Did we land on the moon?

  • 436 Replies
  • 204996 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline BP

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« on: 19/06/2003 19:25:32 »
I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon.  He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon.  Does anyone know why that is?
 

*

Offline Ians Daddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 532
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #1 on: 19/06/2003 20:03:03 »
As an ex-Navy photographer, I can speculate that it had alot to do with the lighting. Since there must have been an issue with lighting and apature (light allowance) settings, as well as flash issues, the amount of surrounding darkness would cause for a difficult shot. I've heard all the conspiracy theories about us not actually landing on the moon, but staging it in a studio in order to win the "Space Race". My belief is that we indeed landed there and the picture is authentic. The stars were there, we just couldn't see them. It would be like in a film where the subject comes into focus in the foreground after we've been focused on the background, or vice versa. The subject (astronaut) was in focus (foreground) and the stars were not (background).
Then again, it could all have been a hoax and we've all been duped into believing that we were there by a plotting and evil government.
Just a thought.

What's on the dark side of the moon? I've heard that we have clandestine labs for the ultra wealthy powers of the world and that Elvis and Colonel Sanders hang out up there... :)
 

*

Offline Donnah

  • Ma-Donnah
  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1756
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #2 on: 20/06/2003 02:22:41 »
quote:
Originally posted by Ians Daddy

What's on the dark side of the moon?


Pink Floyd.
"Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of each of your arms." - Audrey Hepburn

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #3 on: 20/06/2003 03:03:28 »
That conspiracy theory is in my opinion something to increase TV channel ratings. Load of balderdash.

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

*

Offline Ians Daddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 532
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #4 on: 20/06/2003 03:20:26 »
Hehehe...I actually visited the dark side of the moon once while listening to Pink Floyd. It was very smokey there and smelled of burning brush. It was quite dark there and I think the surface is covered in a bean-bag like substance. It must have been due to the lack of gravity, but I remember when I returned, I was famished.
 

*

Offline cuso4

  • Angel Delight
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 422
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #5 on: 20/06/2003 08:01:43 »
Another weird thing about the photograph was that the USA flag was straight and taut. If there is no atmosphere on the moon, wind shouldn't exist and the flag shouldn't be like the one on the photograph

Angel
Angel

*

Offline Jaramillo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 10
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #6 on: 20/06/2003 08:23:29 »
When I was a kid I had a doctor that looked just like Colonel Sanders. I hated that guy, he was a sadistic ?#$%^&**((!

quote:
Originally posted by Ians Daddy

As an ex-Navy photographer, I can speculate that it had alot to do with the lighting. Since there must have been an issue with lighting and apature (light allowance) settings, as well as flash issues, the amount of surrounding darkness would cause for a difficult shot. I've heard all the conspiracy theories about us not actually landing on the moon, but staging it in a studio in order to win the "Space Race". My belief is that we indeed landed there and the picture is authentic. The stars were there, we just couldn't see them. It would be like in a film where the subject comes into focus in the foreground after we've been focused on the background, or vice versa. The subject (astronaut) was in focus (foreground) and the stars were not (background).
Then again, it could all have been a hoax and we've all been duped into believing that we were there by a plotting and evil government.
Just a thought.

What's on the dark side of the moon? I've heard that we have clandestine labs for the ultra wealthy powers of the world and that Elvis and Colonel Sanders hang out up there... :)

 

*

Offline Bin Laden

  • Hide n Seek Expert
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 98
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #7 on: 20/06/2003 09:45:56 »
quote:
Originally posted by Ians Daddy

Hehehe...I actually visited the dark side of the moon once while listening to Pink Floyd. It was very smokey there and smelled of burning brush. It was quite dark there and I think the surface is covered in a bean-bag like substance. It must have been due to the lack of gravity, but I remember when I returned, I was famished.



I have some quality Afghan opiates i can send you if you ever want to go back there... my caves full of the stuff.

Bin.

catch me if you can!
catch me if you can!

*

Offline Ians Daddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 532
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #8 on: 20/06/2003 10:52:08 »
I appreciate the offer, Mr. Laden, but I gave all that up some years ago. I bet there are some officials in Washington that would love some though. Give 'em a call...They'd be glad to come to your place to pick it up.
 

*

Offline Nigel

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
    • http://nigelhey.com
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #9 on: 20/06/2003 19:11:57 »
The strange it's-a-hoax fairytale about Project Apollo not actually happening started with a Fox video feature. It caused a lot of amusement and bemusement among my friends in the US, and many did not get around to answering because of these reasons, because they thought it wasn't worth it, or just because they were gobsmacked. Fox did very very well in the US by cooking up this story, and had very high viewer ratings, but it actually was a piece of misleading science fiction. Orson Welles's radio reading of The War of the Worlds caused near-panic in the late 1930s, and some people believed the more recent re-run. I also remember an excellent fictional documentary that reported on how the US and (then) Soviets had set up a collaborative space station on the dark side of the Moon. Same sort of stuff, but with a real event to build on.

