Re: Apollo Moon Landings Faked Propoganda
From: jyo342@nwu.edu (Jonathan Yovel)
Date: 1997/02/14

In article <5dc2fg$4a7@cocoa.brown.edu>, Joon_Nak_Choi@brown.edu (Joon_Nak_Choi) wrote:
>In article <5db8kt$2nv@junkie.gnofn.org>, lrh02@gnofn.org says...
>> >> >>: and watched them hit the lunar surface at the same time. I thought of
>>: the claim that this was faked, and the size of the vacuum chamber that
>>: would have had to be built to simulate that effect, and the megatons of
>>: air pressure on the roof of such a chamber, and concluded that it would
>>: have been easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it.
>>In younger days, I thought the same as you. However, it has
>>become increasingly obvious that even with today's far more
>>sophisticated computers, we can't go to the moon, so it's
>>getting awful hard to believe we could do it in 1969.
>I think that what you are referring to is an article which states that the US
>would not be able to go to the moon today. Its point was NOT that it wasn't
>possible to go to the moon due to the lack of technology, but that it is not
>possible today to devote the 3% of GNP that we allocated to the Apollo Project.
> That meant that of everything produced in the US in 1969, every $3 out of $100
>was given to Apollo, a larger amount than that was spent on primary education.
> (Of course, a much smaller percentage of GNP would be needed today, but with
>the Federal Debt, I doubt that the political will would be there. Today, the
>special interests would be all over Congress about allocating good money that
>could have been spent building a pork entrails recycling research facility in
>Iowa to the black hole of space).

Which shows you, that above anything else, the moonlanding was a bureaucratic triumph rather than a scientific one. JY...