Conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.

gorgeousgeorgeEFC

Player Valuation: £25m
Are there are any popular conspiracy theories that you think are true or are likely to be true?

Call me a lunatic, but I am sceptical as to the veracity of the moon landings. If NASA was able to put men on the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, why hasn't it (or any other organisation, for that matter) done so at any time over the course of the last 40 years?
 

Are there are any popular conspiracy theories that you think are true or are likely to be true?

Call me a lunatic, but I am sceptical as to the veracity of the moon landings. If NASA was able to put men on the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, why hasn't it (or any other organisation, for that matter) done so at any time over the course of the last 40 years?
$$$$

And willpower.

Not enough people care enough to spend the money to do something we've already done with no readily obvious profitable return. Going to the moon, or Mars or further requires vision and risk. Capitalism has settled in a lot of ways to make money while avoiding high risks. The U.S. government has been taken over by 'fiscal conservatism' that hates spending money on anything except tax cuts (this happened around 1980).

We have the technology to go to the moon. We could go to the moon. But the question of 'Why spend the money?' has not been answered sufficiently for the people with the money to do so.
 
Are there are any popular conspiracy theories that you think are true or are likely to be true?

Call me a lunatic, but I am sceptical as to the veracity of the moon landings. If NASA was able to put men on the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, why hasn't it (or any other organisation, for that matter) done so at any time over the course of the last 40 years?


Why would they need to?
USSR didn't do it, why would China follow?
Their best bet is to aim for a manned Mars mission.
 

We have the technology to go to the moon. We could go to the moon. But the question of 'Why spend the money?' has not been answered sufficiently for the people with the money to do so.

If we really think the space station is a way, the countries of the world, come together and use space for the benefit of the everyone then, we might be a bit deluded.
There is still a space race and the Chinese participation will add to it.
I would guess that they are simulating moon bases as a way of going to mars etc.
Space is huge, not actually bothered who or what country 'conquers' it, as long as exploration still goes on.
 

We spend an incredible amount.

But we certainly don't spend it on things like NASA.
Yea but it's hard to assess that type of risk with all the unknowns associated with it. The public is less willing to approve of missions when the justification is "there could be the key to 'something' out there" (obviously I'm not putting it very eloquently as they might).
 
Yea but it's hard to assess that type of risk with all the unknowns associated with it. The public is less willing to approve of missions when the justification is "there could be the key to 'something' out there" (obviously I'm not putting it very eloquently as they might).
Well, this was kind of my point, I just made it very flippantly.

Back in The Day (a.k.a when the Soviet's worried us) we spent a huge amount of money on what amounted to propaganda spending. So we did things like landed on the moon to prove how much better the American Way was over the Dirty Communist Way (or whatever). That was the real value in landing on the moon. And as this generation still remembered WWII and hadn't gotten entirely fed up with Vietnam and realpolitik, it was bought and lapped up. So we spent vast sums on R&D sorts of projects, like the space race. It also helped that we could toss in Fear of the Big Bad as a selling point. If we don't make it to the moon, those dirty Ruskies will go there and build a super base with nuclear missile launching capabilities, etc. etc. (I'm exaggerating wildly for effect).

Then 1980 came with Reagan and 'tax cuts'. The money got diverted into more purely military purposes - like the Star Wars Missile Defense program (and illegal wars in Central America). And we really did cut the hell out of taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. But things like Social Security and Medicare are untouchable, and were getting used more frequently. This led to us continuing our biggest expenditures (welfare and military spending) while decreasing the amount of money coming in. So things DID get cut, relatively. Things like NASA.

When the Soviet Union fell, the propaganda and fear elements lost their luster, and we were headed in the wrong directional fiscally. Rather than institute new taxes, we've basically been riding the private sector's ability to generate new wealth to keep our heads above water while slowly slipping further into debt.

Going to space is necessary for the long term survival of the human race. It is absolutely mandatory. But it is not something that matters in my lifetime, so we ignore it and hope it'll all be ok (hell, we'll be dead anyway, right?). That doesn't sell voters though, and we can't start spending money on NASA when so many other important and worthy causes are also underfunded and raising taxes is political suicide. Which is basically why we haven't been back.

An addendum: Going to the moon probably isn't the best thing for NASA to be doing anyway. There are things that would yield far more important findings and research than something we did 40+ years ago and aren't ready (technologically) to colonize yet (if it's ever possible given the moon's particulars).
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top