View Full Version : Did this really happen?
Michael Morris
16-07-16, 21:53
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">47 years ago today Neil, Mike & I took a ride on a big rocket to the moon. <br>Liftoff on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Apollo11?src=hash">#Apollo11</a> <a href="https://t.co/FrvdmddkYo">pic.twitter.com/FrvdmddkYo</a></p>— Buzz Aldrin (@TheRealBuzz) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/754352183836045316">July 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Mrs Steve R
16-07-16, 21:58
Do you think it did boss? :sherlock:
Blue in the Face
16-07-16, 22:14
Stanley Kubrick's best film NMFQAT
Michael Morris
16-07-16, 22:20
I can imagine they went there. I can't see that they had the technology to get back.
So I'm sceptical.
i have started to read his book " No Dream Is Too High "
a cracking read so far, only about a 1/3 of the way through, not had time to read it in the last 3 weeks though
Penarth Blues
16-07-16, 22:35
I can imagine they went there. I can't see that they had the technology to get back.
So I'm sceptical.
You know all those photos of the moon and the earth they came back with at the time - and the rocket they definitely sent into space with people on (because there were thousands of witnesses to this). Do you think this was all made up - and the Russians and Chinese said nothing even though they could also track the flights?
I get the bits that people got excited about (no blast radius for the lander, waving flags, etc) but I don't believe for one second that the other major powers would not have called 'foul' if it was untrue. We've also sent a Brit into an International Space Station recently. Again, why no visit to the moon if we can manage this? We can see the ISS with the naked eye - along with loads of satellites so this again lends weight to the theory that we know what we're doing regarding near orbit space flights.
Overall, this is one of the less believable conspiracy theories to me
Colonel Cærdiffi
16-07-16, 22:37
I can imagine they went there. I can't see that they had the technology to get back.
So I'm sceptical.
u think there still on teh moon?
Blue in the Face
16-07-16, 22:40
u think there still on teh moon?
:hehe::hehe::hehe:
I can imagine they went there. I can't see that they had the technology to get back.
So I'm sceptical.
Buzz mentions the designing of the 2nd boost to clear the moon in his book, i know you could google what they did, but he seems so proud the of the guy who designed it, as it really was the deal breaker for the flight, Buzz also mentioned the space rubbish they left behind in trash bags, the boots they wore were left aswell
Buzz mentions the designing of the 2nd boost to clear the moon in his book, i know you could google what they did, but he seems so proud the of the guy who designed it, as it really was the deal breaker for the flight, Buzz also mentioned the space rubbish they left behind in trash bags, the boots they wore were left aswell
On a semi-related note have you been to the Kennedy Space Centre? Off to Orlando at the end of August and thinking of going down and checking it out.
On a semi-related note have you been to the Kennedy Space Centre? Off to Orlando at the end of August and thinking of going down and checking it out.
Yes we have done it a few times, last time we did it when they were launching a Atlas 5 Rocket, now i know its not a shuttle, but its as close as we get these days, a launch day is very special, you get upto the Apollo 5 centre and you are closer to the launch site, then find a seat ( on the benches ) and wait, they pipe in the checks and the countdown and you see it all, a truly great sight, A shame we will never see a shuttle launch again
keep a eye out on the launch schedules, SpaceX use the Falcon 9 rocket to restock the ISS, though having checked for someone else, Aug looks like its blank for launches, SpaceX might be delayed from tomorrow if anything goes wrong, but it will surely go up earlier than the and of Aug
BUT a launch aside, its still a very good day
you will have to leave Orlando as early as possible, its a 1 hour drive ( without Traffic, and Traffic on the I4 around downtown Orlando past the Amway stadium can be horrid in rush hour ) KSC opens at 9, so i always suggest to leave at 7 from orlando ( if close to disney ) , failing that leave at gone 9, you then miss the rush hour, but of course walk into KSC at 10.30 - 11.00 ( having lost 2 hours of the park time )
we find its a full day to be honest, the new shuttle bit is great, the launch simulator is a must do
your ticket also includes the " hall of fame " just down the road, but it shuts at 5, so we never get to it, as KSC is a full day
if after you are done with KSC and fancy something a little different to disney / universal, just head to Cocoa Beach ( its close enough ) , have a walk along the front, Visit Ron Jons surf shop ( if you are into surf / skate clothes ) have a bite to eat then head back to disney / universal area in the evening
Dénia Bluebird
17-07-16, 06:03
On a semi-related note have you been to the Kennedy Space Centre? Off to Orlando at the end of August and thinking of going down and checking it out.
