Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 55    Average: 2/5]
115 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 24813
Rating: 2
Category: Science
Date: 03/13/12 08:45 PM

115 Responses to Do NASA Pics Prove Moon Landing Was Fake? [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18499 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    Link: Do NASA Pics Prove Moon Landing Was Fake? - The proof keeps on adding up and good question: Why didn`t we do more on the moon? Where are the goddamn lunar colonies?
  2. Profile photo of marcus2
    marcus2 Male 13-17
    677 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 3:51 pm
    The link goes to some shi t about a cruise ship?
  3. Profile photo of yusuksomuch
    yusuksomuch Male 40-49
    1008 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    clicky clicky to a booze cruise video
  4. Profile photo of NanGoneBanan
    NanGoneBanan Female 18-29
    130 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 3:55 pm
    The link is to a video about a booze cruise or something. I don`t think that was planned. Or maybe it was...
  5. Profile photo of the_phantom
    the_phantom Male 18-29
    510 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 3:55 pm
    um... incorrect link?
  6. Profile photo of PvtDeth
    PvtDeth Male 30-39
    74 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 3:57 pm
    Yes, the evidence is adding up. 40 years of morons chasing nothing and coming up with nothing certainly means the evidence is adding up.
  7. Profile photo of myrtheus
    myrtheus Male 30-39
    228 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 3:58 pm
    I think the link is wrong. The current clicky takes me to a boat full of drunken losers.
  8. Profile photo of jav805
    jav805 Male 18-29
    104 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 3:59 pm
    Errr...fancy, the link is to a booze cruise documentary. Clearly NASA is trying to fool us with alcohol soaked hotties in bikinis.
  9. Profile photo of Rumbrave
    Rumbrave Male 18-29
    48 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 4:03 pm
    Conspiracy theories about the moon landing are just dumb. See any of the recent LRO pics and the LEM`s are still present. Link

    See Degrasse Tyson`s recent congressional testimony about how the race to the moon was fueled by the cold war and once they realized that the Soviet`s didn`t have the capabilities, we stopped going.
  10. Profile photo of paddy215
    paddy215 Male 18-29
    1677 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 4:05 pm
    I`m guessing the actual content has just as much proof that the landings were faked as the content i was redirected to bly clicking that link.
  11. Profile photo of Solargirl
    Solargirl Female 18-29
    89 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 4:08 pm
    Wrong link
  12. Profile photo of RuralNinja
    RuralNinja Male 18-29
    519 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 4:25 pm
    Wrong link, but contains just as much truth about the moon landings as any conspiracy link.
  13. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    Failink.
  14. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25406 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 4:42 pm
    Failed link for the win... well that is a random link
  15. Profile photo of skine
    skine Male 18-29
    719 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 4:55 pm
    Video evidence that the moon landing was fake.
  16. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36181 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Moon landings?
    I got a video about a booze cruise.
    First time linking FancyLad?
  17. Profile photo of I-IS-BORED
    I-IS-BORED Male 18-29
    2419 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    bahama boat bash? wtf?

    Faking landing on the moon might seem very easy with current technology, but think about how pooty what they had was.
  18. Profile photo of Ruffiana
    Ruffiana Male 30-39
    506 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    Raise your hand if you think the moon landing was faked so we can all just save a bunch of time and start mocking you directly.
  19. Profile photo of xigris
    xigris Male 18-29
    85 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    Did we all get trolled by fancy?
  20. Profile photo of marvy
    marvy Male 30-39
    1 post
    March 13, 2012 at 5:17 pm
    fancylad-
    We DID go to the moon.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/
  21. Profile photo of Ripper398
    Ripper398 Male 18-29
    1310 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm
    I think that actually answered questions about Fancy`s sexuality more than anything =oP
  22. Profile photo of WeePee
    WeePee Male 18-29
    612 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm
    how much does trutv pay this site to get their garbage posted?
  23. Profile photo of Forplay2k
    Forplay2k Male 50-59
    633 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    FAIL
  24. Profile photo of earthshone
    earthshone Male 18-29
    1688 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 5:32 pm
    BOOOOZE CROOOOZE!
  25. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 5:47 pm
    It`s a CONSPIRACY!
    The gov`t HACKED @IAB to re-direct the true video about the moon-hoax to a video with titties & beer, which would distract the weak-minded IABer who, um, who...
    dhur! Titties!@
  26. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:07 pm
    Anyone who thinks "the moon landing" was fake falls into one of two groups:

    i) Gullible person who has not looked at any evidence or put any thought into the matter and has simply mindlessly believed what they`ve been told. They are running on faith even more than the most devout theist - theism can`t be proven completely wrong (any specific details can be, but not the whole idea) but the moon landing hoax drivel can be and has been.

    ii) Liar trying to snare (i) for power, publicity and/or profit.

