streetfighterjeff Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 the mrs does not believe that men landed on the moon. does an have link or pics of the eagle landing site? been trying to find it but i cant. better men than me will be able to do it. jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streetfighterjeff Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 and have russia ever landed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 You should have made her watch the series of programs that were on today showing the full Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and shuttle missions. There was a lot on the moon landings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshiretaurus Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 This should help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenDragon Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 The Russians only landed probes and robots, no people. Seem to remember their moon rocket kept exploding! Paul Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streetfighterjeff Posted July 20, 2014 Author Share Posted July 20, 2014 cool wasn't sure. trying to find telescope pics of the landing site from earth, hopefully find one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 You could also tell your wife about what was left behind on the moon, such as the laser reflector array. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC1966 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Never went to the moon, Buzz don't agree... sorry can't embed the link, but google Buzz Aldrin punch..... Edited July 20, 2014 by PLC1966 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 He does get rather punchy doesn't he. Mythbusters did a load of experiments that disproved a lot of the conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Actually the Mythbusters episode proved nothing of the kind as it was not, as far as I'm aware, filmed on the moon. There are some interesting questions about the NASA space progam in general and Apollo in particular that remain unanswered. However I can't comfortably wear my tinfoil hat and my optivisor at the same time, so I tend to talk about those matters elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robvulcan Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 As A child I used to believe it, I need to read more on it so my opinion is still open. But as I have got older and more cynical I now think to myself its more likely we did not. Because how the hell did the Astronauts survive the moons radiation levels, Plus if you need a massive rocket to leave earth ,,, How do you get back off the moon without all the masses of support needed to get off the Earth ?.. I know the Moon has less Gravity but it must still have quite a bit to make it a challenge to leave. I guess the Astronauts were briefed not to jump to hight with excitement in case them inadvertently sent themselves off on a course to Vega. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallisti Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 It never ceases to amaze me how such ignorance can be perpetuated, sorry Rob I don't mean to be rude but you need to actually do some proper research and reading about the moon landing and the Apollo programme - and I'm not taking stupid conspiracy sites who have no grasp of fundamental scientific principles. As for getting off the Moon they had a large enough engine to lift the ascent stage of the Lunar Excursion Vehicle back into lunar orbit, but most of the vehicle was left behind on the moon so they weren't carrying around excess baggage. The Moon's gravity is something like 1/6th that of Earth and that makes a tremendous difference. Escape velocity from the moon is 2.38 km/s but from Earth it is 11.2 km/s. The moon doesn't have "radiation levels" its not radioactive. There is cosmic background radiation and some from the sun. They did recieve higher dosage levels but they were wearing thick suits that blocked most of it. The levels were higher than in Earth orbit but the moon is still partially inside the Earth's Magnetosphere so that too has a mitigating factor. Check the cynicism in at the door - once upon a time the human race was able to actually achieve amazing things before the Health & Safety, lawyers and accountants crippled innovation. 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robvulcan Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 It never ceases to amaze me how such ignorance can be perpetuated, sorry Rob I don't mean to be rude but you need to actually do some proper research and reading about the moon landing and the Apollo programme - and I'm not taking stupid conspiracy sites who have no grasp of fundamental scientific principles. As for getting off the Moon they had a large enough engine to lift the ascent stage of the Lunar Excursion Vehicle back into lunar orbit, but most of the vehicle was left behind on the moon so they weren't carrying around excess baggage. The Moon's gravity is something like 1/6th that of Earth and that makes a tremendous difference. Escape velocity from the moon is 2.38 km/s but from Earth it is 11.2 km/s. The moon doesn't have "radiation levels" its not radioactive. There is cosmic background radiation and some from the sun. They did recieve higher dosage levels but they were wearing thick suits that blocked most of it. The levels were higher than in Earth orbit but the moon is still partially inside the Earth's Magnetosphere so that too has a mitigating factor. Check the cynicism in at the door - once upon a time the human race was able to actually achieve amazing things before the Health & Safety, lawyers and accountants crippled innovation. Cheers mate. Like I said I need to do some reading and my opinion is open. I guess I just wish they would have gone back by now. It seems strange we would go and not go back for more. There must be more we can learn about the moon. Conspiracy theories.. God there's a lot of them about these days. Some really wild ones. The worst one I have heard is that some think the moon is a mothership...Yep.. I think that too, The guy who told me this story believe it and he said this : "when you get up there if you smack your hand down on the ground it echoes out cause its like a shell hiding the spaceship!!,,,, " .... I was looking for somewhere to run at this point.. The conversation on his part was heading toward hysterical. That's a theory I don't subscribe too. I will read up on it more at somepoint. I am sure we went I guess its more a case of now I am older there are more questions I have about it that make me think.. How did they do this that and the other etc.. When your a kid you just believe it. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 OK, the optivisor is coming off for a moment! Rob, I suspect your mate has read this: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight/dp/1842931636 If you want to read it yourself (I have and it's most certainly an interesting read), the full text is here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/built_moon/wbm.htm As for the moon 'ringing like a bell', he was referring to this: Supporting arguments[edit]NASA astronaut Neil Armstrong described the Moon as "ringing like a bell," leading to arguments that it must be hollow like a bell. Lunar seismology experiments since then have shown that the lunar body has shallow "moonquakes" that act differently from quakes on Earth, due to differences in texture, type and density of the planetary strata, but no evidence of any large empty space inside the body.[10] The Moon's density is 3.34 g/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth's is 5.5. Proponents argue that this indicates the Moon must have a large cavity inside it. Some proponents argue that lunar craters are too shallow to be easily explained. A recent study indicates that larger craters on the near side may be a reflection of the thickness of the crust.[11] From this Wiki page.....Make of it what you will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Moon NASA clearly spent an enormous amount of money and they certainly launched some seriously humongous rockets.....So considering the possibility that the official story of the moon landing (or some of the recordings thereof) may be 'bunk', what else might they have been up to? Please understand that I'm not actually discounting the possibility that the whole thing really was a moon program, I'm merely implying that the means of transport may have been a little more exotic than a series of decreasingly powerful fireworks and that the vessel itself could certainly have been much better shielded against radiation (the Van Allen Belts & solar/cosmic radiation being the real issue). Have you ever considered the possibility that the real project might actually have been even more spectacular than we are allowed to know? It never ceases to amaze me how.....[Rant]..... .....[/Rant].....Health & Safety, lawyers and accountants crippled innovation. Easy Tiger! For a chap who likes the Culture I'm a bit surprised by this TBH.....Special Circumstances? You are being just a little disingenuous there mate.....Computing power is a big part of the 'return-launch issue', there wasn't an awful lot of space for computers in that pissant little tin bubble, certainly not compared to the monstrosities that NASA apparently required to launch from the thoroughly well known environment of the earth. Oh and I've still yet to see an actual human being wearing the full (PlaytexTM) space suilt with EVA gear get themselves out of the lander's main hatch.....Could you point me towards some video of this occurring? Given NASA's other imagery, I'd prefer to see the person getting into the suit and then out of the lander in one continuous take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinK Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) I have to say that this kind of discussion saddens me. As Kallisti says, humans have achieved some amazing things, and Apollo was one of them. It requires a particularly cynical level of ignorance to dismiss the enormous level of documentation (film, photos, procedures, designs, tens of thousands of detailed technical reports, actual surviving hardware, etc) and to assert that "it didn't happen". I grew up with Apollo, saw two Saturn launches at the Cape and proceeded to study Aerospace Engineering. Following University, I moved to the USA where I worked on the Shuttle program: there I worked with many who had worked on Saturn and Apollo - much of the Shuttle was adapted Apollo-era technology and it is insulting to those who achieved astonishing results to dismiss their efforts and, in effect, to call them liars. Later I worked the Space Station and other programs and am currently Chief Engineer of a major space company. I say this not to brag, but to indicate that I know what I'm talking about, because I've done it for real. "Sgt Squarehead"'s responses are no more than empty words in a vacuum - every Apollo flight documented the crew EVAs to the maximum extent possible, given that there were only two men there and filming someone entering a suit and exiting the vehicle - something that took over an hour start-to-finish - was an unrealistic impossibility for a continuous take with the cameras of the era and the limited cabin volume. Did the Battle of Britain not happen, Sgt Squarehead, because you haven't seen a continuous single take of Spitfires taking-off, in combat and returning? The point about lunar density ("hollow") is simply ludicrous - the reason the Moon is less dense than the Earth is simply due to the Moon's lack of a nickel-iron core - the same reason it does not have a significant magnetic field. No geologist/selenologist holds the view you quote. If you want to check out all the Apollo video, may I recommend Spacecraft Films, who produce multiple DVD sets of all the available footage, from ground training & building to the flight footage - many hundreds of hours. I can do no more for the wilfully ignorant, except to leave the last word to Wernher von Braun, who responded to such an accusation thusly - "You don't fake a Saturn 5 launch". His expanded point was that it would have been more difficult & costly to fake it all, given that we developed all the flight hardware anyway - and it worked. Edited July 21, 2014 by KevinK 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabberwocky Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 The doubters should look at this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Springer-Praxis-Books-Exploration/dp/1441971785 or watch this if their attention span doesn't enable them to read a whole book, even with pictures: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moon-Machines-Region-Import-NTSC/dp/B0026IQTR2 I can only hope that the reason for the lack of further manned missions is that the world has dedicated its limited financial resources to actually building the "B" Ark. May I apply for a position on the selection panel to choose who goes on it, now please? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabberwocky Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Does anyone know why this thread is in the science fiction section... Apparently there are those amongst us who are incapable of distinguishing between science fiction and science fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Quite a bit of this thread was lost in the switch over, and TBH, it's probably for the best. Rein it in, stop being snide to eachother, or the thread will be closed and people will be suspended from the new server before it's even 24 hours old 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streetfighterjeff Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 Does anyone know why this thread is in the science fiction section... and is slowly turning into a flame war...? Anthony. i started it and it was in the sf and realspace forum, and to be honest the discusion is great. good to hear differing points of views and ideas. jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallisti Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 As a final point to make which is the most likely scenario: 1) Hundreds if not thousands are involved in faking a moon landing, including fake Saturn V launches in front of thousands of spectators, an Aircraft Carrier group to recover the fake "spaceship" and hundreds of special effects technicians, artists, construction workers and film cameramen etc. They ALL keep the secret for 45 years. Not a single book is written by any of them, nobody sells their story of a huge cover up to the media for large amounts of money. 2) Thousands of people are involved in a challenging engineering, science and exploration project, taking huge risks, suffering losses and through all that achieving the feat of landing a dozen or so men on the moon and bringing them home safely. There is HUGE amounts of publicity of all aspects of the programme and there is no need to keep secrets for 45 years. Which seems to be the one that is easiest to pull off? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Vor!!! Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Ok Answer this Where were the Clangers? Soup Dragon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallisti Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 On the Dark Side of the Moon of course! (I know I'm mad I've always been mad...) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Laidlaw Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Just sticking my oar in here: Escape velocity is for a projectile given an impulse - like a bullet - sufficient to escape the gravity well of the body on which it rests. It is, however, a good indicator of what would be needed to move a given mass under constant acceleration from zero altitude to low orbit. As Kallisti said, moving a 10,000 pound part of the lunar module from the Moon (1/6th Earth gravity, making it equivalent to about 1,600 pounds) to low orbit will be an awful lot easier than moving 6.6 million pounds of Saturn V to low orbit from one gravity. Approximately 4,000:1 easier. Computing power - granted, the onboard computers were less powerful than the average hand-held calculator, but orbital mechanics* are relatively simple, particularly two-body problems. Add to that Mission Control's computers, scientists, engineers, the highly experienced and intelligent test pilots, and the fact they could communicate in pretty much real time, and there is no issue. These people knew what they were doing, and most could do the necessary calculations with a pencil and paper. And has been pointed out, you can't hide a 360-foot tall, 6.6 million pound rocket, generating 7.6 million pounds of thrust. Nor, then, could you fake it. * These are the same orbital mechanics that prove what a pile of pap the 'physics' of the movie "Gravity" was. But that's another rant . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adats-Coyote Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Ever seen these pics? http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg from this website: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/lro-briefing-20110906_prt.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 As my original reply got lost in the server move, let me repeat here a couple of points: The Apollo program was a huge investment for the US and among the reasons behind this there was a lot of prestige and propaganda involved. Kennedy had promised the Nation that they would beat the Soviets in the race for the conquest of space ! The Soviets of course kept a very close eye on the US space program: communications between control centres and spacecrafts were routinely intercepted, missile launches and space flights were tracked as much as possible using radars and telescopes, Cape Canaveral was under continuous surveillance from spy ships, spies were infiltrated everywhere possible (and of cours the US did the same on the Soviets). If NASA had attempted a bluff, the Soviets would have found out very easily and considering the importance of the space race during those Cold War days, a bluff would have been exposed immediately to the world as it would have been a huge propaganda victory for the USSR. Yet the soviet leaders not only did not expose any bluff but were among the first to congratulate the US for this historical achievement, as they knew that it had happened for real. As John has said, orbital mechanics is an area not particularly complicated. During my college days, one of the courses I attended was indeed orbital mechanics and I remember this as one of the easiest courses of that year. Among the topics touched on the course were problems like flight in a 2-body gravity field, that is exactly the type of problem faced by a spacecraft sent from the Earth to the Moon, the launch of multistage missiles, insertion into orbit and so on. Really, I never felt the need for any computer to solve these, even if I've never been great at maths. Granted, the men involved in the program had to overcome a lot of other problems and had to build everything pretty much from scratch, but a simple visit to Cape Canaveral will show how all these problems were solved with a lot of ingenuity. Seen today, the technology used to go to the moon looks almost trivial and sure it's very, very dated. However it was the same technology used in the aircrafts that many here consider legendary and some of them still fly today and give good service 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts