-21123653/


> He's not alone in his doubts.
> 
> Brian OLeary says: "I can't be sure 100 per cent that man actually walked on the Moon."
> 
> Considering Brian was an astronaut in the 1960s, and an adviser during the Apollo programme, that's a bombshell.


----------



## spooly74 (12 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> For some light reading and source of the quote below:
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...n-landing-the-doubts-persist-115875-21123653/



http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html


----------



## Naked shorts (12 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Conspiracy theories are theories before the incident. Conspiracies are after the incident - the transition from theory to conspiracy is marked by the event in question.



How embarrassing 

"Conspiracy theories" are speculation that two or more people agreed to commit an unlawful act.
"Conspiracy" is where two or more people actually agreed to commit an unlawful act.




It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Your second line presumes that I have not looked into the issue - serious proactive investigation as you like to put it. Speculation on what you do is not important. Let's stick to the accomplishment that a shrinking majority choose to believe.
> 
> For some light reading and source of the quote below:
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...n-landing-the-doubts-persist-115875-21123653/




That quote doesn't mean anything, I cant be 100% sure I'm on ASF right now because all this could be a dream. I cant be 100% sure your on ASF because I didn't see you on it or you could just be a figment of my imagination, like an insane person talking to someone that isn't there.

Watch from 2:25, in HD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLeCWdpa-mI&

Please explain to me how the dust behind the buggy gets so high, so close behind the buggy? If it was "supposedly" filmed on Earth, where there is gravity and air, this would not be possible.


----------



## MRC & Co (12 July 2009)

Are the conspiracy theories (don't care for definition), that man has never walked on the moon, or only that the first landing was not real?


----------



## Naked shorts (12 July 2009)

MRC & Co said:


> Are the conspiracy theories (don't care for definition), that man has never walked on the moon, or only that the first landing was not real?




Man has never walked on the moon.


----------



## MRC & Co (12 July 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> Man has never walked on the moon.




Oh ok.

I have no expertise in this area, but I have personally met a man who is supposed to have walked on the moon and had a chat with him, I believe him.


----------



## knocker (12 July 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> Man has never walked on the moon.




Probably never will. If the suns radiation don't nuke em, fast flying objects surely will


----------



## spooly74 (12 July 2009)

MRC & Co said:


> Oh ok.
> 
> I have no expertise in this area, but I have personally met a man who is supposed to have walked on the moon and had a chat with him, I believe him.



Wow MRC! There's only been a dozen men who achieved that. When? where? what did he have to say? cool.


----------



## Judd (12 July 2009)

Could somebody please do the numbers on:


 the number of people which would need to be involved in faking one and/or all of the moon landings;

 the cost involved, inclusive of the launches of the six missions which never happened, in order to fake these missions; and

 the probability that everyone of those involved in these fake missions have been able to keep quiet for 40 years about the exercise being a fake.

And also answer the simple question Why?


----------



## Krusty the Klown (12 July 2009)

Judd said:


> And also answer the simple question Why?




The why part would be to beat the USSR to be the first nation to land a man on the moon. 

JFK set the challenge to do this by the end of 1969.

So a plausible reason to fake it could be simply this, particularly if NASA found out the task would be impossible. 

To win the Cold War - purely political reasons. Same as that movie - Capricorn One.

P.S. I'm not saying it didn't happen.


----------



## Naked shorts (12 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Probably never will. If the suns radiation don't nuke em, fast flying objects surely will



lol

You don't even know what radiation is exactly, or what types there are. You are making a fool out of yourself.


----------



## MRC & Co (12 July 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Wow MRC! There's only been a dozen men who achieved that. When? where? what did he have to say? cool.




It was in Canberra (my home town) a few years back now at an event.  On that note, thx for the link and info kam.   

He basically had to say, that after walking on the moon and viewing the earth from such a place, nothing in life will ever live upto the same kind of feeling and moment and sadly, that most things after that end up becoming a disappointment.  Very touchy touchy, and he appeared genuinely touched by what he was talking of, which leads me to believe him.


----------



## Timmy (12 July 2009)

Judd said:


> Could somebody please do the numbers on:
> 
> 
> the number of people which would need to be involved in faking one and/or all of the moon landings;
> ...




Good questions.