    Anyone who thinks I am being unjust with the above is free to argue with me.

    Just for starters, the great majority of hoax believers are so utterly ignorant of the subject that they don`t even know that there was more than one moon landing! They know nothing and they talk silly drivel because of it.
  27. Profile photo of freddyferret
    freddyferret Male 40-49
    11742 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:12 pm
    This video isn`t surprising. Half of the posts here now are from TruTV or Cherry Plucker.
  28. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    Although you don`t even need to know anything to understand why the hoax idea makes no sense. You just need to think:

    We know that the USA spent a boatload of time and money inventing and building the equipment and support needed to get people in a ship to the moon and back and we know that they succeeded in doing so. We know this because *they showed the stuff off*. It wasn`t a secret - the whole point was to be as public as possible to one-up the USSR.

    We know that the USA sent ships to the moon and back again at the time of the manned missions. We know this because people all over the world, including official sources in the USSR, tracked them. They also tracked the source of the video signals of the first landing - they came from the moon.

    So...after spending all the resources inventing the stuff and making a moon mission...what? The astronauts turned up late and the ship left without them by mistake? Madness.
  29. Profile photo of slut_etta
    slut_etta Female 50-59
    3770 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:15 pm
    @angilion. perhaps you would like to explain the gravity puzzle, to wit, when the astronaut (can`t remember which one) hits a golf ball, the ball falls at a rate greater than the moon`s gravitational pull would allow. everything else moves in slower motion, allowing for the diminished gravity, however this golf ball falls as if dropped on a city sidewalk.

    on second thought, don`t explain it. i`ve never found your arguments very cogent.
  30. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    That`s without even considering the question of whether it would even have been possible to fake all the photos and video in 1969. We`re used to top quality fakery today and it`s easy to just unthinkingly assume they has the same in 1969. They didn`t. Not even close. Look at the special effects in films from that time. They are not something you could mistake for reality.

    Then there`s the fact that thousands of people were involved...they all kept silent for all of their lives? Seriously? Conspiracies with that many people don`t hold up.

    Then there`s the fact that there is no evidence at all that the landings were faked. None. Just some people who are very ignorant of photography and the conditions on the lunar surface and assume stuff is faked because it doesn`t look like what they think it would look like on Earth.

    Really, it`s worse than thinking that the USA is secretly ruled by aliens in disguise. At least that makes some sense and might be pos
  31. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:23 pm
    on second thought, don`t explain it. i`ve never found your arguments very cogent.

    Haha, you`re a believer? Really? Now I have reason to mock you.

    It`s not surprising that you don`t want to hear any argument against whatever tiny bit of your ridiculous faith you`ve managed to avoid seeing exposed as drivel.

    Since I`m still laughing at you, I`ll be nice and let you keep your beloved ignorance.

    Hahaha, a believer. Good grief. A live one, woo!
  32. Profile photo of ScottSerious
    ScottSerious Male 18-29
    5316 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    lost all interest when i saw it was TRU-F*CKING-TV!
  33. Profile photo of ivran
    ivran Male 18-29
    599 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:32 pm
    This is stupid. We landed on the moon. Get the drat over it.
  34. Profile photo of skine
    skine Male 18-29
    719 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:33 pm
    "when the astronaut hits a golf ball, the ball falls at a rate greater than the moon`s gravitational pull would allow."

    I would suggest you take high school physics.

    On ANY planet, the vertical velocity of the ball when it`s hit will be the same as its vertical velocity when it hits the ground.

    The ball will stay in the air longer, travel higher, and travel farther than a comparable shot on Earth.

