The 1969 moon landing was faked! Here's proof... - GoFuckYourself.com

Pornwolf · 08-31-2006, 06:50 PM

I have listened to the tin foil hat conspiracy theories for many years and I never believed em... until I looked at this and really thought about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by From Times Online

America?s dream of putting men on the Moon again took a giant leap forward with Lockheed Martin, the US defence contractor, gaining the $8 billion contract to build the Orion space capsule for Nasa.

The Orion capsule will to some extent resemble the Apollo 11 capsule that took Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the Moon in 1969 but will be three times as large, with a crew cabin capacity of six for journeys to the International Space Station and four for proposed voyages to the Moon and Mars.

It will be reusable up to ten times. It will measure 5m (16.5ft) in diameter and will include a command module and a service module.

The first launch of Orion with human beings on-board is planned for 2014, with a human landing on the Moon no later than 2020.Link

Now, I dunno about you guys but I smell something fishy. Here we are in the 21st century and it's going to take us around 14 years to put a man on the friggin moon? That should be childs play for us at this point. 2 years, sure... 14 years!?!?! Hell no.

I thought our biggest issue was getting men to Mars, not the moon.

Am I crazy for thinking this?

juz · 08-31-2006, 06:56 PM

yes you are crazy

StuartD · 08-31-2006, 06:58 PM

No, I agree... all the arguments are neither here nor there... my biggest question has always been....

how did we have the technology to just blast off and get there in 69... but we haven't been able to do it again since??

Solid Bob · 08-31-2006, 07:01 PM

It's always been a hard pill to swallow, all conspiracies aside.

DBS.US · 08-31-2006, 07:04 PM

This NASA picture should show the astronaut in complete shadow because the sun is behind him, and yet the whole of the astronaut is caught in bright light?

DeadFidel · 08-31-2006, 07:04 PM

Please our economy is bad enough.

crockett · 08-31-2006, 07:05 PM

It has nothing to do with getting the men to the moon, but rather designing, developing and testing a new space craft..

Back in the sixties it was a race against the Russians and they almost beat us. The reason they didn't is because they didn't give a shit about safety and their cosmonauts paid for it with their lives.

On the other hand we were rushing too but not at the sake of safety. Same thing is what is happing with this new program. With the fact we have lost two Space Shuttles NASA isn't going to risk rushing something like this.

I'd be willing to bet that the guys behind Space Ship One will be well into their space tourism venture before we ever step foot on the moon again. Hell I'd almost be willing to be that it might be a private company that goes back first.

A private company has nothing to lose but money, however if NASA fucks up they are screwed for several years each and every time.

Invest · 08-31-2006, 07:06 PM

It cost so much money and is worthless when we get their we spend billions of dollars to go play in dirt!

StuartD · 08-31-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

It has nothing to do with getting the men to the moon, but rather designing, developing and testing a new space craft..

Back in the sixties it was a race against the Russians and they almost beat us. The reason they didn't is because they didn't give a shit about safety and their cosmonauts paid for it with their lives.

On the other hand we were rushing too but not at the sake of safety. Same thing is what is happing with this new program. With the fact we have lost two Space Shuttles NASA isn't going to risk rushing something like this.

I'd be willing to bet that the guys behind Space Ship One will be well into their space tourism venture before we ever step foot on the moon again. Hell I'd almost be willing to be that it might be a private company that goes back first.

A private company has nothing to lose but money, however if NASA fucks up they are screwed for several years each and every time.

yes, but that only begs the question more... if it was such a dire race... and the US didn't want to sacrifice safety... wouldn't faking it sound like a plausible solution?

nikki99 · 08-31-2006, 07:08 PM

I heard that film was recorded in the chilean desert

MaddCaz · 08-31-2006, 07:09 PM

you think??

Pornwolf · 08-31-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartD

yes, but that only begs the question more... if it was such a dire race... and the US didn't want to sacrifice safety... wouldn't faking it sound like a plausible solution?

It's not like our country doesn't have it's fare share of fakeries and all. That would have made a lot of sense to do at the time.

tony286 · 08-31-2006, 07:25 PM

I doubt it for the simple reason too many people had to be involved.

xmagik · 08-31-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaddCaz

you think??

sure do.

notabook · 08-31-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Back in the sixties it was a race against the Russians and they almost beat us. The reason they didn't is because they didn't give a shit about safety and their cosmonauts paid for it with their lives.

