| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/29/2007 4:51:17 AM |
father3 makes a good point, discussion of the belief of the infamous moon landing, might very well fit better under the religion header.
Thank you. I was thinking more along the lines of supernatural because of all the is required to pull off such a stunt. | |
|
| |
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/29/2007 11:14:09 AM | Quote: "^^^Funny that, because on the video footage it looks real dark and shadowy, like dawn. Sufficiently dark to see brightly lit stars that are like a few miles above....as aposed to thousands of miles above when standing on earth! If you can see the stars thousands of miles from earth then can you immagine just how bright they burn? Now imagine being only a few mile from those stars, i don't see how you could fail to see them!!!"
ALl I have to say to this is OMG. You are kidding right? I thought even grade one children knew that the stars are trillions of miles away! I guess I was wrong and now I see that there is an adult that actually exists out there that thinks stars are just a few miles away. I am speechless! OMG! | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/29/2007 12:40:16 PM | Re the OP:
Yes, the moon landings did indeed take place.
The reason they ceased is because they found that the people from Atlantis had gone to the moon thousand years ago. Do did the Vilkings.
Seriously, while it is most probable if not certain that the first mission took place, the real issue is: Today, in 2007 does it really matter whether it was real or staged? IMO, and philosophically speaking, No! | |
|
| |
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/30/2007 4:35:02 AM | ^^^Elco, they aren't so hung up on astronomy in the UK....it's not top of the list of things we're taught, i don't ever recall hearing about in school, sorry!
Grog....whatever mate, coming from you that's a compliment  | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/30/2007 10:23:48 AM | this one is for all the believers in the NASA "mission" How, pray tell, do you
film a moon-landing in a 350 degree microwave enviroment with Hasslebad
cameras and Kodak film while being burned alive by the gamma radiation?
and the answer my friends isn't just blowin in the wind--no one claims to
know where the original "films' are......and isn't that just like the government
we've all come to know and respect? someone stop me before I think again  | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/30/2007 10:32:30 AM | | Philosophically speaking again, does it really matter, in 2007? We have much more serious and pressing issues to address in 2007, than that. Real ones. Eg do we have the capability to divert the course of a metiorite that might aim for Earth? Or to move to another planet, for real, if this one is to be removed/demolished to make way for an intergallactic superhighway? Or the power to avoid or deal with reversal of the Poles magnetics? Can we land on an incoming meteriorite and blow it up? The landing on the moon was largely a symbolic event, and whether it actually too place on the moon or a studio, some many years ago, matters little TODAY, IMO. | |
|
| |
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/30/2007 11:22:14 AM | If memory serves, there was a minor scandal in the late 80's when it was realized that we lost the designs, and could no longer build a Saturn V if we wanted to/
Not so. Complete designs are held at Kennedy Space Center and other archived sites. I've seen some of them. But, anyone familiar with the space program knows that design itself did not result in functional spacecraft. It also required ops (operations) and a body of hands on skills and manufacturing capacity, much of which has been lost since the last C-5 was constructed. It would take 5-10 years to redevelop those operational skills in order to successfully launch a moon mission.--emphasis on the term successfully. You might want to look at Ken Lipartito and Orville R. Butler's History of Kennedy Space Center (Florida, 2007) for a discussion of those operational skills.
There are currently three--if you include the US 4--national programs in place to return to the moon--China, India, Japan. So far the US has not implemented a budget requisite to beat the Chinese. You should also remember that on the eve of the launch of Apollo 11, 49% of the American public thought the moon race was not worth the money. Indeed had Kennedy not been assasinated the program would probably been cut back sooner as Kennedy was talking about initiating a cooperative program with the Russians at that time. Once we moved from space "race" to science, the moon program was no longer politically cost effective in light of other economic burdens. Hence the decision to reduce the number of planned missions and to eliminate subsequent deep space manned missions. If you look at budgets for the current moon and mars program it is unlikely that either will finish their "mission" in the time frame for which they are proposed. Why? Return on investment. It will take at least 100 years to turn the moon into a profitable venture. No politician is going to vote to invest billions into a program which will not be profitable during their political career, much less their lifetime. Profitable space programs will continue to be in near earth space for the next couple of generations and the extent to which moon based operations turn profitable more rapidly will most likely be dependent upon improvements in robotic operations rather than near term human missions. The moon race was more about the cold war than about getting to the moon. The cold war began its decline once Russia abandoned the moon race and developed superior near space operations technologies, some of which are now a part of the international space station system. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:34:51 PM | | yes it happened. just cause a country already went there doesn't mean that others won't. the moon is kinda like the first level of exploration for space agencies. it's close, safe, and relatively inexpensive. and besides, we don't share everyting we know with our allies. sometimes it's better to let them figure things out for themselves. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/1/2007 10:12:22 PM | Wow generlee - apparently facts and science are not enough to deter you from your staunch belief in reality!
