why we need to return to the moon

April 30, 2010

Imagine a place where the conditions are just as harsh and brutal as we would encounter on other planets, a place with low gravity, a solid foundation for sprawling, inflatable bases, and a perfect platform for testing new technologies to be used for space exploration. And should something go wrong, Earth is just a couple of days away so crews could execute a hasty retreat to the safety of their home planet if the situation calls for it. I’d ask where we could find this nearly ideal proving ground but then again, the title of this post sort of gives away the answer. If we stop to consider what settling on the Moon can do for our space exploration programs, the often heard attitude of “been there done that” in regards to our natural satellite seems rather short-sighted, trapped in the Cold War mentality of traveling to other worlds solely for the sake of flag planting and national prestige.

Going back to the Moon simply to plant another flag would indeed be a waste of time, money and effort since it doesn’t offer anything new either scientifically or technologically to either NASA or us. However, if we wanted to establish the first extraterrestrial outpost specifically to see if we could live and work beyond Earth’s orbit, this would make the Moon a much more attractive destination. Consider an ISS but in the form of a rapidly growing network of artificial habitats and hydroponic farms, and hopefully without the political and financial quagmires keeping the station from working at full capacity. Of course, the price tag for an endeavor like this would be quite daunting as we’ve discussed before, but the payoff over the long term would be well worth it. Just think of all the technology for building portable infrastructures in pristine, alien deserts we could test, the incredible radio astronomy we could do on the dark side of the Moon, the vacation destinations we could build to actually make money from space exploration, along with the kind of services we’d need to provide to make travel to the newly built lunar outposts easier. We could learn how to live on another world while barely leaving the comfort of Earth, with help or a safe heaven just 236,000 miles away, the cosmic equivalent of next door.

But all these tests wouldn’t be just for show or an inspirational public relations campaign. No, the devices that would create a portable, scalable energy grid could be brought back to Earth and scaled up to serve an entire region where building power lines and massive power plants would be far too cost prohibitive and risky with a conventional approach. Even wealthy countries could benefit from moving to portable, more manageable, and almost certainly more efficient energy grids. Space tourism could generate thousands of jobs and sell flights and space in lunar habitats and observatories to wealthy tourists, corporations, various government agencies, and universities. And having lunar hangars where craft roughly six times bigger than anything which could be launched from Earth may be assembled, can pave the way to safer, more comfortable, and efficient means to travel into interplanetary space. The Moon shouldn’t be an afterthought of the Cold War to be neglected based on the impact of flag planting missions. It should, and can be, our launching pad into living and working in the most hostile and alien environments we can find. The lessons we can learn would enable us to travel to Mars and far beyond in larger, better equipped, cheaper, and more sustainable vehicles partially financed by those who want to benefit from massive R&D projects and turn the technology back into real world applications.

This is why the strategy outlined by Obama isn’t going to get us very far. It ignores just how much is left to be done on our nearest cosmic neighbor and how it can equip us to take the kind of bold steps envisioned back at the dawn of the Space Age. Hopping around asteroids and coming up with a Martian mission from scratch to be done sometime in the intermediate future isn’t going to help us have a sustainable, manned exploration program. We’ll plant a flag and go home at best, turning the kinds of momentous occasions which should be used for profound lunges forward in technology and science into PR stunts. How does this approach help our species? How does it help us sustain our gains? A viable space exploration strategy should not be based on big moments and firsts, but on developing consistent, reliable technology that builds on the gains of previous missions in a condensed timeline given to reach a specific destination. This is exactly how NASA was able to reach the Moon right on schedule while the PR-obsessed Soviet Union couldn’t make it past Earth orbit…

[ illustration by Andree Wallin ]