One thing that occurs to me is the extent to which the world is overrun with rabid, desperate, hungry journalists, all looking for the next scoop.  Can you imagine anything as big as showing the moon landings were faked?  And like you say, there were so many people involved surely ONE would talk?  (Maybe NASA has had the talkative ones killed?)

I somehow think those bleating about how the landings were faked feel gypped that the world doesn't pay them enough attention, and so they feel compelled to seek attention in this way?  Could be wrong.


----------



## Mr J (12 July 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> The why part would be to beat the USSR to be the first nation to land a man on the moon.




I'm not addressing you personally (since you aren't stating it didn't happen), but had the US not landed on the moon, wouldn't the USSR have had something to say about it? I don't think the West could have kept it quiet for 40 years. If the landing was fake, I imagine something would have come out from someone, somewhere.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 July 2009)

> MrJ
> One of the greatest achievements of our species, and I doubt many of us give it any thought. I hope to see a Mars landing in my lifetime.



Perhaps a moon landing is asking a bit much let alone Mars.



> Happytown
> would like to see similar courage and vision on that scale in human endeavour today



So would I considering 37 years have passed with orbiting manned missions ONLY having taken place since the said landings. 



> Caliope
> Seeing the moon landing was probably the most memorable event in my life. After 40 years _it is still hard to accept the reality_ that they could achieve this amazing feat with the technology then available. The team that put them there was brilliant, but there is no doubt that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins had the "right stuff."



Yes it is hard to accept it. I am not sure what you mean by the "right stuff"? A speech writer would be in awe upon reading this. 



> Mr J
> It's almost unbelievable that they could achieve it within less than a century of flight, and just a few decades of computers and modern rocketry.



Yes, and many have the same thoughts. 



> Mayk
> Recently they had a whole article on Mars travel in a scientific magazine. It is also interesting that people in 1960s thought that by 2010 we would have colonized Mars... I think it might be possible by 2110.



Yes, perhaps further than that. Since the Apollo missions where has man been? In orbit. 



> Bassmanpete
> To all the sceptics answer me this, why did the Soviets cancel their manned moon landing programme?



I suspect technology deficiencies. 



> Judd
> Could somebody please do the numbers on:
> the number of people which would need to be involved in faking one and/or all of the moon landings;
> the cost involved, inclusive of the launches of the six missions which never happened, in order to fake these missions; and
> ...



It was a cold war. The soviets had been to the moon as far back as 1959 and had set a lot of firsts in space travel. An analysis of the Kenendy years will help with the understanding of soviet / Us relations and propaganda.
Keeping people quiet is not such an impossible thing. 



> Timmy
> I somehow think those bleating about how the landings were faked feel gypped that the world doesn't pay them enough attention, and so they feel compelled to seek attention in this way? Could be wrong.



You seem to be the resident psychologist Timmy. I agree with your last three words.



> Mr J
> I'm not addressing you personally (since you aren't stating it didn't happen), but had the US not landed on the moon, wouldn't the USSR have had something to say about it? I don't think the West could have kept it quiet for 40 years. If the landing was fake, I imagine something would have come out from someone, somewhere.



The level of propaganda between the two countries in the sixties was immense. After the Kenendy assasination the soviets broadcast their take on it and it was dismisssed as propaganda. Kennedy wanted a joint moon mission with the soviets which they were about to accept. 

There is a lot to the history of space travel. I don't believe in Santa claus anymore and naturally know when things seem odd. As I said before I have no answers as to why, only what is in the domain. 

The image of the sixties and the astronaughts is still positive for me and they are cool guys who grew up in a good time.


----------



## Naked shorts (12 July 2009)

Disappointing Snake, I have pointed out something to you that proves the moon landing was real, yet you ignore it?

You are in denial like some worshiper finding out his idol is a fraud.


----------



## knocker (12 July 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> Disappointing Snake, I have pointed out something to you that proves the moon landing was real, yet you ignore it?
> 
> You are in denial like some worshiper finding out his idol is a fraud.




Well if getting to the moon is soo easy why don't we fly there on a regular basis and indeed why are we not living there? All NASA does nowdays is send up teleco satellites and fix useless telescopes. 