Well worth going to Kennedy Space Centre. Besides, in August you will be grateful to get anywhere inside to relieve the humidity of the Florida summer.
Nope and the same reason we've never supposedly gone there again is because it's just not possible for a human to survive the radiation
Badly Ironed Shirt
17-07-16, 07:01
Nope and the same reason we've never supposedly gone there again is because it's just not possible for a human to survive the radiation
Exposure to radiation would be low. It takes a short amount of time to pass through the radiation belt, plus the spacecraft offers some protection.
Badly Ironed Shirt
17-07-16, 07:02
Haha, did it f*ck?
Yes, you have finally convinced me that it didn't happen and that it was covered up for FORTY THOUSAND NASA employees. :hehe:
Nope and the same reason we've never supposedly gone there again is because it's just not possible for a human to survive the radiation
Apart from the next five missions they did.
Badly Ironed Shirt
17-07-16, 07:03
I can imagine they went there. I can't see that they had the technology to get back.
So I'm sceptical.
Nothing that reading around the subject won't fix.
Apart from the next five missions they did.
Apollo is the only one Tom make it through van Allen belt
Exposure to radiation would be low. It takes a short amount of time to pass through the radiation belt, plus the spacecraft offers some protection.
25000 miles is short is it only Apollo has made it through and you reckon we had the technology in 69 but don't now
Apollo is the only one Tom make it through van Allen belt
Eh? There were six Apollo missions that landed on the moon.
Blue in the Face
17-07-16, 08:56
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
tigerbaybluebird
17-07-16, 09:03
Don't tell me this didn't happen I always thought it was true
I'm So glad I logged on here today and finally found out the truth
Chris Pontprennau Blues
17-07-16, 09:15
I don't believe these mobile phones can have access to the web and you can see moving pictures on either....:wave:
Des Parrot
17-07-16, 09:21
There is no doubt in my mind.
Kubrick had moved on from space to psychedelia by 69
Of course it really happened.
I'm old enough to have watch the live TV reports, and no-one is going to tell me I was fooled back then.
Besides, if Wallace and Grommit can do it, so can NASA.
QED.
Can I just say a big fat NO.
Can I just say a big fat NO.
You can say it, but you'd be wrong.
Of course it really happened.
I'm old enough to have watch the live TV reports, and no-one is going to tell me I was fooled back then.
Besides, if Wallace and Grommit can do it, so can NASA.
QED.
what about the clangers , they been up there for decades
Badly Ironed Shirt
17-07-16, 11:23
25000 miles is short is it only Apollo has made it through and you reckon we had the technology in 69 but don't now
Where did I say that we don't have the technology now? In fact, we didn't have the technology in '69 - and took a bit of a risk with the Van Allen belts. Now, I have no doubt that the technology would make passing through van Allen a little less deadly than it was in '69.
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts
7 miles per second was the speed that Apollo 11 was travelling at. Even if it the van Allen belt was 25,000 miles - at that speed you would be through there in one hour.
Badly Ironed Shirt
17-07-16, 11:25
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
That proves that Buzz Aldrin is an extremely patient man. Having some loony following him around demanding him to swear on the Bible is harrassment. Well done Buzz! Don't let the loonies discredit your huge impact on the human race.
Did Bart Sibril ever take Buzz to court?
That proves that Buzz Aldrin is an extremely patient man. Having some loony following him around demanding him to swear on the Bible is harrassment. Well done Buzz! Don't let the loonies discredit your huge impact on the human race.
Did Bart Sibril ever take Buzz to court?