Share
  • badbass9

    Hooray! Somebody else who gets it. A relatively low risk proving ground to update prior technologies and research new ones. Not only would our knowledge of living in space increase, think of how our quality of life wold improve. The Apollo and STS programs refined mass production techniques and accelerated computing research,giving us the powerful and low cost computers we enjoy today. How about flat screen TVs? Safe, efficient, powerful automobiles? Affordable and modern homes. All this and more can be traced back to the accelerated research that put us on the moon. Look at our military. Most, if not all, of the devices( weapons, vehicles, etc) can be attributed to the research done by the space program. Battlefield surviveabilty has increased due to medical research commissioned by NASA. Yes kids, the space program benefits all of us. The military, space research, medical research, manufacturing, are all intertwined. And the economy. We can’t even begin to see how many jobs could be created by a new massive push into space research. JFK’s presidency ( average at best), had one noble result. He united the country toward a common goal. Put a man on the moon. That resulted in the booming economy of the ’60′s. Pay attention, Barack. This could be you. If you want to make history, don’t expand the welfare state. Fund NASA. A while back I saw where it was estimated one dollar spent on space exploration returned twenty dollars over time. Sorry, I can’t cite the source,it was a while back. I saw Neil Armstrong take the first step onto the moon on live TV, where were you? There’s the ding! Lunchtime. Beef stew. Yummy! Next time kids.

  • Russ Toelke

    Thanks to the space program I can get to sleep easier on my memory foam bed.

    Yep, I watched the landing too, two nights before I turned 12.

  • jimijr

    Oh sure, we can put a man on the moon, but can we put a BUICK on the moon?! That would be cool.

  • http://wading-in.net/walkabout Just Al

    Oh sure, we can put a man on the moon, but can we put a BUICK on the moon?! That would be cool.

    Putting them all there would be even cooler!

    ;-)

  • R. K. George

    I invite you to read “The Case for Mars” by Robert Zubrin who was to join the fledgling ‘Mars Society’ and later to become it’s spokesman in the American space program community. In it he offers a detailed analysis (albeit filtered for consumption by the general reading public) of the pros and cons of selecting either the Moon or Mars as viable ‘first targets’ for extra-terrestrial habitation. He makes a good case for Mars as the winner of the battle for ‘first contact’ by human explorer’s.

    The recommendation is made on the basis that not only is it easier to travel to Mars due to the lower delta-V to go from LEO to the Martian surface (only 4.5 km/s to Mars compared to 6 km/s to go from LEO to the lunar surface), a lower and therefore safer delta-V for post-aerocapture and landing on the surface, and the correlation between the resulting improvement between fuel storage requirements and useful cargo capacity, but Mars also has an easily obtained natural source of fuel for the return trip (a carbon-dioxide atmosphere at atmospheric pressures sufficient to allow more than adequate production of fuel from condensate). Mars also presents much more favourable conditions for human habitation (that same atmosphere easily breaks down to produce oxygen for breathing and water for consumption by our indomitable explorers), and the argument can be made that Mars offers much more interesting and rewarding geological, geochemical and environmental conditions to justify the expense of sending crews for extended scientific exploration and long-term habitation. Of course, don’t even get me started on the far greater potential for ‘terra-forming’ on Mars compared to a no-chance-in-hell potential on the surface of the Moon! Let’s leave that to the dreamers out there and just be practical and remain focused on today’s realities:

    It cannot be ignored that the Moon has a much more hostile environment (daytime temperatures of +100 celcius, compared to Mars’ -50 celcius to + 10 celcius)), a 672-hour day (compared to a comparable 24 hour day +/-; don’t discount the psychological and practical benefits of this earth-like correlation), and has virtually no easily convertible or obtainable geological resources for use by the inhabitants of a Moon-base; Although recent discoveries of water ice are a potential boon to produce fuel for use to and from the lunar surface, and as a resource by a Moon base, and of course direct consumption by it’s new inhabitants; Whereas oxygen, the only other subtance of virtue in substantial enough quantities on the Moon is unfortunatly bound up in the iron and silica rocks in it’s crust, and requires a substantial input of energy and resources to extract it for minimal benefit. Hydrogen and / or methane – to mix with the oxygen to burn as fuel – are not available and must be delivered to the Moon in substantial quantities; displacing much of the available space on each spacecraft flight for more useful crew, equipment and resources for extended stays on an exta-terrestrial body.

  • Paul

    A viable space exploration strategy should not be based on big moments and firsts, but on developing consistent, reliable technology that builds on the gains of previous missions in a condensed timeline given to reach a specific destination. This is exactly how NASA was able to reach the Moon right on schedule

    When I look at the Bush administration’s constellation plan, that was the biggest flaw that I saw. (People who know more about actual rocket science saw lots of technical flaws, but I mean philosophically.)