As for the russians, I think they gave up after they ran out of smart dogs lol


----------



## Naked shorts (12 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Well if getting to the moon is soo easy why don't we fly there on a regular basis and indeed why are we not living there? All NASA does nowdays is send up teleco satellites and fix useless telescopes.
> 
> As for the russians, I think they gave up after they ran out of smart dogs lol




The moon is not easy to get to, nor is it cheap. They didn't go back there after the Apollo missions because they could just complete their experiments in Earth Orbit. The reason we are going back there now is because they are getting ready for Mars.


----------



## knocker (12 July 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> The moon is not easy to get to, nor is it cheap. They didn't go back there after the Apollo missions because they could just complete their experiments in Earth Orbit. The reason we are going back there now is because they are getting ready for Mars.




Really. So what's the plane look like that they are using? How long do we have to wait lol


----------



## spooly74 (12 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Really. So what's the plane look like that they are using?



Funny looking plane eh!







Some of the first video from the mission is available here.
http://anon.nasa-global.edgesuite.net/anon.nasa-global/ccvideos/GSFC_20090707_LROfirstflyover.asx


----------



## Timmy (13 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> As I said before I have no answers as to why, only what is in the domain.




I think anyone who wants to get into arguments of this kind eventually accepts that nothing can be proven or disproven to everyone's satisfaction, there are no definitive answers that will satisfy everyone. 

That's where using good judgement comes in, and the conspiracy brigade time and again show themselves incapable of using judgement, just continual denial in the face of all rationality and evidence.  Or. like I suggested earlier, wanting to seek attention by trying to drag down great achievements.  Weird behaviour, but there you go.

It is promising, though, Snake, that you admit you could be wrong, that is progress.


----------



## knocker (13 July 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Funny looking plane eh!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




More space junk. Can they cook a chook in that thing as well lol have fun guysl


----------



## Timmy (13 July 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Funny looking plane eh!




That's just NASA spin, Spooly.  That photo has been doctored from one I saw in the International Journal of Corn Flakes, it is a Corn Flake making machine, this is the original photo.  

If you look very carefully you can see where the corn goes in and the Corn Flakes come out.

Those scoundrels in World Government (NASA branch)!


----------



## knocker (13 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> That's just NASA spin, Spooly.  That photo has been doctored from one I saw in the International Journal of Corn Flakes, it is a Corn Flake making machine, this is the original photo.
> 
> If you look very carefully you can see where the corn goes in and the Corn Flakes come out.
> 
> Those scoundrels in World Government (NASA branch)!




lol great Are they bunny ears? maybe Hugh is starting up a new planet of super models lol


----------



## Krusty the Klown (13 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I'm not addressing you personally (since you aren't stating it didn't happen), but had the US not landed on the moon, wouldn't the USSR have had something to say about it? I don't think the West could have kept it quiet for 40 years. If the landing was fake, I imagine something would have come out from someone, somewhere.




That's a good point - they both supposedly had spies in each other's administrations.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 July 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> Disappointing Snake, I have pointed out something to you that proves the moon landing was real, yet you ignore it?
> 
> *You are in denial like some worshiper finding out his idol is a fraud.*




I am sure you can realise that time may prevent someone from actually responding immediately or shortly after whatever the case. Unfortunately I couldn't allow just a few minutes to type a response. Your impetuous comments above are disappointing. Feel free to hurl more abuse if it helps you. Your last sentence is more fitting for the symptoms you display: impetuousness, negative emotion. 

There is nothing to show that you have proven anything. 



> Please explain to me how the dust behind the buggy gets so high, so close behind the buggy? If it was "supposedly" filmed on Earth, where there is gravity and air, this would not be possible.




I can't explain the clip you posted. It looks like a buggy driving around which could be on the moon, Earth or elsewhere. I have seen many vehicles flick up dirt, dust and sand. Nothing looks different. I am quite open to hear your expert opinion on it.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 July 2009)

> Timmy
> I think anyone who wants to get into arguments of this kind eventually accepts that nothing can be proven or disproven to everyone's satisfaction, there are no definitive answers that will satisfy everyone.



I don't think it has to be an argument. It can be a discussion though - we are supposedly a sophisticated society. 



> That's where using good judgement comes in, and the conspiracy brigade time and again show themselves incapable of using judgement, just continual denial in the face of all rationality and evidence.



By labeling people as a group who have opinions on a topic with a negative connoting word is not using good judgement if you have really thought things out and were interested in genuine discussion. You have generalised to the point of making yourself redundant in the discussion.   