Wouldn?t not caring about safely allow for the Russians to beat us to the moon, albeit with more dire results? Wouldn?t the US having such safety measures slow them down tremendously?

xmagik · 08-31-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Wouldn?t not caring about safely allow for the Russians to beat us to the moon, albeit with more dire results? Wouldn?t the US having such safety measures slow them down tremendously?

i read that and asked myself the same question.

Pleasurepays · 08-31-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartD

how did we have the technology to just blast off and get there in 69... but we haven't been able to do it again since??

uhmm.... there were several missions to the moon.

StuartD · 08-31-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

uhmm.... there were several missions to the moon.

Yes, 6 of them... all between 69 and 72. I didn't say there wasn't several. Just that the technology was there at the time to just come and go as they pleased, but nothing since... and now.... we take 14 years to figure out how to do it?

free4porn · 08-31-2006, 08:00 PM

I seen so many theories I donno what to believe

crockett · 08-31-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Wouldn?t not caring about safely allow for the Russians to beat us to the moon, albeit with more dire results? Wouldn?t the US having such safety measures slow them down tremendously?

The Russians did almost beat us to the moon, however their main rocket that was to be used blew up on every un-manned launch test..

This is how close they came to beating us..

These were all done by the Russians..

First probe to impact the moon, Luna 2 (1959)
First images of the moon's far side, Luna 3 (1959)
First probe launched to Mars (1960)
First probe launched to Venus (1961)
First probe to hit another planet (Venus), Venera 3 (1965)
First probe to transmit from the surface of the moon, Luna 9 (1966)
First probe in lunar orbit, Luna 10 (1966)

So are you going to say if it was impossiabe for the US to do it then the Russians must have faked all their successes as well?

Serge Litehead · 08-31-2006, 08:04 PM

alot of things in this country is fake, fake boobs, fake president, fake food might as well be fake moon

Bdiddy · 08-31-2006, 08:07 PM

because its a waste of time and resources unless we find gold or some other commodity on the moon worth spending all the money to get there...69 it was political, not just a technical step forward...if we were racing al queda to the moon we'd be there in 5 months...

also don't forget, no current spacecraft/rocket is in production or working order to take humans to the moon. Think about the thrust it takes to leave earths atmosphere, let alone its gravitational pull. Those rockets don't fall out of peoples asses you know.

juz · 08-31-2006, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartD

No, I agree... all the arguments are neither here nor there... my biggest question has always been....

how did we have the technology to just blast off and get there in 69... but we haven't been able to do it again since??

We can and could have continued our moon trips well into the 70's and 80's and on but our government decided it wasn't cost effective to continue. Nasa wanted to keep going there and had plans of establishing a permanent base there, congress said no because it cost too much.

Too many people were involved in the lunar landings for it to be faked, mass amounts of people cant keep secretes like that for this long. Maybe if it was a 1 time event,not to mentions they went on over a span of several years. These conspiracy theorist ignore the fact that we have moon dust and rocks that were brought back. These are minerals you can not find on Earth.

spacedog · 08-31-2006, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

The Russians did almost beat us to the moon, however their main rocket that was to be used blew up on every un-manned launch test..

This is how close they came to beating us..

These were all done by the Russians..

First probe to impact the moon, Luna 2 (1959)
First images of the moon's far side, Luna 3 (1959)
First probe launched to Mars (1960)
First probe launched to Venus (1961)
First probe to hit another planet (Venus), Venera 3 (1965)
First probe to transmit from the surface of the moon, Luna 9 (1966)
First probe in lunar orbit, Luna 10 (1966)

So are you going to say if it was impossiabe for the US to do it then the Russians must have faked all their successes as well?

and the first dog in space

notabook · 08-31-2006, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

So are you going to say if it was impossiabe for the US to do it then the Russians must have faked all their successes as well?

Where the fuck did I say that it was impossible for the US to do it?

Pornwolf · 08-31-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluewireBrian

because its a waste of time and resources unless we find gold or some other commodity on the moon worth spending all the money to get there...69 it was political, not just a technical step forward...if we were racing al queda to the moon we'd be there in 5 months...

also don't forget, no current spacecraft/rocket is in production or working order to take humans to the moon. Think about the thrust it takes to leave earths atmosphere, let alone its gravitational pull. Those rockets don't fall out of peoples asses you know.

Yeah, but 14 years? C'mon man. That's ridiculous.

The folks that won the X-Prize could do it for their first time in 3 years with an $8 billion warchest.