    Apollo was preceded by Gemini, it by Mercury. Mercury was preceded by the chimp/monkey missions. They were preceded by satellite launches, and that was preceded by a decade of really rapid missile development, starting with the Nazi’s V2-program. Twenty-plus years of intense rocket development. By the time they built the Saturn V, NASA knew how to build rockets blindfolded and upside-down. Hell they built Skylab out of spare-parts as a make-work program while waiting for Nixon to make up his mind where to send them next.

    While Constellation had Ares I & Ares V, they were two halves of the same program. Where was their Mercury, where was their Gemini? NASA & principle contractors hadn’t built a new launcher for 29 years. And they hadn’t built a classic man-rated “stick” rocket for 40 years. Which, given working-lifespans, means no one at NASA has ever worked on anything but the already built shuttles. No one. Not the designers, the managers who chose that design, nor the engineers working on it. These were car mechanics trying to manufacture a aeroplane out of spare car-parts. It wasn’t going to end well.

    I don’t care how high their IQ’s, how many PhD’s per square mile they have, you cannot expect them to succeed without giving them a chance to build real hardware for ten years, real rockets, real capsules, before they design the final project.

  • MIKEE

    One thing you fail to mention is the mining enterprise. Heard the moon has hydrogen3 which, if we find a way, can be transported back to earth.

  • Greg Fish

    One thing you fail to mention is the mining enterprise

    Yes, and with good reason. Mining on another world is incredibly difficult, expensive, and will be logistically unsound for a long time. Trying to mine useful materials right here on Earth is a pretty major effort that usually takes billions of dollars in labor and machinery. If you wanted to create a major mining operation on the Moon, expect the costs to shoot up by roughly four orders of magnitude. And that’s not counting all the money you’ll have to spend to transport thousands of tons of brand new machinery to a lunar base, machinery in which you’d have to sink billions in R&D funds…

  • MaDeR

    @MIKEE: “moon has hydrogen3″
    Currently there is no use for H3.

  • http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com Marcel F. Williams

    The Moon is only a few days away. Yet we still know so little about our closest neighbor in space.

    Can humans remain healthy living permanently under a 1/6 gravity environment?

    Can humans reproduce under a 1/6 gravity?

    Would humans feel comfortable living inside pressurized habitats even if they grow to be as large as some of the largest domed structures on Earth?

    How interesting would it be to strap on some wings and fly like a bird inside of a large biodome?

    Could future lunarians take advantage of the Moons low gravity well in order to dominate the satellite manufacturing and launch industry?

    Just how big and lucrative could lunar tourism be?

    How hard will it be to extract oxygen from the lunar regolith for air and rocket fuel?

    How hard will it be to mine ice, carbon, and nitrogen from the lunar poles?

    Could the Moon be used to manufacture and launch solar power satellites into geosychronus orbit for clean power generation on Earth. Or could lunar bases just beam energy from the Moon to geosynchronus reflectors to supply power to the Earth.

    Could lunar resources help us to get to Mars and beyond?

    Would most people employed to operate heavy machinery on the Moon actually live on Earth operating these machines telerobotically?

    So for President Obama to say “”Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before.” shows a clear lack of understand the great potential of our closest neighbor in space.

  • Paul

    @Marcel F. Williams: So for President Obama to say “”Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before.” shows a clear lack of understand the great potential of our closest neighbor in space.

    I don’t think he’s saying that there’s nothing left to learn. He’s saying that it is not inspirational. It’s going back, not going forward.

    One of the things I like about the Obama plan (whatever they end up calling it), is that if NASA sends astronauts to an asteroid, it gives them so much potential. Think about what hardware they’ll have:

    – A manned launcher. (Commercial)
    – A reentry capsule. (Either Dragon MkII, or Orion-lite errr Heavy.)
    – A fuel depot, and commercial resupply.
    – A re-fuelable ship capable of carrying astronauts to an asteroid. Meaning lots of life-support, lots of range. (Nuke powered ion-drive?)
    – Spacesuits capable of handling long EVA’s in a dusty environment. (Asteroid dust will be a lot like lunar dust. Tiny sharp bits of metal mixed with tiny sharp bits of glass.)

    Now what else would a lunar mission require? A lunar lander. That’s it. Any future US President can say “Back to the Moon, boys!” and only one piece of new hardware will be needed. After an asteroid mission, it’s actually easy! And if the next one says “On to Phobos”, that’s just a long duration asteroid mission. Three major milestones from one basic program.

    Only a true Mars mission needs serious hardware development. But even then, NASA will have experience and hardware for every stage except for the Mars lander/refueller/relauncher. Mars’ll be begging the next-plus-two President.

    By contrast, Constellation, even if it had worked, would have ended up tightly tuned to a lunar mission, worthless for anything beyond Earth orbit. Even the Constellation-version of Orion would have been built for just a couple of weeks mission duration.

    (Note: The Orion-lite is intended to sit idle for months as a lifeboat for the ISS. IMO, that’s better for a future Mars mission; where you live in a hab-module, firing up the capsule only at missions end.)

    As for your other lunar unknowns: They almost all come after the caption “Fifty Years Later” flashes up on the movie screen. Ie, not part of our considerations today. Any manufacturing requires a large colony. Large colonies require a whole level of space infrastructure that’s not on the table, whether you prefer Bush’s plan or Obama’s.

  • nir

    Hello to you all.

    do you really believe we should go BACK to the moon? have we ever got there in the first place?

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-moon/

    and what about the VAN ALLEN BELT?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyl1LsB7Xr8

    Only after you will be sure that we have got there even once should you think about visiting the moon one more time.

  • Greg Fish

    do you really believe we should go BACK to the moon? have we ever got there in the first place?

    Yes, we have. Maybe if you watched a few less cranks on the web and actually tried to study something about space exploration, you would know that. Link dropping videos made by self-indulgent cranks with a martyr complex is no substitute for having your facts in order.

  • nir

    Hello Greg,

    Does any of your great studies based on facts not from NASA?
    I don’t think videos are a way to learn but it is a great way to share findings. I have found that the Nazi NASA were lying to as more than once.
    One of the times is in 1969 when they aired the moon walk of Armstrong.
    If you can refer to what the movie is talking about instead of laughing at me I’ll Appreciate it a lot.

    There are photos (from the moon) that have two or more sources of light’ where did they come from?
    There are no stars shown on any picture from the moon, why?
    There is no crater where the space craft supposedly land, why?
    What about the Van-Allen belt, is this also one big lie or maybe the lie is elsewhere?

    Have you seen the movie or you took the easy way to discredit me and my Intelligence?
    I don’t know you but you sound like an Intelligent guy, please treat me in your answer not as a complete idiot, give me a bit of respect that I don’t ask this questions because I like to waist your time but because I didn’t yet got answers for them.

    Thanks in advance for your answers,

    p.s. – if my English is not so good and may sound childish it is because this is not my native language

  • Greg Fish

    If you can refer to what the movie is talking about instead of laughing at me I’ll appreciate it a lot.

    Every single thing you’ve brought up has been addressed about a hundred times by pretty much everybody who knows anything about space travel. The very fact that you bring any of them up after watching a couple of widely discredited videos on the web only tells me that you’re not interested in actual facts. If you were, you could’ve found point by point rebuttals to every Moon hoaxer claim in a few seconds.

    Instead, you burst in declaring that we never really went to the Moon and called NASA a bunch of Nazis, demonstrating that you have no idea what the term means. I really have no obligation to indulge your naive conspiracy mongering or pat you on the back for reciting ridiculous conspiracy theories on par with 9/11 Truthism.

  • Paul

    @nir
    Does any of your great studies based on facts not from NASA?

    Actually there have been a number of people who have debunked the “Moon Hoax” conspiracy theorists. Greg gave you one of Phil Plait’s articles. But you can also read a copy of Michael Shermer’s debunking.

    If you can refer to what the movie is talking about instead of laughing at me I’ll appreciate it a lot.

    He’s not laughing. The first few times he saw Moon-hoax nonsense, he might have laughed. The thousandth time, he’s just tired and wants you to go away.

    There are photos (from the moon) that have two or more sources of light’ where did they come from?

    No there aren’t. This claim is based on shadows of different rocks apparently pointing in different directions. This is an illusion based on the uneven ground. If there were two or more light-sources, every single object would have two or more shadows. Try it. Get two bright lights in a dark room, and a camera, try to make two objects have one shadow each pointing in different directions.