> Or. like I suggested earlier, wanting to seek attention by trying to drag down great achievements.  Weird behaviour, but there you go.



Save everyone the group fightback lines. 


> It is promising, though, Snake, that you admit you could be wrong, that is progress.



Not at all. I say I don't have the answers.


----------



## Naked shorts (14 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I am sure you can realise that time may prevent someone from actually responding immediately or shortly after whatever the case. Unfortunately I couldn't allow just a few minutes to type a response.



lol

Not enough time to respond to me, but enough time to respond to 7 other posters in your massive post found here.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=459165




It's Snake Pliskin said:


> It looks like a buggy driving around which could be on the moon, Earth or elsewhere. I have seen many vehicles flick up dirt, dust and sand. Nothing looks different.




Ok, watch this video
This video is in the "real speed the buggy was going before it was slowed down by the "big bad government"".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0

Now pay extra special attention to the dust being flicked up. Notice how the dust isn't leaving a dust-trail behind the buggy? This is because this dust is quite coarse. Now I don't know about you, but I have a very hard time believing that this coarse dust could be flicked up so high, so close behind the buggy if it was "filmed on Earth".


----------



## shag (14 July 2009)

isn't the real proof in actual new pictures of all the hardware left behind, such as this buggy.
you would think even without getting too close to the place we could view such equipment if anyone was really determined to. 
i believe it was an awesome achievement and sad little has happened since, but i do try to keep an open mind and sceptical about anything to do with politics and propoganda.

a moon landing at this time would have been a different story if it wasn't for the germans and the 'need' for all these rockets to hurl warheads at each other.

imagine, sitting ontop of a rocket designed to deliver a warhead across the earth.

the space shuttle continues to amaze me, what technology for the 70's.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 July 2009)

The thousands of people who built the craft and controlled the missions and supposedly went to the moon all kept the secret. Even on their death beds. Not one told the media it was faked!  How is this possible?

Well they were drugged to make then amenable and put under intense hypnotism so at the end there were only two guys left who knew the truth. 
The CIA one shot the hypnotist and now no one knows!

Can't wait for the conspiracy theorists to spread this one:bs:


----------



## Timmy (14 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Can't wait for the conspiracy theorists to spread this one:bs:




I have one! Michael Jackson's dad (Joseph Jackson) trained the astronauts how to walk as if they were on the moon.  He subsequently taught Michael how to do it too (the Moonwalk).  NASA had Michael killed as a warning to his father to keep quiet and not show it to anyone else.

Pissweak story but no doubt the conspiracy fools can come up with something reasonable from it.


----------



## bassmanpete (14 July 2009)

> I have one! Michael Jackson's dad (Joseph Jackson) trained the astronauts how to walk as if they were on the moon. He subsequently taught Michael how to do it too (the Moonwalk). NASA had Michael killed as a warning to his father to keep quiet and not show it to anyone else.




Trouble with that Timmy, is that a guy named Ronnie Hawkins was doing the Moonwalk in 1959!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x67qdc_ronnie-hawkins-i-need-your-loving_music


----------



## Timmy (14 July 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> Trouble with that Timmy, is that a guy named Ronnie Hawkins was doing the Moonwalk in 1959!
> 
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x67qdc_ronnie-hawkins-i-need-your-loving_music




Thank-you Pete.  I have actually been looking for that clip!

Back on topic - thanks but I wont be letting evidence stand in the way of a good (or even a bad) conspiracy theory.  What you have there is just NASA spin etc. LOL!


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2009)

I have just had another look at the 2007 full length documentary "In the Shadow of the Moon". For those who haven't seen it it is well worth watching. It makes you fully appreciate the quality of these men.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 July 2009)

> Naked shorts





> Not enough time to respond to me, but enough time to respond to 7 other posters in your massive post found here.



Actually it is the truth. How can I make it up to you? 



> Ok, watch this video
> This video is in the "real speed the buggy was going before it was slowed down by the "big bad government"".
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0
> ...



Yes just like beach sand would. You have chosen a very difficult aspect of the landings to state proof from. The speed in which things drop is evident in a lot of clips.


----------



## bassmanpete (18 July 2009)

Apollo landing sites imaged by LRO

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/


----------



## xyzedarteerf (19 July 2009)

just a case of seeing what you want to see nothing more.