    (Of course, that`s all ignoring the lack of air resistance)
  35. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    @Angilion: I can name 3 "secret projects" where hundreds, thousands and TENS of thousands worked and kept their mouths shut afterwards. Anyone who did talk was quickly silenced (usually by reminding them to NOT talk about it, nothing sinister eh?)

    However you are correct: Americans went to the moon, it`s a fact.

    There are also American agencies who actively fund and promote "false flags" to distract people from the unsettling truth. In the moon landings case it`s ALL those UFOs the astronauts saw (not claiming they were ALL space aliens, fyi) and the other `secret missions` the astronauts carried out or attempted to carry out while on the moon.

    To cover up the truth? Flaunt the false! Simple really.
  36. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm
    So all the "fake landing" proof is just the gov`t smokescreen for hiding the real questions.

    Like dozens of events before and after, it`s clearly a conspiracy, just not the one it claims to be.

    The claim that "someone would talk" is bogus. Even if they DID talk, who would hear them if the MSM didn`t cover it?
    A couple of astronauts HAVE talked, what about that?

    As for my 3 projects, 1 is VERY well known, the other two rather obscure. People indoctonated into the Armed Forces can be very good at keeping secrets. A lack of story-tellers (even though there ARE storytellers) isn`t `counter-proof` of anything.
  37. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm
    I have to admit that I hadn`t heard that particular claim before. The only golf-related "evidence" I`ve seen before is the comment from mission control saying "that looked like a slice to me". Apparently (I don`t know about golf) a slice requires an atmosphere. Of course, a joke about a bad golf shot dooesn`t require an atmosphere.

    I`ve watched the video of the astronaut playing golf. He misses completely. He clips the top of the ball and moves it a couple of feet along the ground. He hits it and it whizzes off out of view in a fraction of a second. I don`t see the ball falling (which even in Earth`s gravity would occur well out of shot).
  38. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 7:01 pm
    @Angilion this video? Is the one you watched? The "slice" reference was clearly a joke since he just moved the ball a couple of feet. No atmosphere required. It`s about 53 seconds in.
  39. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 7:03 pm
    A couple of astronauts HAVE talked
    I should be clear: they didn`t talk about `fake` moon landings at all. They talked about secret missions, UFOs, alien moon bases and stuff.
  40. Profile photo of OpsAss13
    OpsAss13 Male 30-39
    514 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 7:12 pm
    Another case of "Someone drunk behind the wheel." Major linkage fail.
  41. Profile photo of Tubby12370
    Tubby12370 Male 18-29
    1440 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 7:13 pm
    Everybody put your tin foil hats on.
  42. Profile photo of meneado
    meneado Male 18-29
    152 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 7:33 pm
    whuuut? annoying bitches and guido dicks???
    im not ok with this.
  43. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 8:07 pm
    Maybe it`s a reference for the time taken for the ball to drop to the surface, although for such a short drop the effect of how he dropped it would probably be greater than the effect of the difference in gravity.

    Or maybe it`s just made up, like the rest of it.
  44. Profile photo of darkmagic14n
    darkmagic14n Male 18-29
    1625 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 8:11 pm
    if we hadn`t been there, why are there reflectors on the moon

    and 5cats, yes, there are lots of `santa claus` sighting
  45. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 8:13 pm
    We still bounce lasers off the moon from a mirror placed there and there are high definition pictures of the landing sites now because of the LRO satellite. Link
  46. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 8:14 pm
    This is a funny look at the most obvious gaping flaw in the conspiracy "theory":

    Mitchell and Webb
  47. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 8:19 pm
    if we hadn`t been there, why are there reflectors on the moon

    It would be possible to put them there with a robot. It might even have been possible in 1969.

    But that still leaves the question of why the USA would invent and build everything needed for a manned moon landing and then make an unmanned one and run the huge political risk of faking the manned moon landing they could have done anyway, without the additional cost of the fakery. Assuming it was even possible to fake it in 1969, which I`m far from convinced of.

    The least unlikely explanation I`m aware of is that aliens contacted the USA government, told them to not send people to the moon and provided the technology needed to fake the video.

    And that`s the *least* unlikely explanation.
  48. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 8:33 pm
    I think the dumbest argument is the radiation exposure risk. Sure, you wouldn`t want to float about exposed in the van Allen belt for any length of time, but of course the astronauts didn`t.

