The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did we land on the moon?  (Read 202655 times)

jolly

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #25 on: 03/07/2007 23:14:00 »
How so when you consider that back then we had no hubble on so alot of the stars we wouldnt have known of,
also you then have to relate them to the position of the moon at the time of the landing and give them a luna prospective, I do not think thats as easy a feet as you claim.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #26 on: 03/07/2007 23:40:45 »
Placing a star in its position in the sky relative to all the other stars is easy if you know your stars or have a few star charts, seriously that part would very very easy to do even in them days.

As for Hubble whats that that got to do with stars viewable by the naked eye from the moon . Any star viewable whilst standing on the moon without the use of a telescope would be very easy to view from the earth by either by the naked eye, binoculars or a very cheap telescope.

The stars which are only viewable by Hubble could never be viewed through the naked eye whilst standing or filming through a normal camera on the moon.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8657
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #27 on: 04/07/2007 21:01:02 »
I have to say that this "Quite clearly itīs because they faked the video. and couldīnt add in the stars as it would have been 1. too dificult and 2. Allowed people who understood astrology to prove it was fake." is the best joke I have seen in a while.
People who understand astrology probably know a lot about fakes.
Surely this has been discussed at unnecessary length, before.
The only things missing are answers to the questions like if we didn't go to the moon how did the retroreflectors get there? and how come the Russians listened in to the transmissions from the moon by pointing an antenna at the moon?

Here's the past discussion of this "topic"
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=7973.0

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=7207.0

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8042.0

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=7209.0
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #28 on: 04/07/2007 21:11:34 »
yes their have been a few and everything has probably been answered by now.
 

jolly

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #29 on: 04/07/2007 22:30:16 »
Placing a star in its position in the sky relative to all the other stars is easy if you know your stars or have a few star charts, seriously that part would very very easy to do even in them days.

As for Hubble whats that that got to do with stars viewable by the naked eye from the moon . Any star viewable whilst standing on the moon without the use of a telescope would be very easy to view from the earth by either by the naked eye, binoculars or a very cheap telescope.

The stars which are only viewable by Hubble could never be viewed through the naked eye whilst standing or filming through a normal camera on the moon.



I do not agree that it is as easy as you say, the moon moves faster than the earth and the stars would also move if they were in the video, each individual star would need to be placed correctly it would be not small order if the film was a fake.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #30 on: 04/07/2007 23:48:30 »
Jolly

I'm not a scientist but just someone who enjoys learning about science,nature ,life etc. I don't try to prove you wrong because i think your being silly or stupid because we all get things wrong from time to time .

I try to show you why your wrong because you asked the question and i enjoy trying to help people with their understanding and learning about this stuff.  Many things i know nothing about and occasionally my ideas are hopelessly wrong but i have an open mind and I'm willing to learn from those much cleverer than me.  In the end if you don't wish to believe me or anyone else on this forum when we try to answer you then thats your right. It makes no real difference to me if you believe me or not because all i need to know to be happy with myself is the thought that i did try to help you.
 

Offline safertr

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #31 on: 05/07/2007 14:54:45 »
The most surprising thing to me about this ridiculous claim that it was a hoax, is that some people actually manage to believe it was! How do they manage it? If it really was a hoax do you not think that the Russians at least would have been able to expose it? After all, the ONLY reason for going to the Moon was to beat the Russians to it, yet they have never once even hinted at the possibility that it was a hoax, they know it was real! That is why they gave up their own attempt after they ran into problems with their booster, it kept exploding on take off! There was no point in them continuing once they realised the Americans had beaten them to it. Nobody in the world had more reason to want to prove it was a hoax than the Russians. The Russians are not daft, they were closely monitoring the Americans every inch of the way, and were able to determine for a fact that the Americans did actually land on the Moon, much to their annoyance. If the Russians say the Americans landed on the Moon, and they do, then the Americans landed on the Moon. It's that simple.

newbielink:http://www.click2finding.com/click2.aspx?pr=Science/Physics/Astrophysics/ [nonactive]
 

jolly

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #32 on: 05/07/2007 19:44:03 »
Jolly

I'm not a scientist but just someone who enjoys learning about science,nature ,life etc. I don't try to prove you wrong because i think your being silly or stupid because we all get things wrong from time to time .