    Counter Question: If it’s a hoax, why would NASA’s film crew use multiple sources of light? They knew they were simulating sunlight on the moon, so why wouldn’t they use one bright light?

    There are no stars shown on any picture from the moon, why?

    It was day-time.

    Every Apollo landing was in the lunar “morning” or “afternoon”. With no atmosphere, the surface of the moon is very brightly lit. To take images, cameras have to be “stopped down” just like daylight outdoor images on Earth. Stars are just too dim to be seen. It’s deceptive because the sky is black, rather than Earth’s bright blue. You can simulate this in your backyard at night. Turn all the lights on, turn on the camera flash, then take a photo of someone against a starry background. Bet you can see the stars, but the picture doesn’t show them.

    Counter Question: If it’s a hoax… WHY AREN”T THERE ANY BLOODY STARS IN THE BLOODY PICTURES!? If this is such an obvious flaw, why wouldn’t NASA put bloody stars in the bloody photos? It’s not as if rocket-scientists can’t work out what bloody stars to show, and it’s not as if they don’t have spare bloody pictures of the night sky. So the only reason they wouldn’t show stars is if they thought real lunar photos wouldn’t show them. But then it isn’t a flaw, so it can’t be proof of a hoax.

    (If you haven’t caught on, this one annoys me the most. No conspiracy nut ever asks themselves (or other conspiracy nuts) this question.)

    There is no crater where the space craft supposedly land, why?

    Because the lunar lander didn’t crash like a meteor. It’s rockets were quite weak (1/6th gravity), and the lunar soil, below a few inches, is hard-packed and vacuum-cemented. The astronauts apparently found it quite difficult to drill samples below a few inches.

    Same question for you: If this is such an obvious flaw, why didn’t NASA film the hoax-landing in a shallow crater?

    What about the Van-Allen belt, is this also one big lie or maybe the lie is elsewhere?

    Spending too long in the Van Allen belts is bad for you, but Apollo had radiation shielding and cruised through quickly.

    I can’t think of a counter question for this one, so I’ll ask this instead: After Apollo 11, TV ratings and support for the lunar program dropped off. Only the Apollo 13 emergency rekindled interest. Question: Why were the next four flights so perfect? Why wasn’t there a phoney scare on every flight? Why didn’t one team crash-land, damage the ascent stage, and have to fix it by hand; will they succeed or explode when they try to take off! Or they damage their radio, but we think they crashed & died, but then after a full day of telescopic searching, the command module pilot sees flashes of light from the surface. Flash…flashflash… It’s morse code! My God, they’re alive! Or how about on an EVA, they fall through into a volcanic cave system, they survive, but can’t get back out the same way and have to explore the caves, eventually finding a way out, but oh no, they’re running out of air, will they get back to the lander in time? Tune in for the next exciting episode, “Great View, Shame About The Atmosphere!” Same space/time, same space-station.

    please treat me in your answer not as a complete idiot, give me a bit of respect that I don’t ask this questions because I like to waist your time but because I didn’t yet got answers for them.

    Greg is not your friend. Google is your friend. Show people that you’ve done at least the most basic research and they might have more patience for you.

  • nir

    Sorry, Greg

    I didn’t know you know all about the Paperclip project allready.
    So, if you know who started and build NASA why don’t you think they where Nazis? THEY WHERE!!

    This is just about one person who was part of the project (it is from NASA’s website!!!)
    http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/bio.html

    I loved it when you connected the 9.11 truthism to this subject. Do you believe Bin-laden was responsible for the attack or that it was an inside job?
    Please just answer me this little question so I’ll know if I’m wasting my time (and your time) with a person who believe ENYTHING the officials says even if the findings don’t compatible with it. Do not let the facts confuse you.

    “ou burst in declaring that we never really went to the Moon and called NASA a bunch of Nazis, demonstrating that you have no idea what the term means”
    I can ashure you that I know very well what that term means and that I lost half of my family to them only because they were born jews. If you want me to send you photos of the number on my family’s hands I’ll do it gladly just that you won’t think I don’t know what I’m talking about.