----------



## xyzedarteerf (19 July 2009)

oh i am so sorry i accidentally erased the original and because this was such an important part of the project, i didn't even care about making a copy...RIGHT!!!.


----------



## spooly74 (19 July 2009)

xyzedarteerf said:


> View attachment 31692
> 
> just a case of seeing what you want to see nothing more.




lol ...seeing what you want to see..believe what you want to believe.

Never underestimate the power of denial.

The LRO is still in a high orbit fwiw


----------



## Calliope (19 July 2009)

It is difficult to come to terms with the agnostic position taken by  some usually rational people on whether Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins spoke the truth or were liars. I can only conclude that they are being deliberately provocative. 

Tomorrow I will have a few drinks with some mates to celebrate what we witnessed 40 years ago... the  momentous and heroic event which thrilled our very ordinary lives.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

After watching Buzz Aldrin punch the living sh!te out of a journalistic hack who dared ask the question "Did you really land on the moon?" I believe these guys have achieved what at the time was implausible. Imagine a space travelling vessel that's entire brain was no larger than an Atari 1000 game console? AND this landed on the moon? Damn straight it did says Buzz.


----------



## bassmanpete (20 July 2009)

> oh i am so sorry i accidentally erased the original and because this was such an important part of the project, i didn't even care about making a copy...RIGHT!!!.




So they stuffed up on the first one; there were five others where the tapes weren't erased.

If it was a hoax wouldn't they have done it just once? They'd have been really pushing their luck to try it on six more times.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2009)

I was watching Catalyst and they found some results from an experiment on the moon related to moon dust.

In the morning, when the astronauts landed, the dust is relatively firm but as it heats up it becomes looser. Interesting physics. The guy who invented the machine to do this is Australian and quite an old man now.


----------



## happytown (21 July 2009)

for armstrong

 for aldrin

 for the other guy

cheers


----------



## Buddy (21 July 2009)

happytown said:


> for armstrong
> 
> for aldrin
> 
> ...




Michael Collins. The guy spinning round the moon while the others had fun. All three - good guys. Plus the many thousands who made it all happen.


----------



## shag (3 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> After watching Buzz Aldrin punch the living sh!te out of a journalistic hack who dared ask the question "Did you really land on the moon?" I believe these guys have achieved what at the time was implausible. Imagine a space travelling vessel that's entire brain was no larger than an Atari 1000 game console? AND this landed on the moon? Damn straight it did says Buzz.




yeah that was a great wack for an old bloke plus hitting uphill. it sure made a grt satisfying thud on the audio.
while im not into overt violence and all, i'd have liked to have seen the old fella kick the wally in the nuts, grab him by the ears and give him a good kneeing in the head. maybe a couple of kicks on the ground also for good measure.
like hes an old fella and deserves respect.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 August 2009)

shag said:


> yeah that was a great wack for an old bloke plus hitting uphill. it sure made a grt satisfying thud on the audio.
> while im not into overt violence and all, i'd have liked to have seen the old fella kick the wally in the nuts, grab him by the ears and give him a good kneeing in the head. maybe a couple of kicks on the ground also for good measure.
> like hes an old fella and deserves respect.




Yep, let's rejoice in the ways of the dark ages.


----------



## bassmanpete (4 August 2009)

Found this great response to "the moon landings were faked" believers:

http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 August 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> Found this great response to "the moon landings were faked" believers:
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/




Hey there bassmanpete. Judging by your comments and the link to propaganda based content I see that you may not agree with an alternative view on the matter. 

Tell me, is it logical to have debate on the matter considering the detail that stands in the way of the official story?


----------



## bassmanpete (5 August 2009)

> Tell me, is it logical to have debate on the matter considering the detail that stands in the way of the official story?




I don't consider it logical to debate a matter that undoubtedly occurred, but I can't resist putting in my 2 cents worth when illogical people make out they're arguing logically. BTW, which particular detail are you referring to?


----------



## Buddy (6 August 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> I don't consider it logical to debate a matter that undoubtedly occurred, but I can't resist putting in my 2 cents worth when illogical people make out they're arguing logically. BTW, which particular detail are you referring to?