I like the irony of the bloke asking him to swear on a book about made up people. :biggrin:
Blue in the Face
17-07-16, 12:45
I like the irony of the bloke asking him to swear on a book about made up people. :biggrin:
:hehe:
You have do give Buzz credit. His landing on the moon might be dodgy, but he landed that punch pretty good.
Think its called "disinformation" when nutters discredit perhaps valid conspiracies.
I have no idea if Apollo 11 made it. It is questionable though that the tech was there to film it in the way that it has been represented and was it possible to beam back to earth too? The real space race and the most important thing for the Yanks was the TV spectacle. Then the theory goes that Ruskies as a reaction bankrupt themselves with their space endeavors that follow...
:hehe:
You have do give Buzz credit. His landing on the moon might be dodgy, but he landed that punch pretty good.
Think its called "disinformation" when nutters discredit perhaps valid conspiracies.
I have no idea if Apollo 11 made it. It is questionable though that the tech was there to film it in the way that it has been represented and to beam back to earth was possible at the time. The most important thing for the Yanks was the TV spectacle. Then the theory goes that Ruskies bankrupt themselves with their space endeavors that follow...
The Russians would've told the world if the Yanks hadn't done it. The fact they haven't tells you all you need to know.
The Russians would've told the world if the Yanks hadn't done it. The fact they haven't tells you all you need to know.
People look for tiny details but this is the monster that's impossible to argue with.
Blue in the Face
17-07-16, 13:05
If you read my post that you quoted, you'll see that I'm not questioning the moon landings, but the famous filmed footage that was supposedly beamed back. The Yanks made the world believe and that's all that matters.
Croesy Blue
17-07-16, 13:13
People look for tiny details but this is the monster that's impossible to argue with.
I think often the fact there are plenty of actual coverups and conspiracies get over look because loonies get obsessed with looking at tiny facts about implausible ones like the moon landings being fake and every single terrorist attack being false flag.
There's proof of false flag events happening which shows how difficult it actually is to fake huge events without it being leaked.
You can say it, but you'd be wrong.
I'm all ears on why you think i'd be wrong, fire away with you facts :thumbup:
Croesy Blue
17-07-16, 13:27
I'm all ears on why you think i'd be wrong, fire away with you facts :thumbup:
Do you think the moon landings since are fake too?
What about Japanese and Chinese satellites seeing proof of the original landing?
If you read my post that you quoted, you'll see that I'm not questioning the moon landings, but the famous filmed footage that was supposedly beamed back. The Yanks made the world believe and that's all that matters.
Indeed.
I believe they did it.
I believe it possible/likely that some of the footage was faked in order to look more impressive - for all the reasons that might have been.
If so, it causes all sorts of integrity problems when apparent anomalies are later noted.
The world is a way, way more sophisticated place than it was in the 60's and early 70's, as are we ordinary people that inhabit it.
I would suspect that the Moon landings will not have been the first time - nor the last - that we will have been issued with a staged version of 'actual' events.
Do you think the moon landings since are fake too?
What about Japanese and Chinese satellites seeing proof of the original landing?
No human has ever been on the moon just my opinion I just don't believe it to be possible
Mrs Steve R
17-07-16, 14:35
The Russians would've told the world if the Yanks hadn't done it. The fact they haven't tells you all you need to know.
You always say you can't trust the Russians :biggrin:
Ainsley Harriott
17-07-16, 14:37
No human has ever been on the moon just my opinion I just don't believe it to be possible
We've been six times. Six.
We've been six times. Six.
If you like to think so
I think often the fact there are plenty of actual coverups and conspiracies get over look because loonies get obsessed with looking at tiny facts about implausible ones like the moon landings being fake and every single terrorist attack being false flag.
There's proof of false flag events happening which shows how difficult it actually is to fake huge events without it being leaked.
Agree and I think 9/11 is the perfect example of that. Keep everyone talking about jet fuel and missiles, hope they don't find out about anything else.
Croesy Blue
17-07-16, 14:41
No human has ever been on the moon just my opinion I just don't believe it to be possible
What scientific background and evidence do you have to back up this belief?
Croesy Blue
17-07-16, 14:42
If you like to think so
Do you think they faked it once then said "phew we got away with that, let's do it another 5 times"
What scientific background and evidence do you have to back up this belief?
