XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.fr.politique.fiction, fr.soc.complots   
   XPost: francom.esoterisme   
   From: quintal@francom.esoterisme   
      
   On 24 May 2007 09:14:34 -0700, Hurt    
   wrote:   
      
   >> The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to   
   >> attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth.   
   >   
   >> How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power   
   >> in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch,   
   >> NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times   
   >> between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then   
   >> returning, without ever killing anyone?   
   >   
   >The Apollo program killed at least three that we know of.  Both the   
   >Apollo and Space Shuttle "accidents" involved low tech ironically.   
   >All the deaths in retrospect were very avoidable.  Oxygen being used   
   >where it shouldn't have been.  Frozen "rubber" O-rings.  Glued tiles?   
   >I also believe the people involved in the Apollo program were more   
   >competent, individually, and as a group.   
   >   
   >> How could they have powered air conditioning in two hundred fifty   
   >> degree heat for three days with batteries?   
   >   
   >Most of the cooling was done by the material of the suit.  As someone   
   >has already pointed out on a similar topic in these groups recently,   
   >the heat on the Moon is radiative not conductive.  All you need to do   
   >is reflect the heat.  The backpacks that the astronauts wore was to   
   >moderate the temperatures and humidity produced by their own bodies.   
   >   
   >> Why is the "second round" of "returning" to the moon estimated to be   
   >> no earlier than half a century after the first?   
   >   
   >> (Would there be a fifty-year span between the first and second   
   >> trips across the Atlantic in an airplane?)   
      
      
      
   >Probably because we've been going there secretly.  If we did find   
   >evidence of former intelligent life on the Moon the pressure to   
   >investigate and exploit any potential technology would have been   
   >imperative for national security.  We may very well have bases on the   
   >Moon right now.  And if we do, we probably have been to Mars as well.   
   >Hard to believe, but far from impossible.   
      
   any source or elaboration on that?   
      
   >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/topics   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)