    Believe me (you don’t have to) that I am searching for the truth for a long time and didn’t get my point of view on things only after viewing two movies on youtube, it is your disrespecting for other’s opinions that made you write those words.

    I hope that you are not one of many that get their paycheck from NASA in order to disprove reasonable claims about it’s true purpose.

    Have a lovely day and sweet life,

    love, Nir

  • Greg Fish

    Just like Paul was saying, I’m not your friend Nir. I’m very familiar with people like you and I know that rather than considering the actual facts, you simply choose a contrary story as long as you get to feel like you’re smarter than everyone else. If you expect to be patted on the back and told how smart you are simply because you’re such a bold rebel and can recite a few conspiracy theories, you’re wasting your time and mine.

  • nir

    Hello Greg,

    I know now that you are not my friend :( but till now I did not think that you are my enemy.

    I think the only reason you are avoiding giving me one straight answer is because you can’t.

    I don’t know what you meant by saying that you know people like me, what kind of people? the ones that want to have a polite discussion about things that are not so factual as you may think (or want others to think).

    It is o.k for you not to answer any of my questions because you don’t want to or because you don’t know the answers, but to answer “If you expect to be patted on the back and told how smart you are” is simply does not respect your lovely site and articles.

    Sorry for the annoyance, I thought this was a site of tolerant people, my mistake :(

  • Paul

    @nir

    You keep demanding that Greg answer your questions, “if he can”.

    I answered each of your questions, and yet you haven’t had the common courtesy to answer mine. It reinforces the idea that you aren’t interested in a debate or discussion, you are just trying to rile up the blog’s author. Lame.

    My answers are still there, above. My questions, just to remind you, are:

    If the moon landing was a hoax, why would the hoaxers use multiple sources of light? They knew they were simulating a single light source, the Sun.

    If it was a hoax, why didn’t they put stars in the pictures? It wouldn’t have been difficult and would have looked more “natural”.

    If it was a hoax, why didn’t they film the lander in a shallow crater? If it’s something you’d expect, It would have been quite easy to fake.

    If it was a hoax, why wasn’t there much much more drama in the “stories”? It would have captured the nation’s, indeed the world’s, imagination. And being a hoax, there is no more difficulty faking a near-disaster-barely-averted than filming great success. After seeing the TV “success” of Apollo 13, why were the four following missions so boringly routine.

    Awaiting your answers. You will answer, yes? You aren’t just trolling. … Nir? … Nir?

  • nir

    Hello Paul,

    When you are making a hoax you can do mistakes, your questions about why they made those mistakes and did not pay attention to all the small details is not really a question you need to ask me but the ones that made this hoax.

    You sent me to a debunking movie but you are angry when I use a debunking movie. also the debunking site Greg posted is using even lamer excuses then yours. for example, the wondering is “In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily.” and the smart answer is “The Moon itself. Surprise! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came”. I don’t think the moon reflect he light so good that there are no shades after a flash is used and that you can even read what is written in the “shady” area.

    There is a mass feeling that the answers are mere excuses and not really good answers to real questions. of course you will say that I am the one that did not understand the answers and don’t want to believe NASA word for it, I can say the same thing about you agents but where would it leave me?

    I think there are only 3 options:
    1) you know you are wrong and try every thing you can to mislead me.
    2) you don’t know you are wrong and believe NASA because you believe it is a very reliable source of info.
    3) I am wrong.

    If number 2 is correct then you need to a very thorough investigation by yourself to find out who seats in the NASA administration from the day it was established till now and figure out if those are a trusty fellows or not and if they where lying about other serious matters before.

    if number 3 is correct, please give me one evidence (not from NASA or US gov) to the landing that I’ll not be able to disprove.

    if number 1 is correct then just tell me (but then you really don’t want to :) ) so I will not waste any of your time and go with my wonders elsewhere.

    What is very strange is that you act like there is a 4th option: that I know I’m wrong and try every thing I can to mislead you. this is not a real option because you have the option not to answer me and not even post my replies, so how will I mislead you if I can’t say everything I want how ever I want?

    Let us not waste each other time and say goodbye as friends (even Greg specifically told me he is NOT my friend, I hope we are still friends).

