Why is the forum accepting advertising...

[Terry Mauro]

If you are going to use somebody's name, at least take the time to get it right.  The name is Christa McAuliffe. 

What does Challenger or the space shuttle have to do with Apollo?  They are entirely different vehicles.  Yes, we know how to get into space but that doesn't mean mistakes can't or won't happen.  Hopefully we'll learn from them and move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does Challenger or the space shuttle have to do with Apollo?

Everything. If they couldn't get the Challenger off the ground that day, not to mention the disasterous break up of the most recent one over Texas, how are you so sure we ever made it to the Moon, in the first place? Orbitting the Earth seems a more simple feat than getting a foot on the Moon, don't you agree? And, it's been 36 or so years since the Apollo program. Why haven't NASA and JPL been able to perfect a simple craft such as the shuttle. I am well aware of the physics involved to perform the job. Why weren't the stop-gaps in place for Christa? There should've been no expense spared in the case of the "O" rings, nor any corners cut as far as in the provision of the materials used in that craft. Oh, and BTW, it depends on which newspapers you read. I specifically saw her name written with a "K".

And furthermore, I'm not in agreement with any of you, Lamson, White, or the Man in the Moon, for that matter. Can you honestly tell me why the pictures that came back from the Mars rover, dune-buggy, remote viewing cam looked like the high desert out in Barstow, only bathed in henna? I'm not saying it can't be done, but don't you think we should've been doing it more frequently by now, had it been such a do-able feat in the first place?

[Terry Mauro]

Lamsom dronned ON:

Duly noted.  As is your ignorance on the subject matter.  Believe as you wish as is your right.  It speaks volumes and it will be reflected in future readings of your posts. 

how kind of you to allow others to believe as they wish, what nonsense, rofl!

I"m sure it will be duly noted by other on this forum as well.

education and varied historical viewpoint is a plain pain in the butt, makes for good conversation though...

Why not detail exactly why you believe your summary has yet to be addressed?

Your vague posts show nothing of substance while your points have been rebutted in detail.  Do it point by point.

here we go, AGAIN -- telling those you disagree with WHAT to do <sigh>, didn't you get thrown off of another board for that, or was that Tink Thompson? Maybe Bill Miller there were so many back back then, one tends to forget the names...

Still after many chances you give us only bluster.  So much for intellectual honesty.

speaking of intellectual and PROFESSIONAL HONESTY, have you EVER been paid by NASA for any contracted photo work or freelance television work -- I have!

Beep beep beep...that the steamroller backing up your way.....

thats Sputnik, children will be children, sigh!  Wanna buy a CD with a Moorman5.tiff on it, worthless today as it was a few years ago, is she or is she not... roflmao

you the only one around here exempt from posting a likeness of yourself, just curious?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks so much for you meaningless (once again) post David.

I think I got removed from the board in question because I strongly disputed Whites photographic knowlege. And we all know that cant be allowed on that board now can it.

Paid by NASA or any governmental agency or contractor...nope, but I'm so very happy for you.

Now do you have anything of value to add to the discussion or are you just going to play your regular game? I'm guessing it will just be more of your guard dog barking.

Bark away David, it seems its about all the value you have in this discussion.

Oh and by the way why would I need a Moorman cd since the original came through me and went out unedited. But I'm glad to see you find perhaps the best scan available of the Thompson #5 copy neg worthless. It speaks volumes.

Perhaps you would prefer to work with White over compressed and soft Zippo?

Bye Bye Spot. good doggie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, what d'ya know! If it isn't the Annual NASA xxxxx Convention blowing into town.

I could care less if they went to the Moon, especially after what happened to the Challenger shuttle in the mid 80's. You would've thought the Apollo project might have at least guaranteed the safe passage of Kristie Macauliff, et.al, in what was a supposedly simple maneuver, like orbitting the Earth's stratosphere, right? Don't you think they should've gotten the kinks out of it by then?

Go back to the drawing board, Lamson. You and the rest of your cronies. Tell me something I don't already know. You guys are boring the hell out of me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are bored than don't read, no one is forcing you.

But than again the cheap shot made you feel better eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are bored than don't read, no one is forcing you.

Don't worry. I have no intention of reading any further, that is unless something convincing might be presented in the interim.

But than again the cheap shot made you feel better eh?

Hey, my cheap shot pales in comparison to your condescending asides regarding the subject.

[Evan Burton]

There were successful launches prior to the CHALLANGER disaster.

There were successful launches after the CHALLANGER and prior to COLUMBIA.

It was a design flaw, an engineering error. These occur everyday. They occur in cars; they occur in aircraft, they occur in lots of things.

It has absoluting no bearing on the Apollo claims. If you accept that it does, then a another claim - based on a similar line of reasoning - might be made that because of the design flaw in the DC-10, all DC-10 flights were faked and it is impossible for any aircraft to carry more than four passengers or exceed the speed of sound.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Evan Burton

[Craig Lamson]

>"Don't worry. I have no intention of reading any further, that is unless something convincing might be presented in the interim."<

You remain unconvinced after after viewing the mountian of evidence that destroys Whites attempts to prove Apollo a hoax? I have no problem when people are igonrant in a given subject and come to a wrong conclusion. However those people become stupid when they disregard fact and emperical evidence and cling to a silly notion. Are you stupid Terry?

>"Hey, my cheap shot pales in comparison to your condescending asides regarding the subject."<

If you are going to use the cheap shot at least make it worthy of the effort.

[Terry Mauro]

>"Don't worry. I have no intention of reading any further, that is unless something convincing might be presented in the interim."<

You remain unconvinced after after viewing the mountian of evidence that destroys Whites attempts to prove Apollo a hoax?  I have no problem when people are igonrant in a given subject and come to a wrong conclusion.  However those people become stupid when they disregard fact and emperical evidence and cling to a silly notion.  Are you stupid Terry? 

>"Hey, my cheap shot pales in comparison to your condescending asides regarding the subject."<

If you are going to use the cheap shot at least make it worthy of the effort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've already mentioned that I'm not in either your camp or White's camp on the matter. I'm going on the assumptions I've made from observance over time, of the space program, itself. That doesn't make one stupid, as you seem to believe, but merely entitled to expression one's opinion. You seem to relish casting aspersions at whomever you would deem in opposition to your theory, or who may not agree with your slant on it. They haven't been able to reproduce the feat on a regular basis, otherwise they'd have bought up the Moon and subdivided it by now. Practice makes perfect and I haven't seen anything that is convincible to me, on that aspect of the space program. I'm sorry to all you hardworking NASA employees, if I'm not exactly in pocket on this one, and more supportive of your efforts, but the jurie's out on this one until it becomes a more common occurrence but I doubt that's ever going to happen in my lifetime.

[Terry Mauro]

There were successful launches prior to the CHALLANGER disaster.

There were successful launches after the CHALLANGER and prior to COLUMBIA.

It was a design flaw, an engineering error.  These occur everyday.  They occur in cars; they occur in aircraft, they occur in lots of things.

It has absoluting no bearing on the Apollo claims.  If you accept that it does, then a another claim - based on

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

" a similar line of reasoning - might be made that because of the design flaw in the DC-10, all DC-10 flights were faked and it is impossible for any aircraft to carry more than four passengers or exceed the speed of sound."

That's not my line of reasoning, at all. Reproducibility is how I would measure the amount of faith I'd be willing to place in a Moon project.

But, go back and continue your debate. Sorry, to have interrupted you.

[Evan Burton]

That's not my line of reasoning, at all.  Reproducibility is how I would measure the amount of faith I'd be willing to place in a Moon project.

But there is just that.

APOLLO 7 - Earth orbit test of CSM

APOLLO 8 - Circumlunar test of CSM & Earth-Moon trajectory

APOLLO 9 - Earth orbit test of LM

APOLLO 10 - Full-up 'dress rehersal' for lunar landing

APOLLO 11 - Lunar landing

APOLLO 12 - Extended stay, refinement of landing trajectory

APOLLO 13 - Inflight failure but validated contingency plans for a 'LM lifeboat'

APOLLO 14 - Extended stay, greater geological survey, improved LM

APOLLO 15 - Extended stay, use of LRV, CSM carried orbital science package, improved EVA suits, first dedicated science mission

APOLLO 16 - Extended stay, exploration of lunar highlands, launching of lunar science satellite

APOLLO 17 - Longest stay, scientist-astronaut, largest collection of lunar samples

APOLLO 18 - Cancelled due budget cutback

APOLLO 19 - Cancelled due budget cutback

APOLLO 20 - Cancelled due budget cutback

Then there were the SKYLAB series, and the APOLLO-SOYUZ TEST PROGRAMME.

All flights had faults of one kind or another; most were able to be overcome to ensure mission success.

All flights were documented to a greater degree than any other project (that I am aware of) in human history.

The Shuttle was based on the knowledge gained through those and other flights.

That's reproducability.

If you say you are not convinced, then that is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to hold that view.

If you say you are not convinced because there is no reproducability, then I would say you are wrong. If you genuinely feel that way, then write to your Congressman or Senator, and say you want to see a return to the Moon in order to prove or repudiate the APOLLO landing claims.

[Craig Lamson]

>"Don't worry. I have no intention of reading any further, that is unless something convincing might be presented in the interim."<

You remain unconvinced after after viewing the mountian of evidence that destroys Whites attempts to prove Apollo a hoax?  I have no problem when people are igonrant in a given subject and come to a wrong conclusion.  However those people become stupid when they disregard fact and emperical evidence and cling to a silly notion.  Are you stupid Terry? 

>"Hey, my cheap shot pales in comparison to your condescending asides regarding the subject."<

If you are going to use the cheap shot at least make it worthy of the effort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've already mentioned that I'm not in either your camp or White's camp on the

matter. I'm going on the assumptions I've made from observance over time, of the space program, itself. That doesn't make one stupid, as you seem to believe, but merely entitled to expression one's opinion. You seem to relish casting aspersions at whomever you would deem in opposition to your theory, or who may not agree with your slant on it. They haven't been able to reproduce the feat on a regular basis, otherwise they'd have bought up the Moon and subdivided it by now. Practice makes perfect and I haven't seen anything that is convincible to me, on that aspect of the space program. I'm sorry to all you hardworking NASA employees, if I'm not exactly in pocket on this one, and more supportive of your efforts, but the jurie's out on this one until it becomes a more common occurrence but I doubt that's ever going to happen in my lifetime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are going on assumptions based on observations over time? Have you ever really looked at the data? Seems like a pretty poor way to reach a conclusion if you ask me and an even worse basis to suggest that someone go back to the drawing board. As I said I'm perfectly willing to understand that someone might be ignorant of the subject matter and we have now found thats whats going on in your case.

Thanks for your unsupported opinion, its been duly noted.

[Terry Mauro]

You know, I won't bother to belabor the point. A new space program would've once been the shot in the arm our technical-industrial manufacturing base could've used, but that was before the days of out-sourcing. Now, it's cheaper to have third world countries doing the jobs and making the parts that were once the backbone of the American economy, for next to nothing wages. Case in point: I used to be able to call a company like G.E., for example, and get their home office in the midwest, and be able to speak to their applications and technical support system in one phone call connection. In the past three years, that has all changed to my call being picked up by an operator in India, who then pages my engineer in San Diego, to tell him to call me in Culver City. In a way, that's the kind of progress that might be attributed to how the space program helped change our lives by the convenience of satellite signal transfer. All well and good, except for the loss of a few hundred American jobs in the midwest.

My point now is, even if I were to write my congressman to suggest to him that we need to jumpstart a new space program, who is going to benefit from it? In our quest for progress, it looks as if we're losing, even if we seem to be ahead. Were all those Apollo missions for the benefit of future cellphone customers, of which I am not. Or, were they simply for future gps systems and global linkage through the miracle of fiber optics. Would our children, or our grandchildren be guaranteed employment from which they'd be able to support a family, or buy a home? Before I make that call or e-mail my representative with a suggestion, I would hope that there might be more opportunities for my country's future generations than that of a job in WalMart or Burger King.

It would be interesting to see how they'd manage a new space program in this era of globalism, though. Thanks refreshing my memory with the timeline on the space missions.

[Evan Burton]

You know, I won't bother to belabor the point. A new space program would've once been the shot in the arm our technical-industrial manufacturing base could've used, but that was before the days of out-sourcing. Now, it's cheaper to have third world countries doing the jobs and making the parts that were once the backbone of the American economy, for next to nothing wages. Case in point:  I used to be able to call a company like G.E., for example, and get their home office in the midwest, and be able to speak to their applications and technical support system in one phone call connection. In the past three years, that has all changed to my call being picked up by an operator in India, who then pages my engineer in San Diego, to tell him to call me in Culver City. In a way, that's the kind of progress that might be attributed to how the space program helped change our lives by the convenience of satellite signal transfer. All well and good, except for the loss of a few hundred American jobs in the midwest.

My point now is, even if I were to write my congressman to suggest to him that we need to jumpstart a new space program, who is going to benefit from it? In our quest for progress, it looks as if we're losing, even if we seem to be ahead. Were all those Apollo missions for the benefit of future cellphone customers, of which I am not. Or, were they simply for future gps systems and global linkage through the miracle of fiber optics. Would our children, or our grandchildren be guaranteed employment from which they'd be able to support a family, or buy a home?  Before I make that call or e-mail my representative with a suggestion, I would hope that there might be more opportunities for my country's future generations than that of a job in WalMart or Burger King.

It would be interesting to see how they'd manage a new space program in this era of globalism, though.  Thanks refreshing my memory with the timeline on the space missions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Terry,

No problems. You might not necessarily accept it, but you listen with good graces.

I'd love to be able to refute what you said about job creation, but there are two problems for me:

1. I'm Australian, and don't know about the situation in the US.

2. We have the Indian call-centres as well.

Perhaps a more global-centric approach is needed. I am a strong supporter of of manned space programmes and to be frank, don't really mind who does it - as long as we advance. I believe the abandoment of the US manned lunar landing programme was a terrible mistake. I would have thought that we could, by this time, have had a viable lunar settlement in operation. I believe the science and technology is there, but the political will is not. We are just too concerned with engaging in local concerns rather than taking the longer view.

That being said, there were indeed many benefits from the space programme. Apart from those directly employed in NASA and associated aerospace industry, the "space race" gave us much.

The launch of satellites gave us global communications, weather forecasting, geophysical assessment, etc.

The implementation of GPS / GLONASS means improved safety in navigation.

The exploration of the moon has given us greater understanding of how we came to be here.

A lot of the NASA-initiated research was subsequently used in aviation 9both civil and military.

There have been a lot of benefits. Were they worth the cost? I don't know - what price is knowledge?

[Terry Mauro]

You know, I won't bother to belabor the point. A new space program would've once been the shot in the arm our technical-industrial manufacturing base could've used, but that was before the days of out-sourcing. Now, it's cheaper to have third world countries doing the jobs and making the parts that were once the backbone of the American economy, for next to nothing wages. Case in point:  I used to be able to call a company like G.E., for example, and get their home office in the midwest, and be able to speak to their applications and technical support system in one phone call connection. In the past three years, that has all changed to my call being picked up by an operator in India, who then pages my engineer in San Diego, to tell him to call me in Culver City. In a way, that's the kind of progress that might be attributed to how the space program helped change our lives by the convenience of satellite signal transfer. All well and good, except for the loss of a few hundred American jobs in the midwest.

My point now is, even if I were to write my congressman to suggest to him that we need to jumpstart a new space program, who is going to benefit from it? In our quest for progress, it looks as if we're losing, even if we seem to be ahead. Were all those Apollo missions for the benefit of future cellphone customers, of which I am not. Or, were they simply for future gps systems and global linkage through the miracle of fiber optics. Would our children, or our grandchildren be guaranteed employment from which they'd be able to support a family, or buy a home?  Before I make that call or e-mail my representative with a suggestion, I would hope that there might be more opportunities for my country's future generations than that of a job in WalMart or Burger King.

It would be interesting to see how they'd manage a new space program in this era of globalism, though.  Thanks refreshing my memory with the timeline on the space missions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Terry,

No problems. You might not necessarily accept it, but you listen with good graces.

I'd love to be able to refute what you said about job creation, but there are two problems for me:

1. I'm Australian, and don't know about the situation in the US.

2. We have the Indian call-centres as well.

Perhaps a more global-centric approach is needed. I am a strong supporter of of manned space programmes and to be frank, don't really mind who does it - as long as we advance. I believe the abandoment of the US manned lunar landing programme was a terrible mistake. I would have thought that we could, by this time, have had a viable lunar settlement in operation. I believe the science and technology is there, but the political will is not. We are just too concerned with engaging in local concerns rather than taking the longer view.

That being said, there were indeed many benefits from the space programme. Apart from those directly employed in NASA and associated aerospace industry, the "space race" gave us much.

The launch of satellites gave us global communications, weather forecasting, geophysical assessment, etc.

The implementation of GPS / GLONASS means improved safety in navigation.

The exploration of the moon has given us greater understanding of how we came to be here.

A lot of the NASA-initiated research was subsequently used in aviation 9both civil and military.

There have been a lot of benefits. Were they worth the cost? I don't know - what price is knowledge?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like your mindset, Evan. Being from Australia, you haven't become jaded as those of us Americans, possessing a more socially liberal stance on life, have been forced to literally "eat crow", under the general auspices of the fascist regime presently in place in our legislative houses and halls of justice, in D.C.

It would be ideal for all nations to be able to particpate, contribute, and benefit from a global space effort, I agree with that prospect. But, until the U.S. is able to extricate itself from the greed-ridden philosophical and economical agendas of the Chicago School of Economics that have been permeating Wall Street, and weakening our industrial sector for the past 40 years, I personally have not one iota of faith in any viable contribution of which the U.S. would be able to offer, as long as its obsessive fixation on war, along with the conquest of oil-producing countries, remains as the standard of its gold mark of excellence. That is the reason the term "global" has left such a bitter taste in the mouths of those whose jobs have been out-sourced to the Third World. It should never have to come to this, had those lost jobs been replaced, or at least been upgraded to something other than a paradigm shift downward to the service sector of minimum wage positions now requiring people to work three positions in order to make a wage similar in amount to that of the what their lost technical position had paid. But, I'm beginning to sound redundant, here.

I just wish the U.S. had something better to offer the world instead of its continual support of Third World dictatorships along with its exploitation of these countries' laboring classes, all in the name of saving American corporations' an almighty dollar. Peoples' lives don't count in the good old U.S.A. anymore, only dollars. By Wall Street's standards, "Money talks, bullxxxx walks."

And, if there could be any global effort in the way of a space program, I would only hope that a similar effort in creating an alternate source of fuel/energy could be undertaken, as well. The only way that I can foresee of any amiable exchange of ideas culminating in a global effort to advance our present civilizations is if we are able to extricate ourselves from having to depend on another country's resources for our own sense of self-sufficiency. Other than that, we'll continue to be perceived by other nations, as the blood-suckers we've apparently become.