    There is an increased radiation exposure risk in space and on the surface of the moon. It`s not a huge risk unless something goes wrong, but it is a risk.

    But we`re talking about people willing to get into a ship filled with tonnes of explosive fuel and go out into an utterly hostile environment with a very long list of ways in which things can go fatally wrong, either killing you instantly or leaving you in a position where death is inevitable in hours or days and rescue is impossible. They were very well aware that there were risks. The slightly higher radiation exposure was just one of the risks (and not a very big one unless something went wrong).
  49. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 8:55 pm
    True enough @Angilion! I recall a Space Shuttle crewman saying that there were 23 (or more) "terminal non-redundant systems" aboard. That if ONE failed, that was IT! Game over.

    The "Space 1999 Eagle" had:
    Back-up brakes
    Back-up thrusters
    Back-up nuclear reactor
    Sorry I couldn`t find the clip for that, it`s hysterical!
  50. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 9:15 pm
    Just to answer the two "good" (i.e. foolish) questions fancyclad asked in the description:

    The USA didn`t do more on the moon because they had already done everything that they could usefully do on the moon at the time. By far the most important reason was to demonstrate superiority over the USSR by doing it and then by doing it repeatedly. "You can put people in space. Pretty good. We can put people on the moon. Not just once. Any time we like. We beat you because our system is superior to yours and the whole world can see it."

    The lunar colonies are in sci-fi societies which could build them at a low enough cost and low enough risk to be worthwhile under the circumstances of that sci-fi society. In reality, they would be a massive cost for no benefit and significant risk. So nobody has made any.
  51. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 9:19 pm
    This is awful trash. STOP POSTING TRU-TV LINKS.
  52. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 9:20 pm
    Another factor is that any lunar colony could destroy entire cities on Earth.

    All it takes are some big rocks dropped down the gravity well. Very simple.

    Given the very high likelihood of a colony rebelling and declaring independence, do you really want one with that kind of destructive power that you have no defence against?
  53. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm
    PK Dick wrote a tory along those lines:
    Time Out Of Joint
    The review doesn`t adress the topic: Luna has revolted, they`re "Lunatics" and bombard the Earth with bomb-filled ships. Earth is "One Big Happy Planet" and use mind-control to get Jones to predict Luna`s missiles. VERY good novel!
  54. Profile photo of Kaagan
    Kaagan Male 18-29
    1596 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm
    uh whats up with the link
  55. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 11:10 pm
    "Given the very high likelihood of a colony rebelling and declaring independence,"

    Never would happen. The colony itself would not rebel and could not declare independence. There`s nothing on the moon to harvest that is edible for starters. For colonists to destroy earth post declaration of independence they`d be cutting off their own supply chain.
  56. Profile photo of RoboPatton
    RoboPatton Male 30-39
    2424 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm
    *Saw link, was intrigued*

    *clicked link, saw TruTV*

    *Lifted up and threw desk like a fat guy losing a game of magic the gathering*
  57. Profile photo of photomstr
    photomstr Male 50-59
    766 posts
    March 13, 2012 at 11:13 pm
    Shame on you for propagating this bulls#!t. The truth is it costs too much to do more than they did. And now Mars is forever out of reach because the astronauts will go blind! Better start work on that artificial gravity thing . . .
  58. Profile photo of diylobotomy
    diylobotomy Male 18-29
    1832 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 12:10 am
    Buzz Aldrin would punch you in the face for posting this.
  59. Profile photo of grindinblade
    grindinblade Male 18-29
    234 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 12:34 am
    Fancy put down the kool aid....
    Seriously though WTF? How could you buy into the worst conspiracy theory of all time, respect level for IAB mods an all time low.
  60. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 12:49 am
    Angilion: There is definitely evidence for rare earth elements, on the moon, that we need for future technology. As far as rocks go, falling from the moon, they`d have to be larger than a school bus to ever worry about.