350 degrees is the MAXIMUM temperature that the moon gets to, at lunar "noon". However, lunar "noon" takes about 15 days to get to earth time. Remember, the moon rotates once every 30-ish earth days. The atronauts landed in the early lunar "morning", just after lunar "sunrise", and stayed to about lunar "9am"ish. They never got that hot.
As for the radiation, believe it or not, it wasn't that bad. Further, the cameras and film were shielded in metal cannisters - more than enough for the radiation in that environment.
As previously mentioned in this thread, here are my debunkings:
1)No dust effects on landing/takeoff - No atmosphere on the moon. The reason that rocket exhaust on earth points in a cone is because the air pressure in our atmosphere. You can easily see the exhaust cone expanding as the rockets get closer and closer to space, ending up in essentially a very large semicircle in 0 atmosphere. This is why there are exhaust cones on rockets - to channel the exhaust of the rocket away from the rocket and thereby maximise thrust efficiently.
The lunar module had a very small cone - it was never meant for atmospheric or 1 earth G maneuvering, so it didn't need one. As such, once the exhaust left the cone, it left in a VERY wide arc - wide enough that the pressure was very low on a per-unit-area basis. Further, it was pushing away from it's landing platform, further deflecting the exhaust away from the ground, and more to the sides.
2)Flag waving - you'll note that there is a rod along the top of the flag in all the pictures; there to keep it artificially elevated. The ripples are not from wind, but from placing the flagpole into the ground and manually adjusting the shape of the flag. Had there been atmosphere, the flag's ripples would have moved. There are ample photographs that show no fast motion happening on that flag - the most famous was Buzz Aldrin's saluting of the flag. Two photos about 10 seconds apart. No change in the shape of the flag.
3)Lack of stars in the pictures - this is actually very easy to figure out. The sun is bright. Very bright. The stars are dim. Very dim. When you take a photo, and you filter it down to something that 's not overexposed, you get a very black background as a result.
4)"Lost tapes" - not true. They found 'em in AUS.
5)Need I go on? all this has already been well debunked. I like it how no one ever tries to ripose the debunkers, merely somehow stubbornly ignore their common sense, scientific rigor, and FACTS. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:30:32 AM | | No we did not I don,t think it was a ploy the Americans just wanted to get one up on the Russians, by now with all the other advances in technology we ought to be having cheap weekend packet holiday deals to the moon, instead what do we have ....... sod all. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:33:48 AM | Shielding depends very much on what you are shielding from. Charged particle radiation interacts very strongly with matter, and so it takes little matter to do something with it. When the energy of the charged particle radiation is very high, as in the cosmic ray primaries, you often want to let them pass through as much as is possible, as interactions with matter (such as shielding) can generate more secondary radiation effects than were than would likely be produced by the primary to begin with. Uncharged radiation, such as photons and neutrons, has similar characteristics, but the details are different.
A wide ejection cone would imply that much of the ejected momentum gets canceled out as far as thrust goes, but does that wider cone lead to improved stability? | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/2/2007 11:34:37 AM | No we did not I don,t think it was a ploy the Americans just wanted to get one up on the Russians, by now with all the other advances in technology we ought to be having cheap weekend packet holiday deals to the moon
So, using that same principle, the nuclear bombs developed in the 40's were hoaxes, too. I mean, why doesn't every family have 2.3 little nukes in their homes? | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:05:08 PM | I mean, why doesn't every family have 2.3 little nukes in their homes?
The predictions of the 1950s were that nuclear power would lead to free electricity. It did not. So I guess we should presume that it was a "hoax" using the reasoning of the conspiracy theorists.
Fact: In 1969 when we went to the moon 49% of all Americans argued it wasn't worth the cost. That number rose when the missions turned to scientific tasks and they compared costs to scientific and economic issues here on earth. We "chose" not to continue the moon missions because the return on investment could not compete with other investments after the Soviets decided not to compete in that area.
