1st Manned Moon Landing - 45 Years Ago
Discussion
gpo746 said:
That proves nothing could just be a picture of a boil on my wifes bottom 
I remember years ago a girl who worked for us her fella thought everything was a conspiracy. A rather intense chap I recall.
Now without incurring my mate Eric Mc's wrath can anyone remember an April Fool from the mid 70's TV Programme that suggested they had landed on Mars. I can find little mention of this programme but it was I think ITV and probably 1976 or so ? Done in a documentary style. I remember one of the "experts" interviewed saying "you don't need all that fuel just to put a bicycle on the moon" or something.
I remember that, presented by ITN reporter Tim Brinton as I recallI remember years ago a girl who worked for us her fella thought everything was a conspiracy. A rather intense chap I recall.
Now without incurring my mate Eric Mc's wrath can anyone remember an April Fool from the mid 70's TV Programme that suggested they had landed on Mars. I can find little mention of this programme but it was I think ITV and probably 1976 or so ? Done in a documentary style. I remember one of the "experts" interviewed saying "you don't need all that fuel just to put a bicycle on the moon" or something.
Eric Mc said:
gpo746 said:
That proves nothing could just be a picture of a boil on my wifes bottom
Only if you don't know what you are looking at.Or are you saying that you actually are one of the non-believing fraternity?
gpo746 said:
Now without incurring my mate Eric Mc's wrath can anyone remember an April Fool from the mid 70's TV Programme that suggested they had landed on Mars. I can find little mention of this programme but it was I think ITV and probably 1976 or so ? Done in a documentary style. I remember one of the "experts" interviewed saying "you don't need all that fuel just to put a bicycle on the moon" or something.
Alternative 3 it was called - TV 'mockumentary' and an associated paperbackdirkgently said:
NinjaPower said:
Thousands of men and women dedicated their entire lives to the science of space travel, and in many cases, actually gave their lives, all so that we would learn, discover and explore as a race.
statement.
I think that is why Buzz Aldrin punches the idiots in the face.statement.
MartG said:
Alternative 3 it was called - TV 'mockumentary' and an associated paperback
That's the onehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_3
Eric Mc said:
Fort Jefferson said:
Eric Mc said:
V8 Fettler said:
Mars by 1980?
Would have been nice but it was never likely. Mars by 2000 was well within the capability of NASA - but only with silly funding levels - which they were never going to get.What killed any ambitious post Apollo projects was the state of the American economy in 1970 which had been severely weakened by the much more expensive Vietnam War.
Also, the Cold War was thawing a bit by then and public support for such large scale propaganda projects had reduced dramatically.
It solidified them as being able to take what they wanted, when and how they wanted. The world watched in awe, as they still do(arguable-maybe waning) at a powerful nation with no ceiling to it's capabilities.
Most military power is not when you fire a gun or launch a missile, but when you could, and you don't need to because they fear you.
America only survives in so much debt, overextending it's military around the world with crippling costs by it's reputation. If it had the reputation of Canada, it would be laughed at. It is for the same reasons we (the UK) are still listened to. Our reputation and past successes do and always will aid us greatly.
Eric Mc said:
It wasn't a military project as such but it certainly was part and parcel of the Cold War and was all about ensuring Americas influence in the world stayed at a high level.
If you listen to Kennedy's speeches announcing the project, that is very clear.
yep.If you listen to Kennedy's speeches announcing the project, that is very clear.
so much for it being an international joint project!
Yep - there were quite a few Brits, Canadians, Germans (of course) and even an Egyptian (the chief geology instructor).
NASA had to rely on a number of tracking stations as well in order to maintain communications with the spacecraft - many of these were outside the USA - such as Canberra and Madrid. Even Jodrell Bank was used to assist.
NASA had to rely on a number of tracking stations as well in order to maintain communications with the spacecraft - many of these were outside the USA - such as Canberra and Madrid. Even Jodrell Bank was used to assist.
Eric Mc said:
Yep - there were quite a few Brits, Canadians, Germans (of course) and even an Egyptian (the chief geology instructor).
NASA had to rely on a number of tracking stations as well in order to maintain communications with the spacecraft - many of these were outside the USA - such as Canberra and Madrid. Even Jodrell Bank was used to assist.
I was thinking more of the part where they left the UN flag out.NASA had to rely on a number of tracking stations as well in order to maintain communications with the spacecraft - many of these were outside the USA - such as Canberra and Madrid. Even Jodrell Bank was used to assist.
Without the international team they may well not have made it.
Efbe said:
I would argue Apollo was one of the American's greatest military moves.
It solidified them as being able to take what they wanted, when and how they wanted. The world watched in awe, as they still do(arguable-maybe waning) at a powerful nation with no ceiling to it's capabilities.
Most military power is not when you fire a gun or launch a missile, but when you could, and you don't need to because they fear you.
America only survives in so much debt, overextending it's military around the world with crippling costs by it's reputation. If it had the reputation of Canada, it would be laughed at. It is for the same reasons we (the UK) are still listened to. Our reputation and past successes do and always will aid us greatly.
I think the Vietnamese might disagree...It solidified them as being able to take what they wanted, when and how they wanted. The world watched in awe, as they still do(arguable-maybe waning) at a powerful nation with no ceiling to it's capabilities.
Most military power is not when you fire a gun or launch a missile, but when you could, and you don't need to because they fear you.
America only survives in so much debt, overextending it's military around the world with crippling costs by it's reputation. If it had the reputation of Canada, it would be laughed at. It is for the same reasons we (the UK) are still listened to. Our reputation and past successes do and always will aid us greatly.
Eric Mc said:
They did debate what flag they would use (or even if ANY flag would be used) but the idea of using a UN flag was dropped very early on because -
a) the UN had nothing to do with the project
b) the US taxpayer was providing 99% of the funding
Isn't it bleached white by now? It'll look like the French landed there first.a) the UN had nothing to do with the project
b) the US taxpayer was providing 99% of the funding
That has been said - but nobody has seen the flags clearly (their shadows are visible in some of the LRO pictures) since the astronauts left so we cannot say for sure that this is the case.
At one point it was being proposed that UV light would have turned the nylon material to powder, effectively leaving just the flagpole and the flag extension rail. But the shadows seen by the LRO seem to indicate that the nylon material has survived.
At one point it was being proposed that UV light would have turned the nylon material to powder, effectively leaving just the flagpole and the flag extension rail. But the shadows seen by the LRO seem to indicate that the nylon material has survived.
Silverbullet767 said:
Eric Mc said:
They did debate what flag they would use (or even if ANY flag would be used) but the idea of using a UN flag was dropped very early on because -
a) the UN had nothing to do with the project
b) the US taxpayer was providing 99% of the funding
Isn't it bleached white by now? It'll look like the French landed there first.a) the UN had nothing to do with the project
b) the US taxpayer was providing 99% of the funding
The most compelling reasoning I heard behind the did they/ didn't they argument was from a NASA guy on something broadcast, I think, last year. The gist of it was that the Apollo programme involved thousands of people at NASA, tens or hundreds of thousands of people at suppliers, the news agencies, various federal agencies and government departments in the US, and the work involved in getting all those people to conspire to pretend there was a moon landing if there was not would be far more complex than just actually going to the moon. To say nothing of the cost of continuing to monitor all those people to make sure no-one lets the cat out of the bag later on.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff