U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Did men really land on the moon?
Yes 51 91.07%
No 2 3.57%
I don't know 3 5.36%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2012, 12:28 PM
 
5,203 posts, read 8,205,785 times
Reputation: 3188

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space View Post
What i have deducted from your post is the main issue preventing the space shuttle from going to the moon is fuel...

Not shape, but fuel...

And that's what I needed to know...
And by you answering that question for me, it explains why the moon capsules are so darn tiny....so save on fuel...
Fuel is part of it. But shape also plays an important role as well. For one, the shuttle was designed to glide on entering the Earth's atmosphere. It can't very well do that to land on the Moon. Secondly, to launch a spacecraft as large and heavy as the shuttle, you'd be looking at at an enormous craft just for the fuel alone, fuel not only to get to the Moon, but to return to the Earth as well. As has been said, the shuttle was not designed for a trip to the Moon. The shuttle was designed as a cargo transport vehicle to carry supplies, equipment, and sometimes satellites in its cargo bay. Missions were usually headed to and from the space station. Think of it this way. A canoe is fine for travel across lakes but they aren't designed to travel across the Pacific Ocean, especially if you need to carry a large load of supplies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space View Post

Questions I have....

1. Where is the unsettled surface dust?

2. Shouldn't there be like blast marks?

3. Why is the surface where the lunar landed so undisturbed?

4. No stars or light in the sky

Possible reasons I've asked myself...

1. Maybe this is just a replication, created in a studio for training purposes?

I don't know...but as I was looking up other stuff I just noticed the surface below the lander seems very undisturbed...and I know land such a craft, with rockets blasting, would displace a lot of the moon dust...but there's no indication of that...and looks more like lander was 'placed' there, rather than landed...
Part of the problem with the photo you posted is that it's too small for a good look. The astronaut in the photo is Buzz Aldrin.

1. Any surface dust would have already settled by the tie the photo was taken. The photo was clearly taken some time AFTER the landing, not during.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/3...rinLM_full.jpg

2. In a larger image, you can see that the soil around the landing area was indeed disturbed. Look for darker discoloration. You won't see any real cratering from the landing because the lander was designed to make a "soft" landing. It wasn't like the booster rockets used to lift off from the Earth. Dust was kicked up from landing on the Moon though, as well a lift off from the lunar surface. (See videos below)

3. Explained in 1 and 2.

4. What kind of light in the sky would you expect to see from the lunar surface? There's no atmosphere. The sky would look pretty black. With regard to the stars. I don't know if stars were visible from the lunar surface or not. The Earth was though, because it's much closer. The main reason why stars would not be visible is because they were on the sunlit side of the Moon, but the quality of the cameras most likely played a big part in it as well. The surface of the Moon is pretty much light grey in color, meaning the light is more reflective from the surface. I think if you were in the Moon's shadow, stars would be much more visible. The astronauts needed to be in the daylight just to see rocks and material better that would be returned for samples. It'd be kind of difficult stumbling around in the dark.


In answer to your last thought that the image might have been a traning studio replication of the surface, the answer is no, the photo is the real deal on the Moon. The problem is that too many of the conspiracy websites see some things without doing any real homework on the subject and draw a mistaken conclusion that the lunar landings were faked.


Apollo 17: Dust on Landing

Apollo11: Lunar Landing July 20, 1969 - YouTube



Apollo 14: Dust From Lift-Off

Apollo 14 LM lift-off from the Moon - YouTube



Apollo 17: Dust From Lift-Off

Apollo17 Last men on the moon; Lunar Lift Off Dec. 14, 1972 - YouTube

 
Old 01-06-2012, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Florida
3,359 posts, read 6,610,962 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
Fuel is part of it. But shape also plays an important role as well. For one, the shuttle was designed to glide on entering the Earth's atmosphere. It can't very well do that to land on the Moon. Secondly, to launch a spacecraft as large and heavy as the shuttle, you'd be looking at at an enormous craft just for the fuel alone, fuel not only to get to the Moon, but to return to the Earth as well. As has been said, the shuttle was not designed for a trip to the Moon. The shuttle was designed as a cargo transport vehicle to carry supplies, equipment, and sometimes satellites in its cargo bay. Missions were usually headed to and from the space station. Think of it this way. A canoe is fine for travel across lakes but they aren't designed to travel across the Pacific Ocean, especially if you need to carry a large load of supplies.



