Thread: Why not build the spacestation ON THE MOON?

Common sense would say if we want to have a stable foundation for the Spacestation, we should anchor it to the Moon? right?

wrong. they lied so much about the Moon Landing, that they had to re-route their lies into building a Spacestation suspended in outerspace instead.

You'd think if we went to the Moon once, we could go back anytime we felt the need to. and a Trillion dollar Spacestation is a need to in anybody's book.

The Space station needs boosters to stay in formation or it would float away into deep outerspace wouldn't it?

Again, why not anchor the Spacestation TO THE MOON?

So many lies were being told by NASA and the Government.

Just doesn't add up.

Space radiation is probably the reason they had to fake the moon landings. Here's some alternative info I've found on that.
The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

If it turns out that the humans really do need six feet of lead to protect them from radiation once they get more than five hundred miles above the earth, it would be hard to build a station on the moon. What could the crew there do if they had to be thus protected the whole time? They might as well just land robotic craft on the moon with instruments and study the moon and space by remote-control. That sounds like the only feasible option.

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

Common sense would say if we want to have a stable foundation for the Spacestation, we should anchor it to the Moon? right?

wrong. they lied so much about the Moon Landing, that they had to re-route their lies into building a Spacestation suspended in outerspace instead.

You'd think if we went to the Moon once, we could go back anytime we felt the need to. and a Trillion dollar Spacestation is a need to in anybody's book.

The Space station needs boosters to stay in formation or it would float away into deep outerspace wouldn't it?

Again, why not anchor the Spacestation TO THE MOON?

So many lies were being told by NASA and the Government.

Just doesn't add up.

The moon is about 250,000 miles away from Earth.

Why would you want to have a space station unnecessarily so far away?

Common sense would say put it in orbit around the Earth, where it is only a few miles away.

It's one thing to land there and another build a station on it. It's naturally easier to have one afloat in space.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

The moon is about 250,000 miles away from Earth.

Why would you want to have a space station unnecessarily so far away?

Common sense would say put it in orbit around the Earth, where it is only a few miles away.

but why? Having it on the Moon is where it would supposedly do the most good. it wasn't built to be a tourist destination so there's no need for regular citizens to venture a trip to it. it was designed, supposedly., for research of outerspace and how it affect us here on earth. Having it only a few miles outside our orbit really does no good accept to use it as a manned spy satellite. anchored to the moon means it can be a permenant laboratory. a lab where astronauts sign on to basically relocate for a few years to go live on the moon and do research.

and please stop with how far away it is...NASA didn't seem to care how far it was all the other times they tried to go up there.

and anyways, those who say we went claim it "so easy" to get up there, then what's the problem?

This is why the Moon landing hoax will always be a topic of debate. just too many lies being told to the people. gutting the cofers. endless money stream.

Originally Posted by KSigMason

It's one thing to land there and another build a station on it. It's naturally easier to have one afloat in space.

flawed logic.

Anchoring a building(pretty much) to the Moon surface is way more logistically sound than having it floating in orbit.

and btw, it's not just "floating" in orbit. there are boosters on the thing to keep it orbiting properly or else it would float away into deep outerspace.

even the TV satellites have mini boosters on them. or run by solar panels at least.

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

flawed logic.

Anchoring a building(pretty much) to the Moon surface is way more logistically sound than having it floating in orbit.

and btw, it's not just "floating" in orbit. there are boosters on the thing to keep it orbiting properly or else it would float away into deep outerspace.

even the TV satellites have mini boosters on them. or run by solar panels at least.

Anchoring the space station in orbit with a tether 60 miles long is logistically sound?
On what planet?

No,there's boosters to keep it from falling back to earth

Originally Posted by LoneStrSt8

Anchoring the space station in orbit with a tether 60 miles long is logistically sound?
On what planet?

No,there's boosters to keep it from falling back to earth

you can't possibly be this clueless can you?

I'm talking about "anchoring" as in surface of station is cemented to the surface of the moon. same way we build buildings on earth? got it now?

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

flawed logic.

Anchoring a building(pretty much) to the Moon surface is way more logistically sound than having it floating in orbit.

and btw, it's not just "floating" in orbit. there are boosters on the thing to keep it orbiting properly or else it would float away into deep outerspace.

even the TV satellites have mini boosters on them. or run by solar panels at least.

Bahaha, this is the most scientifically ignorant thing I've read this week. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

Bahaha, this is the most scientifically ignorant thing I've read this week. Thanks.

but floating a giant hunk of metal in orbit makes sense? lol