I read that the blueprints for  the Saturn Five first stage rocket were destroyed. If this is true, then why?
365990
A NASA official has denied a claim made by a book author that blueprints for the mighty Saturn 5 rocket used to push Apollo astronauts to the moon were lost. \n\nThe denial came in response to a recent story in SPACE.com that reported on a claim John Lewis made in his 1996 book, Mining the Sky, that he went looking for the Saturn 5 blueprints a few years ago and concluded, incredibly, they had been "lost."\n\nPaul Shawcross, from NASA's Office of Inspector General, came to the agency's defense in comments published on CCNet -- a scholarly electronic newsletter covering the threat of asteroids and comets. Shawcross said the Saturn 5 blueprints are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm.
195207
It was first living creature to go in space aboard former USSR, launch vehicle.\nIncidently It never came back.
991898
Easy question first, they are there because the gravitational pull of Saturn caused 2 or more objects to collide with enough velocity for the debri not to fall to saturn.\n\nNow the hard one, according to NASA:\n\n"Cassini found that the inner and outer parts of ring B contain rings that are hundreds of kilometers wide (hundreds of miles) and vary greatly in the amount of material they contain. A thick, 5,000-kilometer-wide (3,100-mile) core contains several bands with ring material that is nearly four times as dense as that of ring A and nearly 20 times as dense as that of ring C."
484525
There is no wing shaped damage to the right and left of the hole...  Since the Pentagon is built very strongly, It seems to me that the wings would have sheared off upon impact and there would be many pieces lying in front of the building on either side of the hole.  There isn't.  Commercial jet liners don't 'vaporize'... That's preposterous.  Water vaporizes.  Liquid nitrogen vaporizes.  Aluminum and titanium do not.  They eventually will melt, but due to the quick response of the firefighters, I doubt the fire got hot enough for long enough to melt an entire plane.  Even then, there would be many tons of melted metal to pick up.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm no idiot either.  There is something wrong with the government's version of what happened at the Pentagon.
785932
Sorry, but creativity and destruction are inextricably linked, especially where humans are concerned.\n\nThe only way to do it would be to destroy the destroyers, and that would pretty much defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?
86518
Action Products is still selling the Saturn V Rocket.  (see site below)\nYou can contact them directly by using the information on the second site:
54995
I was in B. 37 at Johnson Space Center in the Medical Science Division.  About 50 of us who worked in the building were watching the launch on TV as we did every launch.  I had built an experiment box for one of the crewmembers to use. It was a space motion sickness experiment.  The person seated in front of me said "oh no, that's not right" prior to the "explosion".  About 5 seconds later, it broke up.  It wasn't really an explosion by strict definition.  The pressurized crew cabin seperated and it fell into the ocean after reaching about 57000 feet.  It broke up most likely on impact.  The person sitting in front of me noticed the anomalous plume and knew something was terribly wrong.  One of the crewmembers family lives behind me, 2 houses over.  \n\nI am answering this question in a non-official capacity of course, but I have to say it.
325274
I believe the FIRST landing was faked, as it was almost impossible to design and build the equipment in such a short (relatively speaking) period between the time President Kennedy asked NASA to do it and the end of the decade, about eight years. Remember, they didn't have sophisticated computers  in 1960 like they do now, so a lot of their calculations on trajectory etc. were not as accurate as they are today.
1138272
American Rocket Society Journal, Vol. 30 Sept. 1960  is what you are looking for. Sorry but I cant seem to find the articles to read.\n\nYou might want to read this article, it has plenty of names and dates both before and after 1960 and is all about the creation of the Society.\nhttp://www.iaanet.org/history/conception.html
1086972
there is a laser,invented at the time of the cold war, i think in the 80's, it interfears with the rocket's laser targeting device,for example a tomahawk wont find the target an i think she will selfdestroy,but that laser gun was interdicted.I heard that exist an laser gun that could destroy an rocket,i heard about an experiment with the russian 2 war's rocket KATIUSHA,two of those rockets were destroyed.
84818
As a matter of fact, I did. I recall seeing a blurb about this in Chariots of the Gods. It was stated but not often reported that non-terrestrial ships were noted by astronauts. In fact, there is a number of sightings by NASA personnel re: extra-terrestrial encounters or 'experiences.' Project Blue Book was originally set out by the USAF in 1951 to address these concerns. The initial goal was to collect the stories and then to set about disclaiming or disproving them in public. The project backfired and ended up collecting far too much data for easy dismissal. What it did do however was highlight what was known, what material was collected and by whom. American citizens were fooled into thinking that their government wanted to know...when in fact it really wanted to cover the materail up PRIOR to information going to the press. To this day, much of the most interesting evidence re" extraterrestrial evidence has been prevented from being released and/or "lost."