Like I said just my opinion I don't believe a human can survive through van Allen's belt
Like I said just my opinion I don't believe a human can survive through van Allen's belt
What makes you believe in Van Allen belts though?
Croesy Blue
17-07-16, 14:49
Like I said just my opinion I don't believe a human can survive through van Allen's belt
Why?
What makes you believe in Van Allen belts though?
you can see them here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LdRJqjjRM
What makes you believe in Van Allen belts though? because of the things if watched and read :hehe: I'm not saying those who believe are wrong and I'm right I just believe no human has ever made it to the moon because Imo we didn't and don't have the technology or equipment to withstand the radiation or heat passing through the belt. At the time the mighty us of a had to win the race to the moon and Imo done what they could to win that race and at the time rife with cover ups
Because I've read and watched a lot about it:hehe: and seen enough to convince me that it's real I'm not saying I'm right and all you believers are wrong it is just my personal opinion we have never landed on the moon. The Americans had to win the space race at all costs even faking it imo the country was rife with cover ups at the time. I don't see us having the technology or equipment to withstand the radiation and heat from the belt
Yes of course it happened.
How many thousands of people were involved in these missions?
Surely one of them would have blown the whistle by now if it was fake.
Yes of course it happened.
How many thousands of people were involved in these missions?
Surely one of them would have blown the whistle by now if it was fake.
additionally - think back to the late sixties - what was the cutting edge of film special effects? any old films from that era are laughably bad in special effects when you look back at them. Theres no way the footage would still be credible today if it was faked.
Also chinese and indian lunar probes have independantly viewed the landing site.
additionally - think back to the late sixties - what was the cutting edge of film special effects? any old films from that era are laughably bad in special effects when you look back at them. Theres no way the footage would still be credible today if it was faked.
Also chinese and indian lunar probes have independantly viewed the landing site.
That's the point - there are anomalies in the footage.
Plenty of examples out there.
It doesn't mean that the missions were faked, nor even all of the footage.
Very possibly some of the footage was faked.
Why? - because the USA wanted to present better footage than the stuff they had.
Decades later some folks have pored over the footage and found 'difficulties'.
While that doesn't mean that the missions were faked - there is an obvious risk on faking footage - i.e. it can create a smell of 'hoax' .
That's the point - there are anomalies in the footage.
Plenty of examples out there.
It doesn't mean that the missions were faked, nor even all of the footage.
Very possibly some of the footage was faked.
Why? - because the USA wanted to present better footage than the stuff they had.
Decades later some folks have pored over the footage and found 'difficulties'.
While that doesn't mean that the missions were faked - there is an obvious risk on faking footage - i.e. it can create a smell of 'hoax' .
Not really, I've not seen or heard any "anomalies" that can't be easily explained.
Barry Dragon
18-07-16, 08:16
Why do people think they didnt?
Why do people think they didnt?
Because they're conspiracy theorist nutters
http://m.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/52-per-cent-of-britons-dont-believe-in-moon-landings-and-that-number-sounds-familiar-say-experts-20160720111106
life on mars
20-07-16, 09:26
:hehe:
You have do give Buzz credit. His landing on the moon might be dodgy, but he landed that punch pretty good.
Think its called "disinformation" when nutters discredit perhaps valid conspiracies.
I have no idea if Apollo 11 made it. It is questionable though that the tech was there to film it in the way that it has been represented and was it possible to beam back to earth too? The real space race and the most important thing for the Yanks was the TV spectacle. Then the theory goes that Ruskies as a reaction bankrupt themselves with their space endeavors that follow...
I wondered where the Buzz Lightyear merchandise came from , he must have been terrified in that suit and just those green wings , imagine re entering earths atmosphere , poor chap , wonder if it psychologically effected him, and thats why he rocked up in the world of film and animation ?
Like I said just my opinion I don't believe a human can survive through van Allen's belt
Why?
Expert level Confirmation bias.
Like I said just my opinion I don't believe a human can survive through van Allen's belt
As someone who works with radiation very frequently I would disagree.