I try to show you why your wrong because you asked the question and i enjoy trying to help people with their understanding and learning about this stuff.  Many things i know nothing about and occasionally my ideas are hopelessly wrong but i have an open mind and I'm willing to learn from those much cleverer than me.  In the end if you don't wish to believe me or anyone else on this forum when we try to answer you then thats your right. It makes no real difference to me if you believe me or not because all i need to know to be happy with myself is the thought that i did try to help you.

You know I could just as easyily say the same back to you, I wonīt but I could. To be completely honest I really cannot be bothered to carry on about the moon. You believe they went others do not agree. I dont care...Lol
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #33 on: 05/07/2007 23:20:33 »
The best reason I ever heard for the moon landings not to have been faked was that the RUSSIANS would have got to find out and it would have been all over the news! THEY DIDN'T.
My personal 'clincher' was that, from the times that radio signals were received at various listening stations around the world, the ships must have been at positions corresponding to, at the very least, a journey to the Moon. If they had been in Earth orbit, their signals would have been heard once every 90 minutes or so. Also, there had to have been a landing - not just a Moon orbit - or the signals from the mission would have been interrupted every time they went 'round the back'. In fact, they were continuous.
PS There is no 'dark side'. The permanently invisible side is in full sunlight when the Moon is 'new' on Earth - between us and the Sun.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #34 on: 07/07/2007 15:37:52 »
Can we make the word "moon" when associated with the words "did" or "never" a banned word?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8657
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #35 on: 07/07/2007 16:47:52 »
Ukmicky, you said "yes their have been a few and everything has probably been answered by now." I don't agree; neither of those points has been answered. The lack of an explanation of the retroreflector (nothing else would be bright enough) is proof that they did go there. The fact that the Russians listened in also proves the ships were there (unless you want to say that the USSR was "in" on the conspiracy).
Unless the "we didn't go " crowd can explain these then they are simply wasting time going over old ground.
Since the stars are a lot further away than the distance from the earth to the moon the stars in the sky would look identical from earth or from the moon unless you took really sophisticated measuring gear. You simply wouldn't see a difference on a normal camera.
At any rate the point is moot because you can't see the stars on the pictures taken on the moon.
 

Offline maff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #36 on: 13/07/2007 13:54:48 »
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #37 on: 13/07/2007 19:59:57 »
The most surprising thing to me about this ridiculous claim that it was a hoax, is that some people actually manage to believe it was! How do they manage it? If it really was a hoax do you not think that the Russians at least would have been able to expose it? After all, the ONLY reason for going to the Moon was to beat the Russians to it, yet they have never once even hinted at the possibility that it was a hoax, they know it was real! That is why they gave up their own attempt after they ran into problems with their booster, it kept exploding on take off! There was no point in them continuing once they realised the Americans had beaten them to it. Nobody in the world had more reason to want to prove it was a hoax than the Russians. The Russians are not daft, they were closely monitoring the Americans every inch of the way, and were able to determine for a fact that the Americans did actually land on the Moon, much to their annoyance. If the Russians say the Americans landed on the Moon, and they do, then the Americans landed on the Moon. It's that simple.

http://www.click2finding.com/click2.aspx?pr=Science/Physics/Astrophysics/
Did the Americans say anything about the russian war in Cecenia? It's because there isn't anything to cover? So, why did they kill Anna Politkovskaya and Litvinenko?
When big things are in action, it seems there is a sort of reciprocal non-interference agreement between Russia and America.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8657
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #38 on: 14/07/2007 19:49:54 »
Things have changed since the cold war.
 

Offline Lynda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #39 on: 14/07/2007 23:14:44 »
Surely, if it was a fake, they would have put the stars in?
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #40 on: 14/07/2007 23:41:44 »
The best reason I ever heard for the moon landings not to have been faked was that the RUSSIANS would have got to find out and it would have been all over the news! THEY DIDN'T.
My personal 'clincher' was that, from the times that radio signals were received at various listening stations around the world, the ships must have been at positions corresponding to, at the very least, a journey to the Moon. If they had been in Earth orbit, their signals would have been heard once every 90 minutes or so. Also, there had to have been a landing - not just a Moon orbit - or the signals from the mission would have been interrupted every time they went 'round the back'. In fact, they were continuous.
PS There is no 'dark side'. The permanently invisible side is in full sunlight when the Moon is 'new' on Earth - between us and the Sun.

I have, what I consider, a better reason for believing the moon landings were not fake - who in their right mind would have faked the Apollo 13 mission.

It is not when things work according to plan that you really find out about reality, but when things go wrong.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #41 on: 14/07/2007 23:48:45 »
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff

Because a small 3 man vehicle and lightweight lander can travel a quarter of a million miles and back on relatively little fuel; whereas a massive cargo ship capable of carrying a 7 man crew and massive payload simply cannot take up enough fuel to make the range.

The Apollo spacecraft could never have taken up the cargo load required to build the ISS, but the Space Shuttle cannot make the range to the moon and back.  They are different vehicles, with different design requirements.

I suspect that in future, moon launches may well by undertaken by modular spacecraft that are taken up by heavy lift spacecraft (the successor to the Space Shuttle), and then the modules put together in space (just as the ISS is today), before being launched towards the Moon or Mars.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #42 on: 14/07/2007 23:56:37 »
Did the Americans say anything about the russian war in Cecenia? It's because there isn't anything to cover? So, why did they kill Anna Politkovskaya and Litvinenko?
When big things are in action, it seems there is a sort of reciprocal non-interference agreement between Russia and America.

I doubt that Litvinenko had anything to do with Chechnya but was simply settling old scores.

Politkovskaya could very possibly have been because of her reporting in the Caucuses, including Chechnya.

On the other hand, as mentioned above, things have changed in recent years, and now Russia glibly labels the Chechnya issue as part of the war on terror (this made more palatable because the Chechens are predominantly Muslim), and George W. Bush is then in a very difficult position to do much about it.  The fact that Russia has a veto in the UN, and George W. Bush has realised he can no longer ignore the UN as he thought he could so easily do in 2003, means he has to keep the Russians sweet, and they know it.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #43 on: 15/07/2007 07:02:02 »
If i remember correctly, the new design that NASA put out to tender are rockets. Similar to the old saturn 5, i think Lockheed won the contract.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #44 on: 15/07/2007 10:54:01 »
If i remember correctly, the new design that NASA put out to tender are rockets. Similar to the old saturn 5, i think Lockheed won the contract.

The Shuttle is a rocket - the difference is that on return, it glides through the atmosphere to a touchdown on a runway, whereas they have decided that the new design will not be a glider (not sure how much of the launch platform will be reusable or not).

It does not alter the issue that I suspect that the majority of missions for the new system will still be to lift things into near Earth orbit (including servicing the ISS).  It would also seem unlikely that a mission to Mars could be launched from Earth, as the size of the craft would need to be significant, and sending up modules to be assembled in space, and then launched without need the need to lift the complete craft through the atmosphere (or have to worry about reentry on return).
 

Offline maff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #45 on: 15/07/2007 11:57:05 »
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff

Because a small 3 man vehicle and lightweight lander can travel a quarter of a million miles and back on relatively little fuel; whereas a massive cargo ship capable of carrying a 7 man crew and massive payload simply cannot take up enough fuel to make the range.

The Apollo spacecraft could never have taken up the cargo load required to build the ISS, but the Space Shuttle cannot make the range to the moon and back.  They are different vehicles, with different design requirements.

