Why not build the spacestation ON THE MOON?

Common sense would say if we want to have a stable foundation for the Spacestation, we should anchor it to the Moon? right?

wrong. they lied so much about the Moon Landing, that they had to re-route their lies into building a Spacestation suspended in outerspace instead.

You'd think if we went to the Moon once, we could go back anytime we felt the need to. and a Trillion dollar Spacestation is a need to in anybody's book.

The Space station needs boosters to stay in formation or it would float away into deep outerspace wouldn't it?

Again, why not anchor the Spacestation TO THE MOON?

So many lies were being told by NASA and the Government.

Just doesn't add up.

 

Space radiation is probably the reason they had to fake the moon landings. Here's some alternative info I've found on that.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989728

If it turns out that the humans really do need six feet of lead to protect them from radiation once they get more than five hundred miles above the earth, it would be hard to build a station on the moon. What could the crew there do if they had to be thus protected the whole time? They might as well just land robotic craft on the moon with instruments and study the moon and space by remote-control. That sounds like the only feasible option.

 

The moon is about 250,000 miles away from Earth.

Why would you want to have a space station unnecessarily so far away?

Common sense would say put it in orbit around the Earth, where it is only a few miles away.

 

It's one thing to land there and another build a station on it. It's naturally easier to have one afloat in space.

 

but why? Having it on the Moon is where it would supposedly do the most good. it wasn't built to be a tourist destination so there's no need for regular citizens to venture a trip to it. it was designed, supposedly., for research of outerspace and how it affect us here on earth. Having it only a few miles outside our orbit really does no good accept to use it as a manned spy satellite. anchored to the moon means it can be a permenant laboratory. a lab where astronauts sign on to basically relocate for a few years to go live on the moon and do research.

and please stop with how far away it is...NASA didn't seem to care how far it was all the other times they tried to go up there.

and anyways, those who say we went claim it "so easy" to get up there, then what's the problem?

This is why the Moon landing hoax will always be a topic of debate. just too many lies being told to the people. gutting the cofers. endless money stream.

 

flawed logic.

Anchoring a building(pretty much) to the Moon surface is way more logistically sound than having it floating in orbit.

and btw, it's not just "floating" in orbit. there are boosters on the thing to keep it orbiting properly or else it would float away into deep outerspace.

even the TV satellites have mini boosters on them. or run by solar panels at least.

 

Anchoring the space station in orbit with a tether 60 miles long is logistically sound?
On what planet?

No,there's boosters to keep it from falling back to earth

 

you can't possibly be this clueless can you?

I'm talking about "anchoring" as in surface of station is cemented to the surface of the moon. same way we build buildings on earth? got it now?

 

Bahaha, this is the most scientifically ignorant thing I've read this week. Thanks.

 

but floating a giant hunk of metal in orbit makes sense? lol

 

You don't know the difference between a space station and a lunar base,and I'm the one that's clueless?

 

Yes.it does

 

no it doesn't.

and let you tell it, it was "so easy" to get to the moon, then why not take the construction to a solid surface?

you still have yet to answer that. and hogwash about logistics, it's do-able remember?

 

If you land on the Moon you then need to take off from the Moon. In a space station you have less gravity to fight against, maybe not much less, but lessnonetheless.

 

Research about space and weightless environments can be accomplished just fine in a orbiting space station.

What is the advantage to having it on the moon? For one thing, you don't have a weightless environment on the moon. For another, its about 250,000 miles farther away.

To the contrary, the 250,000 mile distance was a big obstacle.

and anyways, those who say we went claim it "so easy" to get up there, then what's the problem?

Because people are totally ignorant and clueless as you've demonstrated in this thread.

 

Who said it was "so easy" to get to the moon?

Fabricating to support your conspiracy theory?

 

First off, where would the money come from to build a space station on the moon, staff and maintain it?

Secondly, what value would it have for us to build one there in the first place??