I dont know why you get sucked in on this one, Pete. You are right to say it is illogical to debate this crap. I bet this guy also believes the World Trade Centre event was not what it actually was.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 August 2009)

Buddy said:


> I dont know why you get sucked in on this one, Pete. You are right to say it is illogical to debate this crap. I bet this guy also believes the World Trade Centre event was not what it actually was.



Buddy it's ok to believe what is dished out. It is comfortable and romantic to believe in Santa Claus. If it makes you feel secure then I understand your objection to an alternative view.


----------



## Tink (26 August 2012)

*Neil Armstrong dies*

*Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, dies at 82*

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology...-dies-at-82-20120826-24tyr.html#ixzz24cktScam


----------



## DB008 (26 August 2012)

A true humble legend if there ever was one.


----------



## Tink (26 August 2012)

Yes, meant to say, R.I.P and thanks.
I was too young at the time, but will never forget that clip when they landed.


----------



## Glen48 (26 August 2012)

Strange how engineers, scientist etc can work out to the second how to put a machine on land so far away it take 20 minutes for the signal to arrive, yet economist if laid end to end would not reach a conclusion.

 Engineers etc the true world  heroes but don't get the awards they deserve.


----------



## CanOz (26 August 2012)

Thanks DB, that was a real treat...

CanOz


----------



## Glen48 (26 August 2012)

Neil Armstrong, The First Man On The Moon, Dead At 82
 Matt Hardigree
Astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon, passed away earlier today. He was 82. The cause was complications from heart surgery three weeks ago.
From his official NASA biography:

Neil A. Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, was born in Wapakoneta, Ohio, on August 5, 1930. He began his NASA career in Ohio.

After serving as a naval aviator from 1949 to 1952, Armstrong joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1955. His first assignment was with the NACA Lewis Research Center (now NASA Glenn) in Cleveland. Over the next 17 years, he was an engineer, test pilot, astronaut and administrator for NACA and its successor agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

As a research pilot at NASA's Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., he was a project pilot on many pioneering high speed aircraft, including the well known, 4000-mph X-15. He has flown over 200 different models of aircraft, including jets, rockets, helicopters and gliders.

Armstrong transferred to astronaut status in 1962. He was assigned as command pilot for the Gemini 8 mission. Gemini 8 was launched on March 16, 1966, and Armstrong performed the first successful docking of two vehicles in space.

As spacecraft commander for Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission, Armstrong gained the distinction of being the first man to land a craft on the moon and first to step on its surface.


----------



## DB008 (26 August 2012)

CanOz said:


> Thanks DB, that was a real treat...
> 
> CanOz




Yes, l think that was a great interview and insight into someone who will forever be in the history books.

Neil seemed humble in his achievement(s) and a all round nice guy.


----------



## sptrawler (26 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> A true humble legend if there ever was one.





Great post Danny, I was in second year high school in Bunbury, the whole class went across the road into a private house to watch it.
Funny how things change, now the classroom has the latest in media technology, but nobody can add up.LOL


----------



## Calliope (27 August 2012)

He is up there with all the other great explorers who ventured into the unknown. The Australian editorial today;




*One of the great explorers*

THEY were the words that defined one of history's greatest achievements, a moment when the horizons of human endeavour and discovery changed forever: "One small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind."

Yet in his last interview in May, with CPA Australia chief executive Alex Malley, Neil Armstrong spoke modestly of how he had thought of them after he had manoeuvred his landing craft through a treacherous descent on to the moon's surface.

That self-effacing modesty was the mark of the extraordinary man whose death is universally mourned. For as long as history is written, Armstrong will have a major place in it. He will be honoured alongside Christopher Columbus and other explorers. On that day in July, 1969, an awestruck television audience of 600 million, one-fifth of humanity, watched him step on to the moon's Sea of Tranquillity, igniting the passions and imaginations of generations to come, just as Armstrong had been by president John F. Kennedy's Rice University speech in 1961 that laid down the gauntlet for a moon landing.

How different those dreams of interplanetary discovery look now, and it is hardly surprising that even as he eschewed attention, Armstrong spoke out on the issue of human spaceflight, rounding on President Barack Obama over his cancellation of the Constellation plan to return humans to the moon by the early 2020s. Armstrong warned a Senate hearing that if the US failed to pursue the challenge, that would open the door to other countries. In his CPA Australia interview, he said the current US human spaceflight program lacked ambition compared with the big thinking of the 1960s.