I suspect that in future, moon launches may well by undertaken by modular spacecraft that are taken up by heavy lift spacecraft (the successor to the Space Shuttle), and then the modules put together in space (just as the ISS is today), before being launched towards the Moon or Mars.
The amount of required fuel to get to the Moon is irrelevant to the question. The Apollo craft orbitted the Earth then used a rocket to get out of Earth orbit. The velocity that the craft was orbitting at was the velocity used to reach the Moon, so in actual fact it used the 'slingshot' effect. No further fuel is required to get to the Moon because the craft is travelling in a vacuum. A very small amount of fuel was required along the way which was used by retro's to keep the craft on the correct course and correct any motion of the craft itself i.e spinning. The Shuttle would use no fuel apart from escaping Earth orbit and escaping Lunar orbit on the return. If any additional fuel is required it has a huge cargo bay for additional fuel. The real reason the Shuttle cannot go to the Moon and orbit for a couple of hours then return is simple - it can't.
The reason it can't is because the Shuttle cannot provide enough radiation protection for it's occupants during the trip. The amount of radiation going in and out of the Van Allen belts is so unpredictable due to solar winds, NASA is actually conducting an experiment soon to establish if we can survive them. An upcoming NASA mission, Radiation Belt Storm Probes will go further and gain scientific understanding (to the point of predictability) of how populations of relativistic electrons and ions in space form or change in response to changes in solar activity and the solar wind.
Yet we are supposed to believe nearly 40 years ago 3 guys just walzed through it with no problems.
Absolute and utter hogwash.
..maff
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #46 on: 15/07/2007 12:41:48 »
The amount of required fuel to get to the Moon is irrelevant to the question. The Apollo craft orbitted the Earth then used a rocket to get out of Earth orbit. The velocity that the craft was orbitting at was the velocity used to reach the Moon, so in actual fact it used the 'slingshot' effect. No further fuel is required to get to the Moon because the craft is travelling in a vacuum.

But a 6 minute burn was still required to get out of orbit - that is fuel consumed - and if the craft had been heavier, it would have required more fuel.  This is excluding the fuel required to insert into lunar orbit, or to return from the moon.

Even with the mission they did perform, it could only be achieved by making significant weight savings on the lunar module.

I believe that the Shuttle does not even have the capability of reaching geostationary orbit, and if it needs to insert a satellite into geostationary orbit, it needs to provide an additional booster that will take the satellite from the Shuttle's parking orbit up to geostationary orbit.

A very small amount of fuel was required along the way which was used by retro's to keep the craft on the correct course and correct any motion of the craft itself i.e spinning. The Shuttle would use no fuel apart from escaping Earth orbit and escaping Lunar orbit on the return. If any additional fuel is required it has a huge cargo bay for additional fuel. The real reason the Shuttle cannot go to the Moon and orbit for a couple of hours then return is simple - it can't.
The reason it can't is because the Shuttle cannot provide enough radiation protection for it's occupants during the trip. The amount of radiation going in and out of the Van Allen belts is so unpredictable due to solar winds, NASA is actually conducting an experiment soon to establish if we can survive them. An upcoming NASA mission, Radiation Belt Storm Probes will go further and gain scientific understanding (to the point of predictability) of how populations of relativistic electrons and ions in space form or change in response to changes in solar activity and the solar wind.
Yet we are supposed to believe nearly 40 years ago 3 guys just walzed through it with no problems.
Absolute and utter hogwash.
..maff

This may possibly be an issue, although I am surprised in the Shuttle is less well protected than the Apollo craft (particularly the lunar landing module, in which the Apollo 13 crew had to shelter themselves when they had problems in the command module).
« Last Edit: 15/07/2007 13:31:24 by another_someone »
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #47 on: 15/07/2007 13:01:04 »
Things have changed since the cold war.
There are things which don't change.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #48 on: 15/07/2007 13:06:45 »
The most surprising thing to me about this ridiculous claim that it was a hoax, is that some people actually manage to believe it was! How do they manage it? If it really was a hoax do you not think that the Russians at least would have been able to expose it? After all, the ONLY reason for going to the Moon was to beat the Russians to it, yet they have never once even hinted at the possibility that it was a hoax, they know it was real! That is why they gave up their own attempt after they ran into problems with their booster, it kept exploding on take off! There was no point in them continuing once they realised the Americans had beaten them to it. Nobody in the world had more reason to want to prove it was a hoax than the Russians. The Russians are not daft, they were closely monitoring the Americans every inch of the way, and were able to determine for a fact that the Americans did actually land on the Moon, much to their annoyance. If the Russians say the Americans landed on the Moon, and they do, then the Americans landed on the Moon. It's that simple.
It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?
« Last Edit: 15/07/2007 13:11:43 by lightarrow »
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #49 on: 15/07/2007 13:34:30 »
I have, what I consider, a better reason for believing the moon landings were not fake - who in their right mind would have faked the Apollo 13 mission.
I don't understand what you mean. The Apollo 13 mission didn't land on the moon. This, to me, is a reason more to conclude they still didn't have the knowledge/technology/preparation for a moon-landing.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #49 on: 15/07/2007 13:34:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length