 

It takes considerably longer, and requires more powerful rockets than are currently being used to supply the space station (the Saturn V rocket used for the lunar missions remains the most powerful ever built, with the heaviest launch payload), to get to the Moon and back. It is much easier to supply a space station that is in orbit, and much easier to deal with any emergency situations, and there were vehicles availabe from both the USA and russia that were capable of taking the loads to build and supply it (which there currently aren't for a moon base). An orbiting space station was a much, much easier proposition.

That doesn't mean a lunar base can't or won't be built, just that the orbital station was able to be built first - it also has important research functions (for zero gravity and earth orbital research) that couldn't be carried out on the moon anyway. One of the main reasons for the current emphasis on researching whether there is water on the moon (and if so where, and how much) is precisely for a proposed lunar base - if there is water on the moon that can be extracted and used, it would considerably reduce the logistical problems of supply (since water is heavy and bulky to move around).

 

Please, freefall, not zero gravity. The force of gravity of the Earth on the ISS is almost the same as it is on the ground.

 

You know what I mean!

 

Yes,it does...

I never claimed i was easy to get to the moon,Only that it would have been just \as easy to go to the moon as it would have been to fake it

 

No. That is not a very sensible thing for a number of reasons.

• The spacestation serves many purposes that make quick and easier access to it vital.
• Creating a Moonbase is not viable yet, due to long term effects of radiation and probability factors relating to solar particle events occuring.
• The ISS is very stable in orbit.
• Journey times to the Moon and back last days rather than hours to low Earth orbit.
• Apart from further study of the Moon, there is nothing to gain from having a Moonbase. Mining of Helium-3 is impractical due to the logistics of getting large payloads to and from it.

It is not "suspended" in outerspace. It is in a stable orbit. I recommend you read up on the subject:-

http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/orbit.html

You are very much oversimplifying this. The Apollo missions landed 6 times, with Apollo 8 and 10 travelling and orbiting, Apollo 13 travelling and taking free return trajectory.

To put a Moonbase up, would require a massive amount of equipment including building materials. Getting that much payload(cargo mass) to the Moon would require an astonishing number of large rockets and journeys.

Here is a study made of the problems faced in doing this:-

http://education.ksc.nasa.gov/esmdspacegrant/LunarRegolithExcavatorCourse/Chapter1.htm#Excavators

The space station has boosters to control altitude. The nature of the set orbit places it at lower points, where it encounters more atmospheric drag. The purpose of such an orbit, synchronizes the low point(perigee) with an incoming shuttle to further minimize journey and fuel, thus allowing larger payloads.

If the ISS were somehow unable to fire its altitude control, it would fall back to Earth, not "float away". That is the efffect of gravity.

Hope this helps.

 

I read your reply Betamax101 and understand it, but it still brings me back to why did we try to go in the first place and waste all those taxpayer dollars if we weren't trying to conquer new frontiers?

the lie(IMO) with the guys bouncing around on what looked like the Moon just doesn't hold much water when you factor in that the trip never took place.

It's all just smoke and mirrors.

 

No they didn't. The moon missions were faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

Betamax said that the Chinese spacewalk was real so nothing he says should be taken seriously.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-5.html#post4105095

This alternative info on space radiation will probably turn out to be true so this should be taken into consideration in any discussion on stations on the moon.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989728

 

I have made numerous posts that you have not replied to. They are documented on a small blog I created, dedicated to you and your habitual internet spamming.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/

That is so incredibly circular it beggars belief. The maker of your youtube video is a pro-Apollo believer - that really says it all.

I asked you to cite references to the major point in that video, namely the wave-blowers. Your inept reply, suggests that as a judge of credibility you have no credibility to even perform such a test!

The discussion still waiting for your reply is on this page.

The last post which you have no answer to, can be found here.

Here are 3 posts that you have not even bothered to reply to. You adopted the "credibility test" by circular reasoning, and created a "run away from debate" clause.

Post 1

Post 2

Post 3