    Some people have said we would have power problems, but they forget that solar panels work better in outer space and the moon than on earth, much better in fact.
  61. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 2:10 am
    I click it and get a link to the gay love boat or something "Banana boat bash" WTF?.
  62. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 2:10 am
    And there`s no way Careli`s a woman.
  63. Profile photo of xCYBERDYNEx
    xCYBERDYNEx Male 18-29
    4903 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 2:14 am
    Now that I know this links to TruTV, I will gladly skip.
  64. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 2:15 am
    I can`t wait till the Chinese are the first to land men on the moon. I hear they are going to land at Tranquility Base and do a 360 pan shot that won`t show any evidence of Apollo 11.
  65. Profile photo of jeepjones
    jeepjones Male 30-39
    554 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 2:43 am
    WTF? is this Crap? WTH is this?
  66. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
    Is this IAB`s version of a rickroll?
  67. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 6:47 am
    do you really want one with that kind of destructive power that you have no defence against?

    Unless you have a Saturn V rocket with a bunker-busting payload, or you just place the colony on the far side of the moon.
  68. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 7:06 am
    On top of which they`d be hurting their biggest customer (whom supposedly has space elevators and He-3 fusion reactors) and supplier, thus themselves in the process. Secondly where do you get this rock from?
  69. Profile photo of LuckyDave
    LuckyDave Male 18-29
    675 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 8:10 am
    I hear they are going to land at Tranquility Base and do a 360 pan shot that won`t show any evidence of Apollo 11.
    Yeah, its called Photoshop. The Korean`s already proved that Asians were good at it with Kim Jong Il`s funeral.
  70. Profile photo of gigs1890
    gigs1890 Male 18-29
    32 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 8:15 am
    why the drat does this link to a video of a booze cruise?!?
  71. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5869 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 8:18 am
    Angilion-"All it takes are some big rocks dropped down the gravity well. Very simple."

    Ah, yes, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress " scenario.

    Cajun247-"Unless you have a Saturn V rocket with a bunker-busting payload."

    It would have to be able to pulverize a rock down to fine dust. Otherwise it`s just getting shot with buckshot vs. a slug. (see "Lucifer`s Hammer")

    Cajun247-"you just place the colony on the far side of the moon."

    Which side of the moon the colony would reside one has no effect on its ability to throw rocks down a gravity well.
  72. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5869 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 8:25 am
    Cajun247-"where do you get this rock from?"

    Where they are most available: there`s millions between the orbits of Mars & Jupiter.
  73. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 8:50 am


    IT`s ac onspiracy keyboard cats control the moon!!!
  74. Profile photo of antagonizer
    antagonizer Male 18-29
    509 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 8:54 am
    I`m a believer in the moon landings period. However on researcher, some of the evidence to support it was sketchy, tho it doesn`t change that fact.

    1 - reflector on the moon. Actually the WHOLE moon is reflective. They`ve been bouncing beams off the moon for years before Apollo. The trick as they say is to find the spot where they bounce back to you, the rest is academic.

    2 - Keeping it a secret. Two words Manhattan Project. For years it was kept secret by thousands of scientists and support staff. It is plausible.
  75. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 9:08 am
    Tha link redirects to this: bahama boat bash:shipping out and boozing up. Doesn`t look like moon landing conspiracy to me, fix the link o remove the post...
  76. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 10:11 am
    @McGovern: Shhh! It`s a cat-secret!

    @Antagonizer: Yes, that was one of my secret project I hinted at below. There were nearly 100,000 people involved at the hieght of Manhattan, and they all kept quiet about it, for years!

    @MeGrendel: Love the asteroid picture! It`s just so cool! I think @Cajun means we could easily nuke the moon-base, not the rocks, I could be mistaken though.
  77. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 11:07 am
    Where they are most available: there`s millions between the orbits of Mars & Jupiter

    Millions means nothing given the volume the entire asteroid belt takes up. So much so that flying blindfold one would have an nigh insignificant chance of crashing into an asteroid.

    It would have to be able to pulverize a rock down to fine dust. Otherwise it`s just getting shot with buckshot vs slug

    It only takes one slug to catastrophically destabilize an entire canopy.
  78. Profile photo of Byfield
    Byfield Male 18-29
    464 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 11:07 am
    Well, link leads to a sketchy porn site or something.