  • Greg Fish

    All right Nir, fine, I’ll play along knowing that I’m basically wasting my time. You seem to care a lot more about the source of information than you do about its correctness, disguising your paranoia as “not willing to buy the official story.” I linked you to a page by an astronomer offering rebuttals for every Moon hoaxer criticism and while you’re asking to be proven wrong, you ignore all the factual explanations by saying that the evidence presented to you just doesn’t feel right.

    So to sum it up. You threw out a bunch of random claims that have been long shown as irrelevant or outright false by scientists, were given the detailed explanations, and then refused to explain why you dismissed them. This tells me two things: you have a penchant for conspiracy theories and you fall for them without considering the merits of the evidence against them. If the latter wasn’t true, you’d at least be able to offer a serious argument rather than pound and cry about who is and isn’t your friend.

    When you pretend you haven’t been given answers when you were given links which address everything you asked and more, you’re just lying plain and simple. Either try to refute the evidence being presented, or don’t expect me to give you attention when you pout and sulk.

  • Paul

    @nir
    When you are making a hoax you can do mistakes, your questions about why they made those mistakes and did not pay attention to all the small details is not really a question you need to ask me but the ones that made this hoax.

    please give me one evidence (not from NASA or US gov) to the landing that I’ll not be able to disprove.

    You are the one alleging a hoax, with no proof. You demand that I provide you with evidence of the lunar landings, but you are not willing to explain or prove your claims of a hoax when I ask you a question. You have one standard for yourself, but demand a different one for everyone else. That’s not fair, Nir.

    I don’t think the moon reflect he light so good that there are no shades after a flash is used and that you can even read what is written in the “shady” area.

    The astronauts didn’t use flashes on their cameras. It was daylight on the moon.

    I can say the same thing about you agents but where would it leave me?

    Agents? Really? You think anyone who disagrees with you is a dis-information agent from NASA/US-gov? That’s very very paranoid. (It is also quite egotistical.)

    (You also seem to think I have something to do with Greg’s blog. I don’t. I’m just a commenter, like you.)

    if number 3 is correct, please give me one evidence (not from NASA or US gov) to the landing that I’ll not be able to disprove.

    You don’t seem to care about evidence, Nir. I didn’t direct you to a NASA website, I didn’t quote NASA, and I’m certainly not working for NASA. Like you, I’m not even American. My answers to your questions (which you still haven’t responded to) were based on my own experience and common sense.

    Your claim about multiple light-sources can be disproved by yourself, by using multiple lights in a dark room, and looking at the shadows you make. 5 year old children could do this experiment.

    Your claim about stars in lunar pictures can also be disproved by yourself, by going outside at night, turning on all your lights, and taking a picture of a person standing against a star-lit background. You will probably be able to see stars with your own eyes, but stars will not appear on the cameras pictures. A 7 year old child could do this experiment.

    (You can also look up other images from space, pictures of Earth, or the moon, or the space shuttle or space-station. You will see that whenever a picture is taken of brightly sun-lit foreground object, you cannot see stars in the background. Which is common sense, when you think about it.)

    These are really basic things, Nir. Not only have you not done things that a small child could do, but neither have the people you are relying on for information.

    You don’t have to trust me, you don’t have to trust NASA, and you don’t have to trust conspiracy theory websites. Do the experiments yourself!

  • Vykkdraco

    Ok here is one for you NIR. If you can get to a local space telescope in your area. Ask them if they have a laser range finder attached for light refraction distance. Now ask them to kindly point the finder toward the french reflector placed on the moon by the astronaughts from our flights that “didnt” happen. When they can show you the jump in reflection from the moon and the exact distance to the moon because of it you will then know that we have been to the moon.

  • Vykkdraco

    also why not goto the MYTHBUSTERS website. This is a group of people who have made it their mission in life to debunk myths. And they have proved all of your questions wrong and even some you didnt even ask.

  • Rob W

    Ok, you can pay for it then. How about we raise your taxes 30% to pay for the rocket to the moon? Who’s on board for that?

  • Rob W

    Also, there are no stars in the pictures because the photos are taken in daylight! The sun outshines them, Ace! You see no stars during our daytime on Earth, do you? Same on the moon! If we had no atmosphere it would look just like the moon. But the blue from the nitrogen in the air makes our sky blue. duh.