Part of the problem with the photo you posted is that it's too small for a good look. The astronaut in the photo is Buzz Aldrin.

1. Any surface dust would have already settled by the tie the photo was taken. The photo was clearly taken some time AFTER the landing, not during.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/3...rinLM_full.jpg

2. In a larger image, you can see that the soil around the landing area was indeed disturbed. Look for darker discoloration. You won't see any real cratering from the landing because the lander was designed to make a "soft" landing. It wasn't like the booster rockets used to lift off from the Earth. Dust was kicked up from landing on the Moon though, as well a lift off from the lunar surface. (See videos below)

3. Explained in 1 and 2.

4. What kind of light in the sky would you expect to see from the lunar surface? There's no atmosphere. The sky would look pretty black. With regard to the stars. I don't know if stars were visible from the lunar surface or not. The Earth was though, because it's much closer. The main reason why stars would not be visible is because they were on the sunlit side of the Moon, but the quality of the cameras most likely played a big part in it as well. The surface of the Moon is pretty much light grey in color, meaning the light is more reflective from the surface. I think if you were in the Moon's shadow, stars would be much more visible. The astronauts needed to be in the daylight just to see rocks and material better that would be returned for samples. It'd be kind of difficult stumbling around in the dark.


In answer to your last thought that the image might have been a traning studio replication of the surface, the answer is no, the photo is the real deal on the Moon. The problem is that too many of the conspiracy websites see some things without doing any real homework on the subject and draw a mistaken conclusion that the lunar landings were faked.


Apollo 17: Dust on Landing

Apollo11: Lunar Landing July 20, 1969 - YouTube



Apollo 14: Dust From Lift-Off

Apollo 14 LM lift-off from the Moon - YouTube



Apollo 17: Dust From Lift-Off

Apollo17 Last men on the moon; Lunar Lift Off Dec. 14, 1972 - YouTube
Thanks...I so appreciate your kindness...I will read the post and watch the videos...

And I'll try to be more inline with the flow....

I will stop asking questions on this matter...

My mouth is sealed...as far as this matter goes...

I will not question our former moon missions anymore...

But maybe I could suggest better ways to get there again...

That shouldn't be an issue with anyone...

Believe me you, I have learned my lesson...can't help it that I'm a geek, and that my mind is hyper active...

So as far as I'm concerned, the former moon missions are resolved...

I do not wanna make anyone mad...and that was never my aim...

I just have one of those kind of minds that likes to solve puzzles...

(NightBazaar, forgive me for rumbling on)...

But now I realize some puzzles maybe shouldn't ever be solved...

So I will move on...not with being curious about life, but I'll stop being curious about top secret government stuff...I hope...I think...unless I stumble into something by accident again...

Anyways NightBazaar has given me some stuff to read and contimplate...and that I will do...
 
Old 01-06-2012, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
17,526 posts, read 14,234,676 times
Reputation: 5804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space View Post
Since we seemed to have had better space technology back in the 60's...if only Kennedy would have said...

'Let's go to Mars'....

No doubt we would of gone there and built a base....
It just seems back in the 50's and 60's...when some militaries still utilized mules and horses in their armies, that and flew bi-planes, that are space technology was much better...

Seems computers and advancements in other areas, have slowed the space program down...



This Bi-plane was still being used as a trainer, in the US Navy until 1961...

From Bi-planes to the moon...

But now it's a daunting task...yet men who designed bi-planes, could go to the moon...

Ok...

Sounds reasonable to me...
This post sums up your thinking to me. Assumptions and incoherent musing. I've known a few faked moon landing believers. A lack of knowledge of space, and space exploration, is common amongst them. If you want to try and pick holes, in what are accepted facts/events, a far greater knowledge base is required.

Not knowing basic facts about something you are seriously questioning, is laziness.
 