Anyway, I suggest the following sites for further information. No need for me to recapitulate what they have to say in this forum.

newbielink:http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-03/commentary.html [nonactive]
newbielink:http://www.asi.org/adb/j/02/noapollo.html [nonactive] newbielink:http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-04-09-ncguest1.htm [nonactive]
newbielink:http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html [nonactive]
newbielink:http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/ [nonactive]


 

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #10 on: 21/06/2003 01:06:23 »
angel, the flag would be like that because there is hardly any gravity to pull it down, I think.

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

*

Offline Ians Daddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 532
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #11 on: 21/06/2003 06:00:47 »
I believe the "flag" was more a board than a flag. A poster on a stick. I think they planned for the gravity / air factor. Just a thought.
 

*

Offline PG

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #12 on: 26/06/2003 21:53:39 »
A couple of points

Arthur C. Clarke addressed all these issues in his book "A Fall of Moon Dust", written in the early sixties (?) well before the moon landings. The (very good) book was about a daring rescue of some tourists on the moon. One sub-plot was the TV reporters covering it. In it the reporter, who got the scoop, debated as to whether or not to show the stars in the TV picture. The true picture was was to not show the stars, because to the eye the sunlit moon is so bright you can't see the stars. But viewers expect them, and the camera could be set to pick them up. (Being a good cynical reporter, he did what the public wanted.) The reasoning still applies, except the cameras haven't gotten that good yet. The other thing is that after the rescue (sorry for giving the plot away) when the new tourist bus heads out, they have flags waving on the dock-side, moved by electric motors.

The flag issue was actually a well known one. The folks who put a man on the moon actually knew that there was no wind on the mood (how clever they were) and also that people wanted to see it. If you really look at the picture, there is a horizontal rod on the top of the flag. The flag came with the rod folded down, and they unfolded it on the  moon (also note the wrinkles in the flag from being folded up). Due to the low gravity on the moon, the joint for the rod didn't have to be very strong. If you do want to see the flag wave, go to the NASA web site. One of the downloadable movies is from a automatic camerea left on the moon that took a TV picture of one of the acsents from the moon. The rocket blast of the ascent engine turned the flag around and made it wave. (And yes to send the signal to the camera to look up and watch the ascent stage go up, they had to factor in the three second time delay it took for the signal to get there). And yes, I am old enough to have seen that live on TV.

The bigger point is that poeople would rather believe a big lie than a small one (Hitler actually said that). So the theory is that the moon landing was all staged. OK. And the poeople involved were clever enough to do that, but unfortunately were stupid enough to film it on a set where the wind was blowing. OK. And it was blowing hard engouh to make a flag stand straight, but not enough to blow any dust up. First you cross a probability and credibility barrier. Then you cross an impossibility barrier. Then you cross an ridiculous barrier. And the further you go out in that direction, the more (not less) people are willing to believe it. It's a superiorty thing. The trick is to claim that by reaching a state of stupidity that is almost physically impossible to reach, you can prove that you are smarter than people who actually work for a living. The point is to be so dim as to not to be able to figure out to put a rod on top of the flag so people could see it, but to still be smarter than the entire moon project put together. Well, its sentiment like that that Bush got elected and got his war.

The point of "if they could put a man on the moon..." was that for once in history you had a lot of people all pushing the same way to get something done, and look what a great thing they did. Outside of that,however, most people choose to be ignorant, and push against making things better.

One of the engineering managers at one of the airplane companies that built the command module, when asked why he was so excited about it said "we finally get to build something without guns in it".  Arthur C. Clarke was right in his broader message : the world needs a challenge. There has got to be more to life than watching wars on TV and buying dog food on-line. Without it, we are the exact same people who brought the world the Dark Ages. We need something to build that "doesn't have guns in it". The moon project was actually done for all of the wrong reasons, and NASA has never recovered, but it proved it could be done. It's either that, or burn witches.



 

*

Offline Ians Daddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 532
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #13 on: 27/06/2003 00:01:20 »
PG,
Very interesting. I'll have to take a look at that book. Maybe they'll make it into a film that won't do it justice.

I say we give the witches guns and send them to the moon and then burn NASA. I'll bet that hinge on that flagpole cost us in excess of $4 million.

I do believe that we should join together to do something positive. However, I don't agree with conquering the universe until you can fix the world until you can fix the nation until you can fix the state until you can fix the town until you can fix the home.