    Anyway, that picture up there appears to be a gemini and previous mission spacesuit clad man being trained to maneouver his suit.
  79. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 11:08 am
    we could easily nuke the moon-base, not the rocks

    Spot on 5cats
    it`s M.A.D.
  80. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    This just in: footage of the government meeting during which the fake moon landing was proposed!
  81. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25406 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 1:20 pm
    It happened.. thats what we were told. We trust the government right? yep!
  82. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    3rd time for that video link there @almightbob1, but it is funny!
    One link per page is fine I guess :-)
  83. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 2:02 pm
    @almightybob

    C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
  84. Profile photo of itzazoom
    itzazoom Male 18-29
    182 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    we didn`t do more on the moon because its really expensive to get there and the lunar colonies are in your head.
  85. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5869 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 2:41 pm
    5Cats-"I think @Cajun means we could easily nuke the moon-base"

    Possible, but still the same situation, doesn`t matter what side, you can hit either side, and you can throw from either side.

    Cajun247-"blindfold one would have an nigh insignificant chance of crashing into an asteroid"

    But you will not be flying blindfolded. You`ll be looking for them. Just as the chances of you getting into your car blindfolded and finding a Wal-Mart 20 miles away is remote. Take off the blindfold and you`d be able to find quite a few. (note the image posted previously is an actual MAPPING of where they`re at, or WERE at the time the image was compiled, so obviously it`s not that hard to locate them).
  86. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 4:51 pm
    But you will not be flying blindfolded. You`ll be looking for them. Just as the chances of you getting into your car blindfolded and finding a Wal-Mart 20 miles away is remote. Take off the blindfold and you`d be able to find quite a few.

    ...and ultimately it would take months, plenty of rocket fuel, and luck as chances of success are half and half.
  87. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 5:19 pm
    Possible, but still the same situation, doesn`t matter what side, you can hit either side, and you can throw from either side.

    By which Earth already has a more practical and devastating (absolutely and relatively) means of destruction meaning such conflict would be exponentially one-sided. Yes I realize, far side of the moon is irrelevant. The point is the high cost and huge risk of failure for such a scheme with current technology.
  88. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 5:28 pm
    @Cajun: there`s a few, smallish rocks in Earth orbit or close by, the number changes as they come & go! But most big rocks are outside Mars` orbit. You`d need lots of fuel and a BIG rocket to push one into the Earth at a dangerous velocity.
    Easier (and harder to stop) would be to use the big rocket to crash into Earth. Or put a nuke on it. Like in the PK Dick book I linked.
    Just thinking it through...

    Aslo: a moon-base would be more vulnerable to Earth tossing rocks at it: no atmosphere...
  89. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 5:33 pm
    My point exactly 5Cats.
  90. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 5:40 pm
    Never would happen. The colony itself would not rebel and could not declare independence. There`s nothing on the moon to harvest that is edible for starters. For colonists to destroy earth post declaration of independence they`d be cutting off their own supply chain.

    It`s technically feasible to make a self-sufficient lunar settlement. Obviously the colony wouldn`t rebel and declare independence before that was done, not unless Earth was also dependent on them (and therefore would have to continue supplying them).

    It`s technically possible, for example, to grow edible crops in large underground chambers. If you could create and maintain a permanent no-suit settlement, you could, at least on paper, extend it enough to grow enough food.

    I didn`t say the rebels would destroy Earth. I said they could destroy cities on Earth. That`s enough to ensure a full-on war would be very bad news.
  91. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    Angilion: There is definitely evidence for rare earth elements, on the moon, that we need for future technology.

    There are some useful resources on the moon, but are you arguing that it was technologically feasible, politically advisable and economically sensible for the USA to mine them on the moon in the early 1970s? Did anyone even know the stuff was there at that time?

    I didn`t say there would never be anything useful for people to do on the moon in the future. I said there was nothing useful for people to do on the moon in the early 1970s, hence the ending of the manned mission program after it achieved its purpose (showing that the USA could put people on the moon any time it wanted to).
  92. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 5:52 pm
    I said they could destroy cities on Earth.

    I`ve just pointed out, as a rocket scientist, how such a scheme would be incredibly impractical. On top of that you`re steering an asteroid something that`s not known for its symmetry meaning rotational dynamics would be huge problem when trying to maneuver the thing.
  93. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 5:54 pm
    That`s enough to ensure a full-on war would be very bad news.