Recent programs to "return to the moon" have as much to do with potential competition from Asian countries as they do from inherent economic justification. Too put it bluntly investing in "cheap trips to the moon" couldn't compete with returns on investment in other scientific endeavors. They don't to this day, and there will not be a return to the moon in the near future unless driven by competition that may permit others to lay claim to the resources, as yet largely unknown, that may exist on the moon. Both China's and India's moon programs have more to do with rising "nationalism" than they do with economic investment.
There are basic costs involved in getting free of the earth's gravitational field that technological advancement does not change. While computer costs have plummeted, the cost for a space ready laptop has not. We don't need such laptops on earth so there is no reason to mass produce them. The increased costs do not come from an enhanced technology but from a different environment.
Sufficiently dark to see brightly lit stars that are like a few miles above....as aposed to thousands of miles above when standing on earth!
Um, the nearest star to the moon like the nearest star to the earth is 4.3 light years. Whoever thinks stars are a few miles above the moon, but thousands of miles away from earth doesn't have a clue about basic astronomy. | |
|
| |
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/2/2007 10:16:31 PM | | Yes, we landed on the moon. First of all, there is a reflector placed there by a moon mission used today by ground based laser. Second, during filming of one of our moon landings, a Russian satellite was caught on the film passing overhead of our equipment on the moon at the right time corresponding with it's launch from earth; a failed Russian attempt. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/5/2007 4:06:01 AM | well if you landed on the moon why on has it not been done since. Why on earth hasent anyone done it, since the 1960,s Seems strange to me, seems strange to many people, in fact it seems a joke.
Some are trying to argue that their is not enough money and yet they have built rockets since which have not been able to get people their. Makes no sense. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/5/2007 8:57:07 AM | ^^^ Check out msg #26. It answers that question pretty darn well. And the US went to the moon in the 70's, too. Getting a rocket to the moon is more expensive than the rockets we have built since then. However, I think NASA is looking at going back to the moon. Stay tuned...
And a lot of things don't make sense on the surface that are, nonetheless, true and factual. I am really hoping that your sense of skepticism is powered more by your knowledge of a subject than by a lack thereof. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/5/2007 9:15:54 AM | | RE msg 94: It's not that the money to do it isn't there - that's not exactly what's being said. As has already been stated, it's that the relative value of moon missions is low compared to other endeavors that said money could fund. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 197 | |
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/5/2007 7:08:43 PM | Technology transfer, the practice of moving inventions and processes
from one field of human endeavor into another, is at the core of NASA's existence.
Starting in 1915, NASA's predecessor, NACA, was given a Congressional mandate to "
...supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight,
with a view to their practical solution, and to determine the problems
which should be experimentally attacked, and to discuss their solution and their
application to practical questions" (Public Law 63-271).
NACA's discoveries and inventions were made available to airplane builders and to the public.
When NASA was founded in 1958, the practice continued.
Devices and techniques from the Space Age continue to make our lives better.
Some NASA programs that were great contributions to the betterment of life
on Earth have been spun off from NASA, but continue under new management.
Many satellites are operated by private enterprises, especially communications satellites.
Weather satellites are run by NOAA, and many remote sensing satellites, like Landsat,
are shared by NASA and the Department of the Interior.
http://www.stars4space.org/Benefits.html
Example up the yazoo about the how the space program has benefitted life on earth | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/6/2007 5:42:25 AM | | Anyway the aliens might come and visit us., with faster and more economical means of transport, we could therefore gain more ideas. We could have a big party when they arrive with plenty of booze. Get them a bit drunk and find out their secrets. Much more economical. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/6/2007 9:37:06 AM | | You mean like the waitress in Independence day that went and partied on top of the buildings when they Aliens came for their happy, friendly, idea exchanging visit? I can see many people doing that, and you know I really don't mind, these are the choices we make in life. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/6/2007 3:29:06 PM | A few reflective mirrors were placed on the moon's surface for some kind of laser-based telescope calibration purpose or something.
You can point a laser at the moon and get a signal back because those mirrors were put there. The only possible thing is that it was all unmanned probes placing the mirrors and the landing video with human astronauts was infact made in the desert or a studio.
Most of the photographic anomalies with the crosshairs and stuff are explained, but then again there is the radiation stuff. I heard that's what the soviets were afraid of. And they did make the atomic bomb 6 months ahead of the U.S. | |
|
Home
login 