If it takes the gov 14 years to put this one together I'm calling bullshit on the 1969 efforts. We were listening to transistor radios back then. There were no computers, no composite materials, hell, all we had back then was aluminum and rocket fuel.

I'm calling bullshit.

Scootermuze · 08-31-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

...
There were no computers,...

Ahhh but there were, and they used em'

If they really went...

squishypimp · 08-31-2006, 08:40 PM

i truely believe that they did land on the moon but they were the craziest bunch of people ever. i mean back then the ocean hadn't even really been explored let alone the moon....how would you feel as an astronaut back then?

Pornwolf · 08-31-2006, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

Ahhh but there were, and they used em'

If they really went...

Bwahahaha, nice find Scooter. Their "computer" was literally less powerful than this:

So either our current rocket scientists are complete blathering idiots or the post war American "can do" spirit is way more powerful than I thought. After all, they went to the moon and back with a computer that is less powerful than a casio calculator. That's what we are supposed to believe right?

Dirty F · 08-31-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

After all, they went to the moon and back with a computer that is less powerful than a casio calculator. That's what we are supposed to believe right?

Can you imagine how many people wouldve been involved if this was a hoax. That alone already makes it impossible because after 50 years it wouldve come out long time ago already with evidence and that isnt the case.

Fizzgig · 08-31-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

Can you imagine how many people wouldve been involved if this was a hoax. That alone already makes it impossible because after 50 years it wouldve come out long time ago already with evidence and that isnt the case.

By that logic you would have to believe the moon landing was real, but you'd also have to believe the Roswell and Area 51 stories too.

Dirty F · 08-31-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fizzgig

By that logic you would have to believe the moon landing was real, but you'd also have to believe the Roswell and Area 51 stories too.

Huh? No?

After Shock Media · 08-31-2006, 09:35 PM

No idea how any rational person can still doubt the moon landings.

Every single conspiracy theory behind it has a logical real reason of explanation.

As for 14 years. Lets remember something called red tape, bureaucracy, safety laws and plans, contractors, and the general inadequacies of the US Government to do anything in a timely manor. Fuck it is going to take them 3 years just to redo a small portion of an interstate near here and if it was like any others they did it will go over budget, need to be redone or fixed and take 2-3 times as long than they projected. Back then we strapped peoples asses to a tube of rocket fuel, and well if it blew up they just took one for the team, no lawyers, no scandal, no blame.

StuartD · 08-31-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

Can you imagine how many people wouldve been involved if this was a hoax. That alone already makes it impossible because after 50 years it wouldve come out long time ago already with evidence and that isnt the case.

well, let's see... if it was a hoax.. then there'd be a couple of people to make the set, a lighting guy... the astronauts themselves and the people who made the decision.

I know, a slight exaggeration but really... how many people does it take to pull off a 2 person short film?

Keeping mind that even most the CIA pulls off missions while on a "need to know" basis only.

jollyperv · 08-31-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluewireBrian

because its a waste of time and resources unless we find gold or some other commodity on the moon worth spending all the money to get there....

I was reading something last week about fusion and Helium-3...apparently there's a shitload on the moon.

Pornwolf · 08-31-2006, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartD

I know, a slight exaggeration but really... how many people does it take to pull off a 2 person short film?

Keeping mind that even most the CIA pulls off missions while on a "need to know" basis only.

Very true. Much bigger coverups than this have happened over the years.

People still believe JFK was shot from the grassy knoll by a crazy guy with no real motives. Go figure.

Pleasurepays · 08-31-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartD

Yes, 6 of them... all between 69 and 72. I didn't say there wasn't several. Just that the technology was there at the time to just come and go as they pleased, but nothing since... and now.... we take 14 years to figure out how to do it?

yeah... they are sending missions to space all the time... but "need 14 yrs to figure out how to do it" - you dont really care to know what they are doing, why, what the budgets are, what the constraints, whats being developed (i.e. reusable vehicles) are and why the timeline is what it is... you had your mind made up BEFORE you even read the article.

you make perfect sense.

NOT.

Bdiddy · 08-31-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

Yeah, but 14 years? C'mon man. That's ridiculous.

The folks that won the X-Prize could do it for their first time in 3 years with an $8 billion warchest.

If it takes the gov 14 years to put this one together I'm calling bullshit on the 1969 efforts. We were listening to transistor radios back then. There were no computers, no composite materials, hell, all we had back then was aluminum and rocket fuel.

I'm calling bullshit.

I agree 14 years is a long time.

but the X-prize (whatever it was called), the saturn V-rocket, LEM, command module, service module, etc.., were all components that were designed, and served, only one purpose on missions, one time only. I wouldn't call bullshit on the moon landing just because it'll take longer than it did in the past to design, produce, and launch a multipurpose capsule in space (that will be capable of going to mars with humans on board) that can be reused, has some serious legs, and is also five times the size of any spacecraft that has traveled that distance.

Also, you said "no composite materials" in your quote. They take longer to produce so that doesnt fit into your argument.

Pleasurepays · 08-31-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartD

well, let's see... if it was a hoax.. then there'd be a couple of people to make the set, a lighting guy... the astronauts themselves and the people who made the decision.

I know, a slight exaggeration but really... how many people does it take to pull off a 2 person short film?

Keeping mind that even most the CIA pulls off missions while on a "need to know" basis only.

you are really out of your mind. now you are down to a couple guys, that tricked the world AND the russians with the best hoax ever. i guess no one at NASA was involved... you know... the 1000's of employees, the scientists nation wide working on the project, their families, their friends etc.

must have been three pretty smart guys making that "2 person short film"

Loki · 08-31-2006, 10:22 PM

there is no moon, Chuck Noris destroyed it

as u were

BradM · 08-31-2006, 10:29 PM

Remember: It's in a contractors best interests to prolong development. It makes them more money.

Hell Canada will be on the moon launched with a piece of swiss cheese before the US goes again.

Mike AI · 08-31-2006, 10:33 PM

NASA became a typical big government bureaucracy. They cannot do anything right or efficient.

Look at what Burt Rutan has been able to do with a lot less resources and time.

bknoob · 08-31-2006, 10:33 PM

interesting point you got there.. makes me think.. Time to dig up some wikipedia articles

Bdiddy · 08-31-2006, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdc-Loki

there is no moon, Chuck Noris destroyed it

dont fuck with chuck for sure

BradM · 08-31-2006, 10:41 PM

If GFY was developing a space shuttle

2010:
Lockheed: "No we're not done yet."
NASA: "Why not?"
Lockheed: "We can't figure out how to get the.... uh.... imancipator module to .... erm... interface with the .... uhhhh... air cooling SAFETY unit."
NASA: "Oh. Well continue then. Safety is our biggest concern."

2015:
NASA: "Hey, just checking in. Haven't talked to you guys in awhile."
Lockheed: "Oh... HI. Yeah. We're.... we're good. I guess. Got a bit of the flu."
NASA: "Oh how is that space module thing going? Remember you had a deadline of 2008... :x"
Lockheed: "Yeah. Oh... right. Well we're still having SAFETY concerns with the lead intake buster on the port valve. It's a doozie. We will get back to you on progress for sure."

--- In the mean time, private industry has colonized the moon, and are sending vacationers out as far as Venus --

2020:
Nasa: "Okay guys we are getting some minor pressure from the Government. Nothing major but we need a prototype or something."
Lockheed: "Yeah we have one. Hang on."
Nasa: "..."
Lockheed: "It's... hm where did it go... *clunking in background*"
Nasa: "Hm find it?"
Lockheed: "Yeah...oh nevermind that's my daughters laptop."
Nasa: "Oh. Well can you send it over when you get it? We really need it now."
Lockheed: ".... brb gotta take my wife to the mall she lost her license."

2025:
NASA is disbanded due to government stoppage of funding. The official announcement? Government should not control space exploration and research.

ry0t · 08-31-2006, 10:41 PM

I don't understand why we can't use the same technology back then to go to the moon again? We should be able to re build what we previously had and then try again. I know it's old technology that's not my point. That's why I have doubts about the moon landing. Why is that?

GatorB · 08-31-2006, 10:41 PM

Ok if it was faked the USSR would have known and they certainly would have shown the world the proof that it was faked.

Back in the 60's ther wasn't any budget contraints. We HAD to get to the moon before 1970 to keep JFKs dream alive.

Also this new ship is reuseable so it's a completely different technology so it has to be tested. This thing also holds 6 as compared to 3 for Apollo. And the first launch is in 8 years not 14. You think the first time we are going to try this thing is when we send them to the moon?

As far as Mars. If this technology works then it can be used as a basis for a Mars misssion.

Sure if we just wanted to put 3 guys in a tin can on top of a old Saturn V rocket and send them to the moon we could do that right now. I think we are looking for something more advanced.