Presumably you've read somewhere that it would be impossible and just believed that because it confirmed your pre existing suspicions about the Apollo missions.
It is very easy to explain how the astronauts made it past the belt.
The short answer is they avoided the most intenseparts of it and didn't spend long enough in the weakest parts to pick up a significant dose.
Badly Ironed Shirt
20-07-16, 10:34
As someone who works with radiation very frequently I would disagree.
Presumably you've read somewhere that it would be impossible and just believed that because it confirmed your pre existing suspicions about the Apollo missions.
It is very easy to explain how the astronauts made it past the belt.
The short answer is they avoided the most intenseparts of it and didn't spend long enough in the weakest parts to pick up a significant dose.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/stanley-kubrick-daughter-vivian-kubrick-apollo-11-moon-landing-conspiracy-theory-a7122186.html
Kubrick was strongly opposed to the notion of Government control, and Government cover ups. He was also directing movies in '68 , so would have been a bit busy.
As someone who works with radiation very frequently I would disagree.
Presumably you've read somewhere that it would be impossible and just believed that because it confirmed your pre existing suspicions about the Apollo missions.
It is very easy to explain how the astronauts made it past the belt.
The short answer is they avoided the most intenseparts of it and didn't spend long enough in the weakest parts to pick up a significant dose.
So I should believe you instead? It's up to me if I believe the moon landings are fake and it's up to you if you believe them to be real
Mrs Steve R
20-07-16, 16:05
So I should believe you instead? It's up to me if I believe the moon landings are fake and it's up to you if you believe them to be real
That is just not good enough, you must think like everyone else :hehe: it's great that we have such a range of people with different jobs on here, almost any topic you can think of someone will have a friend in that industry, it's amazing, if I remember right rjk has friends in the pharmaceutical industry too should you want to brush up on anything. :biggrin:
Any update on this? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-calls-investigation-into-whether-us-moon-landings-happened-10327714.html
Croesy Blue
21-07-16, 14:39
So I should believe you instead? It's up to me if I believe the moon landings are fake and it's up to you if you believe them to be real
One opinion is based on scientific fact and the other based on what someone has dreampt up in their own head.
If I said I believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around us and it was up to me what I believed, would you think that was an acceptable position to hold?
One opinion is based on scientific fact and the other based on what someone has dreampt up in their own head.
If I said I believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around us and it was up to me what I believed, would you think that was an acceptable position to hold?
Hardly comparable are they
Do you think the moon landings since are fake too?
Yes I do
What about Japanese and Chinese satellites seeing proof of the original landing?
Linky ?:thumbup:
One opinion is based on scientific fact and the other based on what someone has dreampt up in their own head.
If I said I believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around us and it was up to me what I believed, would you think that was an acceptable position to hold?
Anyway why haven't we crossed the belts since 1969 surely if we could do it then we shouldn't have any problems now ? Don't you find it curious why NASA would delete the original film along with many others to save money :hehe: after god knows how much they've spent also lots of the moon artifacts amazingly disappearing
Anyway why haven't we crossed the belts since 1969 surely if we could do it then we shouldn't have any problems now ? Don't you find it curious why NASA would delete the original film along with many others to save money :hehe: after god knows how much they've spent also lots of the moon artifacts amazingly disappearing
You should know that, this forum has far more intelligent people than NASA engineers :thumbup: :hehe:
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
You should know that, this forum has far more intelligent people than NASA engineers :thumbup: :hehe:
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
They shouldn't waste time testing the safety of new cars either imo. They tested my dad's Allegro in 1974 so they're basically just admitting new cars are all unsafe.
Colonel Cærdiffi
21-07-16, 20:50
They shouldn't waste time testing the safety of new cars either imo. They tested my dad's Allegro in 1974 so they're basically just admitting new cars are all unsafe.
I think 'Rjk' was an Allegro.
Mrs Steve R
21-07-16, 20:52
They shouldn't waste time testing the safety of new cars either imo. They tested my dad's Allegro in 1974 so they're basically just admitting new cars are all unsafe.
:hehe:
They shouldn't waste time testing the safety of new cars either imo. They tested my dad's Allegro in 1974 so they're basically just admitting new cars are all unsafe.