Just a thought.
 

*

Offline McGee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 10
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #14 on: 11/07/2003 23:29:30 »
I read a simple explanation for the star thing.  Think about the landing happening on the "day-side" of the moon.  The sky is not blue because there is no atmosphere.  Regardless of atmosphere, the sun's light is still bright enough to block the view of the stars.  You'd not even be able to see the "dark side" of the earth while on the moon.  How cool would that be?  Be on the moon to observe a lunar eclipse, which I guess would an 'earth eclipse' if you were on the moon.....

McGee

Teachers don't make a lot of money, but they make a lot of difference.
Teachers don't make a lot of money, but they make a lot of difference.

*

Offline NakedScientist

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 355
    • View Profile
    • http://www.thenakedscientists.com
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #15 on: 01/11/2003 23:15:51 »
This thread addresses the question raised by Bezoar in relation to the moon landings. I refer you specifically to the post by Nigel Hey on the subject.

TNS

*

Offline tweener

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1144
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #16 on: 04/11/2003 04:19:31 »
There are some really good posts in this thread.  To me, one of the overwhelming arguments saying that we did go to the moon is that there is NO WAY that a coverup of that magnitude could have been kept secret with the thousands of people working on the project.  NO WAY!

Also, I believe that the human race needs a challenge.  We will never fix the problems "at home" (whatever level you want to choose).  There will always be people pushing backward.  There will always be poverty.  There will always be war. But if the top part of the race doesn't move ahead, we have the dark ages again.


----
John
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

*

Offline Ians Daddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 532
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #17 on: 04/11/2003 05:16:29 »
Very good point, John.
The cars do have to follow the engine.
 

*

Offline tom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 22
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #18 on: 06/11/2003 11:55:09 »
Ask KGB.
 

*

Offline Brad Guth

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
    • http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #19 on: 29/12/2003 19:47:20 »
There actually is a thin sodium atmosphere near the surface, thus a flag in such low gravity might actually move, especially when considering that the solar weather at the time was anything but minimal.

Unfortunately, that thin sodium atmosphere isn't worth squat as far as fending off any of those pesky micro-meteorites.

Though regarding those missing stars. They were in fact there, and should even have been somewhat difficult to have avoided on even relatively slow film. Keeping in mind that the average lunar surface reflective index was supposedly 11%, mostly dark basalt, whereas some portions of the lunar surface had to have been nearly soot (5% reflective). Thus with a good (nondestructive) digital scan of some of those original negatives and/or transparencies would have pulled out the stars (even of the leader/trailer portions would have recorded the exposure dosage from solar and cosmic plus whatever secondary of hard x-ray issues). Though the 250+ millirems per day of radiation dosage should have rather noticeably damaged most images.
newbielink:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm [nonactive]
 

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #20 on: 30/12/2003 00:43:19 »
How is sodium present as a vapor in such a cold atmosphere?  I know sodium vapor is also used in near-absolute-zero experiments and I always kinda wondered how it can be vaporous at low temps where it SHOULD be a solid.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline OmnipotentOne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 146
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #21 on: 19/02/2004 00:37:05 »
Speaking on that topic, I read somwhere that Armstrong screwed up his grammer and said "One small step for mankind, and one giant leap for mankind"  Anyone else ever hear of that?
To see a world in a grain of sand.

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • View Profile
Re: Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #22 on: 23/02/2004 18:56:40 »
Yep....what he said was 'One  small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'...when he should have said...'one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind'......I mean tcch!! tcch!!......it's not as if he was under any pressure or anything !!!!!

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

jolly

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #23 on: 03/07/2007 22:50:04 »
I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon.  He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon.  Does anyone know why that is?

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.

The reason we dont see stars on the earth during the day is because we have an atmosphere.
The moon doesnīt have an atmosphere, some may contend it has a small one, either way the atmosphere doesnt glow a bright colour during the daytime and block out the stars; like the earths does!

O.K all put your helmets on and duck! Someone will no-doubt start throwing mud!

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #24 on: 03/07/2007 22:59:01 »
You think they couldnt fake a sky full off stars. If they wanted to fake a moon landing and thought that they needed stars in the sky that would have been one of the easiest part of the scam to pull off. However if you could see stars then it would be fake.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2007 23:01:46 by ukmicky »

*

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
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 8851
    • 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
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • *
  • 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
  • ******
  • 8851
    • 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline maff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #38 on: 14/07/2007 19:49:54 »
Things have changed since the cold war.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Lynda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 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?
LYNDA
Only when the last tree has died & the last river has been poisoned & the last fish has been caught will we realise that we can not eat money

*

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
  • **
  • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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.