Posted on 04/07/2006 4:42:02 PM PDT by KevinDavis
ARNOLD AFB -- Enhancing the cooperation between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Air Force makes good sense for the taxpayer and helps get the most research for the available money, according to NASA's top aeronautics researcher and the Air Force's chief scientist.
Dr. Lisa J. Porter, NASA's associate administrator for the aeronautics research mission directorate, and Dr. Mark J. Lewis, chief scientist for the Air Force, visited Arnold Engineering Development Center on Thursday to discuss the National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing, a revitalized agreement between NASA and the Department of Defense governing the use of each other's test facilities. Porter, Lewis and AEDC's commander, Brig. Gen. David Stringer, held a news conference Thursday afternoon.
Thursday was Porter's first visit to AEDC. She said the trip has helped give her a better understanding of the facility's capabilities. Lewis called AEDC "a crown jewel" of the Air Force, not only for its facilities but its knowledge base.
(Excerpt) Read more at t-g.com ...
When can we expect our tax refund?
Arnold AFB? I didn't even know that it still existed!
Remember when we landed on the moon? At the time all missions had to end with a "splash" down since the technology to land a craft didn't exist. It was during that time we supposedly landed on the moon - and took off from the moon - without anything holding up the rocket - without knowing the soil - without any of the technology we have today. No superstructure holding up the rocket ... no on-board computers -- nothing ... and came back.
It doesn't seem possible.
I doubt we could land a small robot craft on Mars today and have it take off and go to another place, no less come back here with rocks or people. And yeah, the moon is closer and has one sixth the gravity, but it still doesn't seem possible we could have landed a craft on the moon and taken off from the moon. I doubt we could do it today. And this is 40 years later.
Was it all a fake? Please let me know your thoughts... ( flame away) And if it wasn't a fake, how was it done?
Nothing I can say will dissuade you from your beliefs so I won't spend a lot of time on this. But with thousands and thousands of government employees and civilian contractors involved, everybody has kept their mouth shut. At least we know one gov't agency has its 'stuff' together.
And the pyramids were built by aliens.....
I've used this defense myself - and it's a good one. People talk and the truth has a way of getting out. I know that. I'm not questioning our whole space program. I'm questioning the "landing on the moon" part. We don't have the technology to do a moon landing now and come back. How could we have done it then? I'm not a conspiracy nut - no one is saying this but me.
When my kids were young, I took them over to the Space Center - looked at the moon rocks -- did the whole thing. I've seen space shots go up and stood in awe at our technological wonders. But lately, upon reflection, this moon landing seems odd. I don't know how the craft could have been landed - and how, without a structure to hold it, take off. We can't it today. Hard to believe we could do it then.
Look, I've believed in the space program my whole life. Questioning the moon landing part has just happened. You can easily "dissuade" me if you can tell me how we could send up a rocket without any structure to hold it in place while it was taking off. We can't do it today, how could we do it then? (And by "back then" I mean a time when the most powerful onboard computer - if they had one at all - would have been as powerful as a cheap calculator...)
We have the technology, and had it 40 years ago (thrusters, life support, guidance, navigation, and analog control computers), what we don't have right now is the hardware.
I don't know how the craft could have been landed - and how, without a structure to hold it, take off.
I don't mean this rudely, but have you ever done any structural analysis? The moon is one fifth the earth's gravity, so the structure necessary for the LEM was/is much less than an equivalent object launching from earth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.