Car safety specification has changed since 1974, the Van Allen belt has been a constant I guess.
I think 'Rjk' was an Allegro.
And so it starts....
The bullying regime on here really needs sorting out.
:hehe:
I never had an Allegro but did have a Maestro, it was shizen although it held a few secrets :hehe:
Mrs Steve R
21-07-16, 21:00
I never had an Allegro but did have a Maestro, it was shizen although it held a few secrets :hehe:
That was my first ever car, in a horrible beige colour :hehe:
Colonel Cærdiffi
21-07-16, 21:02
That was my first ever car, in a horrible beige colour :hehe:
No way! My first car was a beige Maestro as well. :ayatollah:
Blue in the Face
21-07-16, 21:09
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/stanley-kubrick-daughter-vivian-kubrick-apollo-11-moon-landing-conspiracy-theory-a7122186.html
Kubrick was strongly opposed to the notion of Government control, and Government cover ups. He was also directing movies in '68 , so would have been a bit busy.
Just to flesh out some of what you're saying here. Mainly because I find the subject of Kubrick really interesting... And also to clarify my tongue in cheek "Kubrick filmed the moon landings" remark.
This is a very long post so don't bother reading if the subject is boring to you!
On the subject of the moon landings and some of the posts in this thread, I know, quite honestly, not a lot. On the subject of Kubrick I know quite a bit. I'm not saying with any conviction that he worked with the government and Nasa to make the famous footage. But I think Kubrick clearly did want to leave signposts for people to think that he was involved. This might well be part of his own egotism and self-mythologising which were definitely facets of his character.
The theme of governments, cover ups and power are things that come up a lot in his movies. i.e Paths of Glory, Sparticus, Full Metal Jacket, A Clockwork Orange and his last film Eyes Wide Shut. To say that Kubrick was "opposed" might not be untrue, but it is too simplistic. But he was certainly fascinated.
2001: A Space Odyssey came out in '68. Took a long time to make and was very post production heavy. If you're suggesting Kubrick was shooting this film then, he wasn't. Though there was work on the film still to be done. Around this time he's about to start developing two films that never happen - a Napoleon biopic and a big budget porn movie called "Blue Movie" that loads of A-list directors will consider doing but turn down. But actually '68 and '69 are two less busy years for a director who took long gaps between making films.
So some fun facts about 2001...
One of the pioneering technologies employed by 2001 is back projection. Back projection wasn't a new technology (it's what you see in car scenes in old movies where the background is shaking around). But it had never been done this good and on the scale where it would replace matte canvases as had been done in 2001. The shots still hold up very well today and this film was one of the rare films to be shot on 70mm (or maybe it was 65mm, can't remember). Someone has said that this thread that the moon landings could not have been done on a sound stage to the technical level that was achieved. I think that's is certainly up for debate. The Apollo 11 camera was a fraction of the spec, quality, frame rate etc. So ideal to hide anomalies as mentioned before.
The cinema version of 2001 was a few minutes longer than later verions. Why? Because there were endless credits to government bodies and Nasa that were taken out. A simple explanation for this could be that it was very expensive to produce and distribute film back in the day, so length mattered. Credits were often cut down.
But Kubrick did work with Nasa, or was in direct contact, for 2001 and then two films later. On Barry Lyndon, Kubrick somehow obtained the use of exceptionally fast prime lenses that were developed by the space agency. This lenses were ground breaking for Stanley as the glass was so perfect and fast (let loads of unrefracted light to hit the apeture) that it gave the camera a couple of extra F-stops, meaning he could shoot much of the film with far less light. So in that film we see something that never done before - huge interior shots lit only by candle light. Also loads of scenes in "magic hour" - the first and last hour of light in the day.
I could bang on forever on this subject, but I can't be bothered to write more and I'm sure no on can be bothered to read more. There is loads of interesting stuff coming out now about how The Shining was a confessional allegory for Kubrick's involvement in the moon landing footage. It's a subject which is now becoming rather popular so there's a lot of nutters trying to claim the subject. But these are very old conspiracy theories in truth. I would strongly avoid all and any of the kooky documentaries on the subject, but instead read up on it if you're interested.