In a telling riposte, China has announced plans to put humans on the moon by the early 2020s, taking up the opening left by Washington. Past US glories in manned spacecraft, unfortunately, belong to another era. The big thinking of the 60s on manned spaceflight has been replaced by more modest ambitions, although the epic $2.35 billion Curiosity Mars probe that landed earlier this month is a sign of continuing achievement. Clearly, however, there is little enthusiasm for the glory days of manned space launches when NASA was spending well over 4 per cent of the US government's budget on space and employing 400,000 workers. A return to anything on that scale is ruled out by the parlous state of the American economy.

But as the world's superpower, the US would be wise to use Armstrong's death to recall the excitement and the soaring "we can do anything" ambition that led to the moon landing and ponder the wisdom of allowing China, or any other country, to assume the leadership in human spaceflight.

The US was a different place then. Times are tougher, horizons are lowered. But what we need in every field of human endeavour is more, not less, of the ambition and creativity that drove Armstrong from his schoolboy fascination with flight to become a US navy fighter pilot who flew 78 combat missions in the Korea War then went on to space travel.

A reluctant hero, Armstrong was one of the great men of our times. His achievements changed perceptions of ourselves and knowledge of the universe. In an age of mindless celebrity and self-aggrandisement, he was different. That one giant leap for mankind should continue to inspire us.


----------



## Surly (27 August 2012)

I was being born while Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon.

My father was glued to the television rather than at the hospital with my mother and didn't come to see his firstborn son until after the moonwalk.

I have always felt a connection with this event and was called moon baby/boy by relatives as a young boy.

Rest in Peace Neil Armstrong

cheers
Surly


----------



## Calliope (28 August 2012)

Obama pays tribute to Neil Armstrong, the only way he knows how...with a picture of himself.


----------



## CanOz (28 August 2012)

All be it a cool pic, its an election year, what do ya expect??

CanOz


----------



## Tink (3 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> I have just had another look at the 2007 full length documentary "In the Shadow of the Moon". For those who haven't seen it it is well worth watching. It makes you fully appreciate the quality of these men.




This was on TV last night, thoroughly enjoyed it.
I could see the moon perfectly outside my window this morning, so I gave it a wink, as his family said to do


----------



## Dona Ferentes (6 December 2022)

From spacecraft Orion, taken recently, a holiday snap of the dark side of the moon, a crescent Earth and (I presume) a heavily filtered Sun


----------



## Dona Ferentes (12 December 2022)

... and 50 years since the last humans on the moon.

*Apollo 17* (December 7–19, 1972) _was the final mission of the NASA Apollo program, the most recent time humans have set foot on the moon or traveled beyond low earth orbit.

Commander Gene Cernan and Lunar Module Pilot Harrison Schmitt walked on the Moon, while Command Module Pilot Ronald Evans orbited above_


----------



## sptrawler (12 December 2022)

Dona Ferentes said:


> ... and 50 years since the last humans on the moon.
> 
> *Apollo 17* (December 7–19, 1972) _was the final mission of the NASA Apollo program, the most recent time humans have set foot on the moon or traveled beyond low earth orbit.
> 
> Commander Gene Cernan and Lunar Module Pilot Harrison Schmitt walked on the Moon, while Command Module Pilot Ronald Evans orbited above_



It seems much harder to get back there, despite advances in aerospace and computing technology, must be a traffic and space junk issue. 🤔


----------



## moXJO (12 December 2022)

sptrawler said:


> It seems much harder to get back there, despite advances in aerospace and computing technology, must be a traffic and space junk issue. 🤔



Didn't they stick a retroreflector or something up there that you can bounce lasers off?


----------



## sptrawler (12 December 2022)

moXJO said:


> Didn't they stick a retroreflector or something up there that you can bounce lasers off?



My guess is a hypnosis disk. 🤣
I wonder if the next first 'person' on the moon's first words are, "someone told me there was a flucking moon mobile up here". 🤣


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2022)

sptrawler said:


> My guess is a hypnosis disk. 🤣
> I wonder if the next first 'person' on the moon's first words are, "someone told me there was a flucking moon mobile up here". 🤣




I think they should send Donald Trump there so he can establish the first golf course on the moon.


----------

