China has barely started building jet airliners. They managed to make about three in the 1980s, but they had to use American engines. They've got a new one on the stocks, but it hasn't flown yet.

It adds up fine. You just need to learn more about Project Apollo. And not from conspiracy websites, because those are invariably run by nasty-minded idiots like Shane G's idol Simon Shack, who's a kind of Jim Jones (except he gets his rocks off by duping people into intellectual suicide rather than the physical kind).

Heh. He's been running with the moon landing conspiracy for a while. I think he buys that. His "moon is fake" shtick is transparent trolling. It looks pretty clear to me that he got tired of talking to people who actually understand science and switched to just trying to see what he could get us to believe he believed.

The only reason I dont think Fenix is trolling is because if you view the forums he does you can see just how serious these people are. Since they are banded together on a forum of idiots they have nobody to troll.

Yeah, logic and common sense would totally suggest he's trolling, but all his arguments are copied verbatim from numerous actual conspiracy sites out there, so I've got to believe there really are people that are just that delusional.

This just proves that 747s aren't real

If they were, China could have built them by now

You should play more Civilization. Then you'd know that it's not really that uncommon for a nation to get that big a tech advantage.

If we spent enough money we could go to mars within a year. People don't understand how much money it cost to go to the moon. In today's money it was obscene and dwarfs the collective budget of space expenditure the world over ever since. We could go back to the moon, anytime, but we don't want to, because it costs a lot of money and we have done it already. Why send people when we can send drones for fractions of the cost?

Remember when the US where going to build a supercollider even more energetic than the LHC 20 years ago? Why did that not happen again?

The fact that we didn't prolly means there is no such thing as the LHC...

In addition to the drastic budget cuts that have hindered us going back to the moon, people always neglect to appreciate the amazing progress the space program has made in the past 40 years. The space shuttle (for all its faults) and the ISS have enabled us to learn a tremendous amount about how to actually live in space, not just go for a quick ride out there. We've learned more about our solar system and the prospects for life off of Earth from all the rovers and probes we've sent everywhere than we could ever have learned by going back to the moon. We have space telescopes capable of detecting potentially habitable planets hundreds of light-years away which has taught us a lot about how solar systems, including our own, may have formed. But yeah, we probably should have spent that limited budget to send more astronauts to hit golf balls around on the barren moon instead.

The sad reality is that the moon isn't that interesting. We've been there, we've walked around, we've driven on it, and we've collected samples. Why exactly would we send another Apollo-style mission there given NASA's limited funding? As someone who'd love to see us get going on efforts to colonize other worlds, it's disappointing to me that we haven't done more to try to build a permanent base on the moon by now, if for no other reason than to practice for doing so elsewhere someday, but that's a problem that's substantially more difficult and more expensive than the Apollo missions, so sadly it's been put on the back-burner for decades. That doesn't mean we've done nothing at all since, and it certainly doesn't in any way suggest that we're less technologically capable than we were 40 years ago.

I like the implication that the validity of the US space program should be based on what "billions of Chinese" are able to do in following decades. Pretty sure the US Navy has fooled the world the last 80 years with so-called "aircraft carriers" (Lol like planes could fly off a boat!?!) . As proof, China has yet to commission a single carrier in its history -- despite billions of peasants! BIG CARRIER IS A HOAX.

Technically they have commissioned one but it was originally built by Russia.

[I Finally you are thinking critically about this!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0316133840.htm

Then they are ultra-intelligent for trusting infowars, Alex Jones and the other conspiracy authors!

Translation: Conspiracy Theorists are idiots.

(Certainly seems consistent with what we've seen itt.)

What do you think of the theory that there is a secret underground base near Dulce NM

Secret underground bases are a realistic possibility

The issue isn't that North Korea also hasn't sent people to space...it's that China is actively trying and can't replicate in < 20 years w 2014 technology what USA did in 8 years w 1960s technology.

Rocks fall from space all the time. Rock mean nothing to me and should mean nothing to you either. I just think it's funny about the wooden one.

I have read a lot about Apollo and about the USA space program in general. Prior to Apollo the space program was a huge failure and the USA trailed the Soviets in virtually every facet of the space race. In fact, Apollo was also a large failure for most of it. Then one day, bing! We've got it solved! 6 successful trips to and from the moon in 36 months.

Your position that China cannot find one single man or woman on the planet to develop a similar program seems very thin to me. I just fail to accept that there is only one person who could do this and China cannot find them.

BTW not for nothing but in today's day, we can't even send people to the space station (1/1000 the distance of the moon) without perfect weather/liftoff conditions, etc. Another one of those things thats weird to me- they could nail 6 liftoffs from earth and 6 more from the moon, 45 years ago, but we still have trouble w that today.

@donniccolo
Whats your view on the airplane/airyet engine program that apparently isn't very succesfull over there ? Do you think that NASA willingly gave out petrified wood as moon rock when they instead could have just given any of the hundreds of rocks that crashed into earth ? Sounds like a pretty bad idea to give out fake stuff when there is absolutely no need to.

There is lots of stuff that China has not been able to produce that the USA does. How come china doesnt have a space shuttle? How come they dont have any aircraft carriers? Or stealth fighter planes? Or rail guns? Or movies with better special FX than Avatar?




By your logic this should mean that the Soviets space program was a fake meant to overshadow anything the USA was developing. How do we know Sputnik was real? Maybe it was all just a hoax to distract Russians from superior American ICBM technology.


Wtf do you mean "bing!"? There was no "bing!". We spent hundreds of billions of dollars and years of development/experiments to get there. Did we just "bing!" and get the ISS into orbit? Did we just "bing!" and roll out a space shuttle one day?

Who says they have even failed? What makes you think China is even actively trying to land on the moon right now?

Huh? Weather was always a concern for rocket launches, even in the 60's. Guess what, airplanes have a tricky time flying through weather. How come we cant send a 777 through a hurricane today? AIRPLANES ARE A HOAX!

What does the space station being closer have to do with the takeoff? Blasting off into space is a costly and risky affair as it is, makes sense that they'd want optimal conditions to cut out some of those risks. Afaik they've nailed almost every other manned liftoff since Apollo, with one notable exception of course.

The Soviets recorded some important firsts, but by the mid-1960s they'd peaked. The US had some failed test launches in the 1950s, but the Mercury and Gemini programmes, the build-up to Apollo, went very well. No failures. At the same time they were putting up the first comms satellites, Telstar and Early Bird, and even putting robot landers on the Moon. (The Soviets did that too, but knew they couldn't send a manned craft: they just didn't do enough development on their vehicles, and the cost was beyond them.)

The only real setback was the Apollo 1 fire in January 1967, which killed Grissom, White and Chaffee, revealing design flaws in the capsule which had to be put right. But the Saturn V launch vehicle was trusty. Its maiden flight with the unmanned Apollo 4 in November 1967 was perfect. There was no 'bing!', just steady progress. Von Braun and his team had, after all, been launching large rockets since the 1940s.