0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: maff on 13/07/2007 13:54:48Can 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?..maffBecause 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
Things have changed since the cold war.
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.
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 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?
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.
All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.
Quote from: lightarrow on 15/07/2007 13:34:30I 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.It did not land on the moon, but it was equipped to land on the moon, and more critically, it was publicised that it would land on the moon.The point is that information about a disaster was coming in in almost real time, and this indicated that there was not very strict controls on the information coming back from the moon missions (certainly not tight enough control of information to allow a cover up of a non-landing on the moon, otherwise they would have covered up the disaster as well).If Apollo 13 had not been subject to a disaster, then how would they have explained when we were receiving information that it was on its way to the moon, but never got there? The only way they could have done that is if Apollo 13 never existed, but then if it never existed, then how did it come to have a disaster?
To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this"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?" seems patently absurd.The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.
Quote from: maff on 13/07/2007 13:54:48Can 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?..maffThe space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.
Quote from: ukmicky on 15/07/2007 17:34:54Quote from: maff on 13/07/2007 13:54:48Can 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?..maffThe space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.So how did the Apollo missions avoid the cosmic particles?
Maybe not even Apollo 13 mission was really equipped/prepared to land on the Moon, and only a few people knew it (not the astronauts), and someone intentionally sabotated the mission in order to avoid a bad impression to the world. Why that stupid order from the mission control to mix the liquified oxygen in the cylinders? That was the cause of the explosion. Just an accident?