161872
no...they didnt land on the moon at all and lot of evidence points that the moon landings were faked\n1,,to reach moon the astonauts had to pass beyond the van allen belt.which is a protective barrier of charged particles cosmic rays etc..beyond which they wud b exposed to intense harmful cosmic rays...thir aircraft apollo 11 had only a thin lining of lead for protection which is not at all sufficient...so it is suggested dat apollo 11 just cirled up before reachuing the van allen belt\n2,,moreover the photographic film wud hav been clearly damaged while passing thru the belt as it does it if its passeed thru an ordinary xray machine\n3,,the camera that the astros used i.e. hasselblad wree old fashioned and changing their photographic plates is a very tricky process requiring handling of delicate plates n nimble fingers...this task was impossible 4 the astros as they wore thick rubber gloves\n4,,one of their pics shows the terrain behind aldrin fading away into the horizon while there is no atmosphere on moon to cause such an effect\n4,,more over in one of the pics some suspiciuos equipments reflection can be seen on aldrins visor..it can cl4early be seen againt the darkness of the horizonwhere one might expectto glimpse a piece of film equipment if it had been shot in a film studio\n5,,moreover the absence of stars in the pics,lack of scortch marksand a crater under the lunar module which wud hav been formed by its landing are suspiciously missing\n\nhence too much to prove that the landings were faked \n\nits the second time i have ansewered this question...n it was the best answer
9622
ok, didn't end up making it because it would probably have burnt down my HS football field, but senior year in AP physics after the AP test was over we were told we were going to make rockets.  Then he tells us they're only water pressure rockets.  So my friend and I got pissed because we thought we were going to be able to make real rockets, so we decided we should make ours blow up in mid-air since we were seniors anyway, it was the end of the year, and we were already accepted to college. We wanted to go out with a bang :p  so after discussing it for awhile, we were going to fill up one of the bottles used for structure inside the water-pressure rocket with methane gas right out of the stove, and then put a remote-control car in there with it.  When the rocket was released and at its maximum height, we were going to press the accelerate button on the remote, causing the spark necessary to cause the gas to explode.  Bam, huge ball of flame over the football field.  We didn't do it, we got too scared that burning pieces would come down and land on someone, or burn down the football field, which is where we were testing the rockets.
76096
Generally no. The orbiting debris is actually very little and very small stuff. Most items have decaying orbits that eventually burn up in the atmosphere. The launch window is when the earth's launch sight is in the proper alignment with the sun, moon, or other planets so that it can establish orbit and then leave earth's orbit in an efficient trajectory. \n\nMainly if you want to send a mission to Mars, you actually lauch so that the probe lets Mars catch it, instead of trying to attain enough speed so it catches Mars. This is more efficient and requires less fuel. \n\nThink of a rocket like a semi that has one ton payload, but it has to carry all the fuel to drive from New York to San Francisco. That's pretty inefficent. If the semi could instead use much less fuel and say start at New York, but remain stationary and let the earth rotate underneath it, then it would use much less fuel to reach its destination.
1109590
"The Apollo 13 malfunction was caused by an explosion and rupture of oxygen tank no. 2 in the service module. The explosion ruptured a line or damaged a valve in the no. 1 oxygen tank, causing it to lose oxygen rapidly. The service module bay no.4 cover was blown off. All oxygen stores were lost within about 3 hours, along with loss of water, electrical power, and use of the propulsion system. \n\nThe oxygen tanks were highly insulated spherical tanks which held a "slush" of liquid oxygen with a fill line and heater running down the center. The no. 2 oxygen tank used in Apollo 13 (North American Rockwell; serial number 10024X-TA0008) had originally been installed in Apollo 10. It was removed from Apollo 10 for modification and during the extraction was dropped 2 inches, slightly jarring an internal fill line. The tank was replaced with another for Apollo 10, and the exterior inspected. The internal fill line was not known to be damaged, and this tank was later installed in Apollo 13. \n\nThe oxygen tanks had originally been designed to run off the 28 volt DC power of the command and service modules. However, the tanks were redesigned to also run off the 65 volt DC ground power at Kennedy Space Center. All components were upgraded to accept 65 volts except the heater thermostatic switches, which were overlooked. These switches were designed to open and turn off the heater when the tank temperature reached 80 degrees F. (Normal temperatures in the tank were -300 to -100 F.)"
1063847
There is no proof. All the evidence disappeared to China or the bottom of the ocean. Why were they so quick to get rid of that steel? Do you really believe that jet fuel gets hot enough to collapse an I beam? Hell, I've picked out beer cans after a bonfire. Duh! And as far as I know, airliners aren't made for knocking down buildings. They are light so they can fly. Have ever seen a crash site? There usually isn't a whole lot of recognizable things left. A building that would collapse after getting hit like that wouldn't pass a NYC building code exam.
663925
There was actually an excellent book on the subject called Shuttle Down.  The shuttle has numerous abort-to-landing sites around the world along the path of its launch, including abort-to-Kennedy, abort-to-Spain, abort-to-Australia, abort-to Edwards/White Sands (depending on which one is available), and abort-once-around, which would land them back at Kennedy.  The only emergency launch ever used was abort-to-orbit, when one of the main engines flamed out after launch on one of the Columbia missions, back in about 1984 or 1985.\n\nAnyway, this particular story concerned a polar launch from SLC-6 at Vandenberg AFB, which had been a planned alternative launch site for polar orbiting missions prior to the Challenger Disaster of 1986.  The only abort-to-landing site available is on Easter Island, and wouldn't you know it, the shuttle encounters a glitch and has to land there.  And there we run into problems.\n\nThe shuttle doesn't carry any of the paperwork required of an airplane landing on foreign soil.  The astronauts aren't carrying their passports.  The shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering Engings (the small pods on either side of the tail) contain highly explosive and highly poisonous hypergolic fuels.  \n\nBecause these engines are used to push the shuttle into orbit after launch and to bring it out of orbit prior to landing, they cannot be ignited by a spark as the main engines and Solid Rocket Boosters are.  They must use "hypergolic" chemicals, two chemicals that will burst into flame when mixed.  After a normal landing, draining those tanks is the number one priority to prevent explosions, but Easter Island doesn't have that equipment.  The astronauts would have to keep people far away from the space shuttle in order to protect them from a possible explosion or leaking of this poisonous fuel.\n\nAnd then there's the problem of getting the shuttle home.  It can be transported across the US on top of a specially modified 747 (it has no seats inside, just struts to distribute the weight of the shuttle).  It can fly across the US without refueling, but could it fly back from a remote landing site?  A normal 747 can, but I don't know how the weight of a shuttle and the modifications compare to the weight of an aircraft's normal equipment, passengers, and cargo.  I do know that a 747 is not designed for a mid-air refueling.