DangerMouse Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Some interesting links..... new reworked pictures giving us clear pictures from what was originally very grainy & poor footage..... http://news.sky.com/...On_July_20_1969 Some good bits in the story that made me laugh..... Now bear in mind that this was honestly one of the most important things ever to happen to man... "In the 1970s and 1980s, Nasa had a shortage of the tapes and erased about 200,000 of them and even reused them." now there is taping over your 1966 FA Cup final video tape and.. "The space agency can still not find its lost original Moon landing videotapes." I feel sorry for the poor fucker that lost that one...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainFerguson10 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 The thing is, if men went to the moon 40 years ago then they should be going a lot more regularly now that technology is ten times more advanced? I say it smells like US bullshite! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 The thing is, if men went to the moon 40 years ago then they should be going a lot more regularly now that technology is ten times more advanced? I say it smells like US bullshite! Oh God don't tell me you believe those shite conspiracy theories? The reason we haven't gone back is that it's too expensive and dangerous for the very little we'll get out of it. There's nothing there. It was even more expensive and dangerous in the 60's but then it wasn't about the science, it was about a fight for supremacy between the West and the USSR. They wanted to prove they were the more advanced nation. It was all egos and national pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Oh God don't tell me you believe those shite conspiracy theories? The reason we haven't gone back is that it's too expensive and dangerous for the very little we'll get out of it. There's nothing there. It was even more expensive and dangerous in the 60's but then it wasn't about the science, it was about a fight for supremacy between the West and the USSR. They wanted to prove they were the more advanced nation. It was all egos and national pride. Actually the moon is full of hellium-3 which would have enough power to generate the earth for absolute years, and also enough to make so many nuclear bombs its unreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Actually the moon is full of hellium-3 which would have enough power to generate the earth for absolute years, and also enough to make so many nuclear bombs its unreal. The discussion of mining helium-3 is a very recent one, and even though NASA will start building a moon-base in 10 years or so they don't plan on mining it. Some scientists do think that we can use it in nuclear fusion though. EDIT: To clarify, my original point is that there was no reason for us to go back over the last 40 years in a similar mission to the Apollos. Edited August 9, 2009 by Grarghsies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churinga2 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 There's nothing there. And that's why i don't understand what all the fuss is/was about. Waste of money to send people there, if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 The discussion of mining helium-3 is a very recent one, and even though NASA will start building a moon-base in 10 years or so they don't plan on mining it. Some scientists do think that we can use it in nuclear fusion though. EDIT: To clarify, my original point is that there was no reason for us to go back over the last 40 years in a similar mission to the Apollos. Nuclear fusion, is not the problem of the fuel, hydrogen is by far the most efficient fuel due to its availability and make up. The problem is forcing the hydrogen atoms together. The best way is by using electro-magnetics, to force them together, but it costs so much energy to force them together. The problem \is being solved, but it will take time, and is linked to other problems such as superconductors that operate at managable tempratures. With regard to going back to the moon, yes we are way more advanced now, the computers in the Apolo ships had less power than a modern calculator. But after the moon Nasa was not given a new mission, such as Mars, perminant base on the Moon, so their efforts were put to launching satalites, and technological advances. Advances which afre very different from the skills to go to and from the moon. There is a debate in Nasa wether the best way to go to the moon would be to build a huge space station and move that into lunar orbit then use that to drop off equipment. Or to do a strait shoot from earth to the moon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Nuclear fusion, is not the problem of the fuel, hydrogen is by far the most efficient fuel due to its availability and make up. The problem is forcing the hydrogen atoms together. The best way is by using electro-magnetics, to force them together, but it costs so much energy to force them together. The problem \is being solved, but it will take time, and is linked to other problems such as superconductors that operate at managable tempratures. With regard to going back to the moon, yes we are way more advanced now, the computers in the Apolo ships had less power than a modern calculator. But after the moon Nasa was not given a new mission, such as Mars, perminant base on the Moon, so their efforts were put to launching satalites, and technological advances. Advances which afre very different from the skills to go to and from the moon. There is a debate in Nasa wether the best way to go to the moon would be to build a huge space station and move that into lunar orbit then use that to drop off equipment. Or to do a strait shoot from earth to the moon. The discussion of hydrgon fusion versus helium fusion is ongoing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 The discussion of hydrgon fusion versus helium fusion is ongoing True, but helium 3 is a soab to get to, hydrogen is simpler - at least in theory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 True, but helium 3 is a soab to get to, hydrogen is simpler - at least in theory! It's easier for the oil giants to get their heads around helium though, since you can mine for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1eng Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Don't know how to do it, but someone should set a vote, a simple ToffeeTalk users opinion yes or no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 It's easier for the oil giants to get their heads around helium though, since you can mine for it Damn long way to go to get helium 3 when 7/8 of the planet is made up in part of hydrogen Don't know how to do it, but someone should set a vote, a simple ToffeeTalk users opinion yes or no. Yeah but wheres the fun in that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1eng Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Yeah but wheres the fun in that There is none, I'm just a saddo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.