E$_manager · 08-31-2006, 10:53 PM

Don't think of it too much or will get some nerveouse desease.

Rochard · 08-31-2006, 10:55 PM

You guys aren't too bright. It will take them ten years to come up with a plan first.

bobby666 · 08-31-2006, 11:40 PM

i started a poll some months ago about this topic here, as i remember the "it was a fake" won

08-31-2006, 07:01 PM	#4
Solid Bob Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Easy Webcam Pro Posts: 1,213	It's always been a hard pill to swallow, all conspiracies aside. __________________ [email protected]

08-31-2006, 07:04 PM	#5
DBS.US Geo Cities Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: North Captiva Island, Florida USA Posts: 11,835	This NASA picture should show the astronaut in complete shadow because the sun is behind him, and yet the whole of the astronaut is caught in bright light? __________________ Make a Free Chaturbate White Label site in 34 minutes and be making money tonight

08-31-2006, 07:05 PM	#7
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	It has nothing to do with getting the men to the moon, but rather designing, developing and testing a new space craft.. Back in the sixties it was a race against the Russians and they almost beat us. The reason they didn't is because they didn't give a shit about safety and their cosmonauts paid for it with their lives. On the other hand we were rushing too but not at the sake of safety. Same thing is what is happing with this new program. With the fact we have lost two Space Shuttles NASA isn't going to risk rushing something like this. I'd be willing to bet that the guys behind Space Ship One will be well into their space tourism venture before we ever step foot on the moon again. Hell I'd almost be willing to be that it might be a private company that goes back first. A private company has nothing to lose but money, however if NASA fucks up they are screwed for several years each and every time. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

08-31-2006, 07:08 PM	#10
nikki99 Supermodel Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Sodoma & Gomorra Posts: 22,904	I heard that film was recorded in the chilean desert __________________ SMC Revenue - Best Tgirl websites of the world now VR Non exclusive BIG Tranny/shemale Package for sale, full 2257 - hit me up skype: nikkimontero

08-31-2006, 07:09 PM	#11
MaddCaz Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 9,483	you think?? __________________ BigCocks.com - MatureWomen.com - Tranny.com - DrunkGirls.com - TeenGirls.com - MonsterCock.com and many more... Click here to see them all!

08-31-2006, 06:56 PM	#2
juz Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 307	yes you are crazy

08-31-2006, 06:58 PM	#3
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	No, I agree... all the arguments are neither here nor there... my biggest question has always been.... how did we have the technology to just blast off and get there in 69... but we haven't been able to do it again since??

08-31-2006, 07:04 PM	#6
DeadFidel Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: This was my wife circa 2002 Posts: 6,760	Please our economy is bad enough.

08-31-2006, 07:06 PM	#8
Invest Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: On the otherside Posts: 85	It cost so much money and is worthless when we get their we spend billions of dollars to go play in dirt!

08-31-2006, 07:25 PM	#13
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I doubt it for the simple reason too many people had to be involved.

08-31-2006, 08:00 PM	#19
free4porn Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,654	I seen so many theories I donno what to believe __________________ Switch To Fling Now! I'm on 1:201 paid signups sending little traffic! Make $$$ Free Porn

08-31-2006, 08:04 PM	#21
Serge Litehead Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Behind the scenes Posts: 5,190	alot of things in this country is fake, fake boobs, fake president, fake food might as well be fake moon __________________ SilverCrocodile.com Adult web design since '05

08-31-2006, 08:07 PM	#22
Bdiddy Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Seattle & Manila Posts: 2,456	because its a waste of time and resources unless we find gold or some other commodity on the moon worth spending all the money to get there...69 it was political, not just a technical step forward...if we were racing al queda to the moon we'd be there in 5 months... also don't forget, no current spacecraft/rocket is in production or working order to take humans to the moon. Think about the thrust it takes to leave earths atmosphere, let alone its gravitational pull. Those rockets don't fall out of peoples asses you know. __________________ "..and which one of you had the prime rib?" - Waiter "frankly, I don't see how that's any of your business!" - Peter Griffin

08-31-2006, 08:40 PM	#28
squishypimp PostMaster General Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,781	i truely believe that they did land on the moon but they were the craziest bunch of people ever. i mean back then the ocean hadn't even really been explored let alone the moon....how would you feel as an astronaut back then? __________________ Signature For Sale

08-31-2006, 09:35 PM	#33
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	No idea how any rational person can still doubt the moon landings. Every single conspiracy theory behind it has a logical real reason of explanation. As for 14 years. Lets remember something called red tape, bureaucracy, safety laws and plans, contractors, and the general inadequacies of the US Government to do anything in a timely manor. Fuck it is going to take them 3 years just to redo a small portion of an interstate near here and if it was like any others they did it will go over budget, need to be redone or fixed and take 2-3 times as long than they projected. Back then we strapped peoples asses to a tube of rocket fuel, and well if it blew up they just took one for the team, no lawyers, no scandal, no blame. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

08-31-2006, 10:22 PM	#40
Loki Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 4,420	there is no moon, Chuck Noris destroyed it as u were __________________ MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS! Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them! Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki\|at\|gmail.com

08-31-2006, 10:29 PM	#41
BradM Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 1123,6536,5231 Posts: 3,397	Remember: It's in a contractors best interests to prolong development. It makes them more money. Hell Canada will be on the moon launched with a piece of swiss cheese before the US goes again.

08-31-2006, 10:33 PM	#42
Mike AI Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Elysian Fields Posts: 3,624	NASA became a typical big government bureaucracy. They cannot do anything right or efficient. Look at what Burt Rutan has been able to do with a lot less resources and time. __________________ Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!

08-31-2006, 10:33 PM	#43
bknoob Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,610	interesting point you got there.. makes me think.. Time to dig up some wikipedia articles

08-31-2006, 10:41 PM	#45
BradM Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 1123,6536,5231 Posts: 3,397	If GFY was developing a space shuttle 2010: Lockheed: "No we're not done yet." NASA: "Why not?" Lockheed: "We can't figure out how to get the.... uh.... imancipator module to .... erm... interface with the .... uhhhh... air cooling SAFETY unit." NASA: "Oh. Well continue then. Safety is our biggest concern." 2015: NASA: "Hey, just checking in. Haven't talked to you guys in awhile." Lockheed: "Oh... HI. Yeah. We're.... we're good. I guess. Got a bit of the flu." NASA: "Oh how is that space module thing going? Remember you had a deadline of 2008... :x" Lockheed: "Yeah. Oh... right. Well we're still having SAFETY concerns with the lead intake buster on the port valve. It's a doozie. We will get back to you on progress for sure." --- In the mean time, private industry has colonized the moon, and are sending vacationers out as far as Venus -- 2020: Nasa: "Okay guys we are getting some minor pressure from the Government. Nothing major but we need a prototype or something." Lockheed: "Yeah we have one. Hang on." Nasa: "..." Lockheed: "It's... hm where did it go... clunking in background" Nasa: "Hm find it?" Lockheed: "Yeah...oh nevermind that's my daughters laptop." Nasa: "Oh. Well can you send it over when you get it? We really need it now." Lockheed: ".... brb gotta take my wife to the mall she lost her license." 2025: NASA is disbanded due to government stoppage of funding. The official announcement? Government should not control space exploration and research.

08-31-2006, 10:41 PM	#46
ry0t So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 4,160	I don't understand why we can't use the same technology back then to go to the moon again? We should be able to re build what we previously had and then try again. I know it's old technology that's not my point. That's why I have doubts about the moon landing. Why is that?

08-31-2006, 10:41 PM	#47
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	Ok if it was faked the USSR would have known and they certainly would have shown the world the proof that it was faked. Back in the 60's ther wasn't any budget contraints. We HAD to get to the moon before 1970 to keep JFKs dream alive. Also this new ship is reuseable so it's a completely different technology so it has to be tested. This thing also holds 6 as compared to 3 for Apollo. And the first launch is in 8 years not 14. You think the first time we are going to try this thing is when we send them to the moon? As far as Mars. If this technology works then it can be used as a basis for a Mars misssion. Sure if we just wanted to put 3 guys in a tin can on top of a old Saturn V rocket and send them to the moon we could do that right now. I think we are looking for something more advanced.

08-31-2006, 10:53 PM	#48
E$_manager Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: pink adult dreams Posts: 13,557	Don't think of it too much or will get some nerveouse desease. __________________ Enjoy more sales with EnjoyBucks! Homemade: Asian : Ebony : GFs : Voyeur : Nudist : Public : 3D

08-31-2006, 10:55 PM	#49
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,718	You guys aren't too bright. It will take them ten years to come up with a plan first. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

08-31-2006, 11:40 PM	#50
bobby666 boots are my religion Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Heart of europe Posts: 21,765	i started a poll some months ago about this topic here, as i remember the "it was a fake" won __________________