That was my first ever car, in a horrible beige colour :hehe:
Mine was Red and not the talking version :hehe:
Mrs Steve R
21-07-16, 21:14
No way! My first car was a beige Maestro as well. :ayatollah:
Mine was Red and not the talking version :hehe:
:hehe: I'd say that's more embarrassing for you two than it is me.
Blue in the Face
21-07-16, 21:21
My first car was a Maestro van. :-) It was supposed to be white but it was more of a rust colouration
Maybe this thread will just evolve into Maestro boasts
Car safety specification has changed since 1974, the Van Allen belt has been a constant I guess.
Ice on the road can still be dangerous even if your old Meastro got you through it back in the day.
Ice on the road can still be dangerous even if your old Meastro got you through it back in the day.
Tyre Technology
Colonel Cærdiffi
21-07-16, 21:54
:hehe: I'd say that's more embarrassing for you two than it is me.
Embarrassed? Not at all! I loved that car, it was my window to freedom. Took me and my mates all kinds of places. Broke down in most of 'em too. :hehe:
Mrs Steve R
21-07-16, 22:06
Embarrassed? Not at all! I loved that car, it was my window to freedom. Took me and my mates all kinds of places. Broke down in most of 'em too. :hehe:
:hehe: I was joking, I loved mine, got a fair bit of millage out of her before she fell apart too.
:hehe: I was joking, I loved mine, got a fair bit of millage out of her before she fell apart too.
Cannot remember the REG of mine but it was recalled at one point due to a seat belt fault, Austin wasn't that concerned about the million other faults the car had :hehe:
Ah the Maestro :hehe: I had too a brief (weren't they all) dalliance - with a light blue one. In fact, I think it was metallic blue. They needn't have gone to all that bother with the paintwork. ..
It was so awful that it became strangely 'fun'.
:hehe: I was joking, I loved mine, got a fair bit of millage out of her before she fell apart too.
That's what I tell people about you.
Mrs Steve R
21-07-16, 23:15
That's what I tell people about you.
You are so romantic. :biggrin:
Anyway why haven't we crossed the belts since 1969 surely if we could do it then we shouldn't have any problems now ? Don't you find it curious why NASA would delete the original film along with many others to save money :hehe: after god knows how much they've spent also lots of the moon artifacts amazingly disappearing
We have been through it since 1969.
ref the Van Allen Belts
they have a Show ( some Video and a guy chatting about it and doing a Q&A session etc etc ) in Kennedy space centre, it shows what Orion plans to do, It will launch on top of a Delta 4 ( from memory )
they show they will go through the belt, but aim for the very outside of it ( it has gaps where they predict radiation is lower )
We have been through it since 1969.
sorry since 1972 then
sorry since 1972 then
NASA's focus appears to be a manned Journey to Mars in the next 20 years or so. Do you reckon it will happen?
NASA's focus appears to be a manned Journey to Mars in the next 20 years or so. Do you reckon it will happen?
I don't think so but you never know what can be discovered tomorrow. Isn't very dangerous to get through Mars' orbit
I don't think so but you never know what can be discovered tomorrow. Isn't very dangerous to get through Mars' orbit
The scientists at the European Space Agency still appear to harbour plans to send manned missions to the moon.
The scientists at the European Space Agency still appear to harbour plans to send manned missions to the moon.
:hehe: haven't they worked it out yet! the yanks did nearly 50 years ago mun can't be that hard
:hehe: haven't they worked it out yet! the yanks did nearly 50 years ago mun can't be that hard
The scientists at ESA think it's possible, you don't.
However, these things don't happen just to prove people on the Internet wrong.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">47 years ago today Neil, Mike & I took a ride on a big rocket to the moon. <br>Liftoff on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Apollo11?src=hash">#Apollo11</a> <a href="https://t.co/FrvdmddkYo">pic.twitter.com/FrvdmddkYo</a></p>— Buzz Aldrin (@TheRealBuzz) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/754352183836045316">July 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
Why on earth have you bumped this thread with a video that you've already posted?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.