    Oh come on, if there`s one important lesson from the Cold War is that no government is going to sit on their hands while they wait for their assets (the nation they govern) to be obliterated.
  94. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 6:00 pm
    Some people have said we would have power problems, but they forget that solar panels work better in outer space and the moon than on earth, much better in fact.

    How much better? The difference in distance would be negligable, so it`s down to how much light (you state "panels", so you must be talking about photovoltaic solar power) is blocked by the Earth`s atmosphere.

    I don`t think it`s all that much.

    Of course, with the moon you do have the huge advantage of a lot of bugger all. Build a solar power station covering a thousand square miles - nobody there to care, no ecosystem there for anyone to care about.

    I agree that powering a lunar settlement would not be a problem if you could build solar power stations that would work on the surface of the moon (you couldn`t just use ones developed for Earth because too many conditions are too different).
  95. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 6:03 pm
    On top of which they`d be hurting their biggest customer (whom supposedly has space elevators and He-3 fusion reactors) and supplier, thus themselves in the process.

    Colonies have been known to value independence above economics.

    Secondly where do you get this rock from?

    The moon is a rocky body and there`s quite a lot of it. Finding rock on the moon is as easy as finding it on Earth - you`d be standing on it.
  96. Profile photo of TheShgn2
    TheShgn2 Male 13-17
    626 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 6:10 pm
    I might be wrong about this, but I`m pretty sure the moon has lots of Helium-3, and that happens to be rare on earth, but can power clean energy. So, unless I`m totally wrong, whoever can claim the moon first gets to be the richest person on Earth?
  97. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    Colonies have been known to value independence above economics.

    When their government treats them like a pawn, yes. In our case Britain didn`t bother to learn a lesson from Roman times.

    Finding rock on the moon is as easy as finding it on Earth - you`d be standing on it.

    Forgive me but from what I remember the moon`s surface is comprised of small jagged and abrasive particulates. But if you`re referring to a small boulder that would burn up in Earth`s atmosphere.
  98. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    As to the colony part there are far more practical ways of doing damage to oppressor would-be Earth than huge rocks which would require fuel.
  99. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    Oh come on, if there`s one important lesson from the Cold War is that no government is going to sit on their hands while they wait for their assets (the nation they govern) to be obliterated.

    And they`re not going to start a M.A.D. war over resources from a rebellious colony, or over prices from the newly independent ex-colony.

    Revolutions often have extremists. Maybe extremists extreme enough to press the big red button anyway.

    You`ve convinced me that it`s much less of a potential issue than I had thought, though. A threat to enable a bloodless revolt and independence, yes. An actual attack, very unlikely.
  100. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 6:56 pm
    I don`t think it`s all that much.
    @Angilion: iirc, space-based panels are 3-4 times as effecient, and not prone to dust or clouds. Anyhow, a LOT of the Sun`s energy is deflected/absorbed before it gets to the ground.

    Yeah, a Lunar Rebellion would most likely be settled by the diplomats. But that`s what SciFi is for! The `what if`!

    Now when the Martian Colonies try to break away... whooo doggie!
  101. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 7:13 pm
    iirc, space-based panels are 3-4 times as effecient

    Hmm...where are those panels in space and what part of Earth are they being compared with?

    The usual figure for solar irradiance at the outer edge of the Earth`s atmosphere is 1367W/m^2. You can get 1000W/m^2 on the surface.

    3-4 times the average for the whole of the Earth over a whole year, maybe?
  102. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm
    Ok, how the hell did this so off topic that now it`s about nuking a rebel moon colony ?

    Boredom does weird things here at IAB.
  103. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 7:38 pm
    You just noticed that @Crakr? lolz!

    That`s probably it @Angilion, plus some space-panels are in the sun 24 hours a day too.

    Hummm, a really quick look at Wiki suggests 1600w at the top but around 200w at sea level. Not sure if that`s the same as what we`re talking about though.
  104. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5869 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 9:39 pm
    Cajun247-"and ultimately it would take months, plenty of rocket fuel, and luck as chances of success are half and half."

    Dude, we`re talking about a colony on the moon, (and technically, a story line from a novel that`s already been written). Certain things are theory and/or parts of the novel, such as an existing trade of asteroid mining.

    Once you`re out of the Earth`s gravity well, the fuel expendiature goes down dramatically. Intra-system movement includes a lot of coasting.
  105. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5869 posts
    March 14, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    5Cats-"a moon-base would be more vulnerable to Earth tossing rocks at it: no atmosphere"

    I`d argue that pont. Above a certain size of the rock in question, the effects of the atmosphere is negligible. On the other hand, current rail-gun technology would allow you to shoot a sizable rock off the surface of a moon (a small gravity-well) with an escape velocity to reach the Earth. You could also just strap a slow-burn rocket to a chunk in space and stear it to the Earths` (huge) gravity-well. To get a rock off of Earth requires attaining ~6 times the escape velocity than that of the moon (11.2 km/s vs. 2.0 km/s).

    The MAIN point is it`s easier to hit the Earth from the Moon. Of two men rolling bowling balls at each other, the man on top of the hill has an advantage over the one at the bottom...BUT, give the man on the bottom a rifle and you have a different story.
  106. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 12:36 am
    CrakrJak: For one thing, Fancy deliberately mislabels Asian-related material on a regular basis (my pet peeve), and now he has the brazenness to rock-roll per se with some lame ass booze-cruise video. It really is a new low for Fancy.
  107. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 12:46 am
    Once you`re out of the Earth`s gravity well, the fuel expendiature goes down dramatically. Intra-system movement includes a lot of coasting.

    Coasting which has to be initiated precisely and adjusted for variances departure velocity along the way. On top of which you`re suggesting hitting a penny (or dust spore more likely) instead of a bowling ball from miles away. Since asteroids aren`t known for their neat symmetry vectoring the initial thrust presents its own challenge.
  108. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 3:56 am
    Cajun: I don`t believe Fancylad `rick roll`d` us, at least not on purpose.

    Chances are the link got messed up with another TruTV show called `Conspiracy Theory`, the one with Jesse Ventura.
  109. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 7:19 am
    I`d believe that Crakr if it weren`t for the fact that truTV hasn`t even produced that episode, not yet anyways. Just did a Google search myself, two seasons already finished they`re gearing up for another one this year and nothing about a moon landing.
  110. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 7:37 am
    Ah, yes, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress " scenario.

    They used a rail gun in that book. With that weapon you don`t need a months-long journey to divert an asteroid. The real question then is keeping it secret, and as I said earlier a Saturn V + bunker buster would be enough to put it out of operation.
  111. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 8:19 am
    By mistake or on purpose (I think it was a mistake) THIS thread was more fun that the origional would have been!
  112. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5869 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 9:47 am
    Cajun247-"On top of which you`re suggesting hitting a penny (or dust spore more likely) instead of a bowling ball from miles away."

    Well, seeing as we`ve already landed craft on asteroids*, getting to one has proven possible.

    *Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR): launched in 1996, landed on Asteroid 433 Eros 2/12/2001. Hayabusa: launched 2003, landed on asteroid Itokawa 2005,

    Moving one is just a matter of physics. There have been several theorys, including:
    -using a `tug` vehicle pulling the rock via a cable connected at the rotational pole,
    -de-spinning a rock, attaching a thrusting engine situated so that it thrusts through the center of mass and is gimbled to control the rock`s orientation. (both of these were researched by Proffessor D.J. Scheers & Apollo 9 Astronaut R.L Schweickart in 2004 and found viable).
  113. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 10:50 am
    Proffessor D.J. Scheers & Apollo 9 Astronaut R.L Schweickart

    Just found the paper, it`s called "Mechanics of Moving Asteroids" one of the assumptions they made is that they would deflect a Near Earth Asteroid expected collide in 10 years.
  114. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 11:22 am
    Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR):


    Yes near Earth as in one that isn`t located in the asteroid belt and would take tremendous thrust to redirect towards Earth. So that`s very significant asterisk you have there.
  115. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 15, 2012 at 8:15 pm
    Hummm, a really quick look at Wiki suggests 1600w at the top but around 200w at sea level. Not sure if that`s the same as what we`re talking about though.

    No, it isn`t. That graph shows the different energy levels of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from the sun.

    The key word to look for is "insolation", but note what units you`re looking at. Some sources quote watts per hour per square meter (either peak, i.e. midday on midsummer`s day with a clear sky, or averaged over some period of time, usually a month), some sources quote watt-hours per square meter per day.

Leave a Reply