Old 01-06-2012, 01:31 PM
 
32,531 posts, read 31,231,752 times
Reputation: 32379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space View Post
I commend our Astronauts and Space Program...very brave wonderful men and women...

They should be commended for what they did...
Their going into space has brought us tremendious advancements in our daily lives...including toothpaste...or the tubes it's contained in...

As well as many medical advancements and many other things we now use in our daily lives...

Regardless of what happened, these brave souls risked their lives for us...and for that, they should forever be commended...


You have nothing but my respect...
Yet you disrespect them by saying the moon landings were a hoax?

Yeah. That makes sense.

BTW: The Apollo navigation team sent the capsules through the thinnest part of the belt to reduce their exposure. They also timed it to have the astronauts pass through it as quickly as possible. Just thought I'd throw that in there. In case you're ever on Jeopardy and you take "Radiation for 1000, Alex"

(Sorry if someone else has already posted that. I only have the stomach to skim this particular thread.)

Last edited by DewDropInn; 01-06-2012 at 01:43 PM..
 
Old 01-06-2012, 01:50 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,648,084 times
Reputation: 7645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space View Post
It just seems back in the 50's and 60's...when some militaries still utilized mules and horses in their armies, that and flew bi-planes, that are space technology was much better...
I'm sure you can show us what countries had this type of military (other then your toy box)

Quote:
Seems computers and advancements in other areas, have slowed the space program down...
Seems the Internet has spawned a new generation of people with a twisted sense of logic...

Quote:
This Bi-plane was still being used as a trainer, in the US Navy until 1961...
From Bi-planes to the moon...
This Bi-plane, WHAT Bi-plane?
Quote:
But now it's a daunting task...yet men who designed bi-planes, could go to the moon.
Ok...

Sounds reasonable to me...
But now it's a daunting task...yet men who designed the crossbow, could go to the moon, , who could kill woolly mammoths could go to the moon, who burned people at the stake thinking they were witches could go to the moon....


Do yo really think your ludicrous posts impress anyone other then you?

Last edited by plwhit; 01-06-2012 at 02:15 PM..
 
Old 01-06-2012, 01:53 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,648,084 times
Reputation: 7645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space View Post
Thanks...I so appreciate your kindness...I will read the post and watch the videos...

And I'll try to be more inline with the flow....

I will stop asking questions on this matter...

My mouth is sealed...as far as this matter goes...

I will not question our former moon missions anymore...

But maybe I could suggest better ways to get there again...

That shouldn't be an issue with anyone...

Believe me you, I have learned my lesson...can't help it that I'm a geek, and that my mind is hyper active...

So as far as I'm concerned, the former moon missions are resolved...

I do not wanna make anyone mad...and that was never my aim...

I just have one of those kind of minds that likes to solve puzzles...

(NightBazaar, forgive me for rumbling on)...

But now I realize some puzzles maybe shouldn't ever be solved...

So I will move on...not with being curious about life, but I'll stop being curious about top secret government stuff...I hope...I think...unless I stumble into something by accident again...

Anyways NightBazaar has given me some stuff to read and contimplate...and that I will do...
As has been suggested to you many many times in YOUR thread, spelling should be your #1 priority....

What has been resolved? Your posts now are just as ignorant as the first one...

Can we now hope that you will give up on this thread and go back to your other thread that "discusses" liquid mountains?
 
Old 01-06-2012, 01:58 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,648,084 times
Reputation: 7645
I sure hope the OP researches all the questions posed to him/her/it asking for facts to back up his/her/it's claims and post responses because in 165 posts he/she/it has never posted one thing to back up any of his/her/it's ludicrous statements.
 
Old 01-06-2012, 02:16 PM
 
16,308 posts, read 25,262,012 times
Reputation: 8302
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post

Seems the Internet has spawned a new generation of people with a twisted sense of logic...
Idiots have always existed, now they just have a forum that offers them the anonymity to pontificate their lunacy from.
 
Old 01-06-2012, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,146 posts, read 19,476,319 times
Reputation: 14022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space View Post
NASA probe enters lunar orbit

NASA has a probe that is orbiting around the moon now...34 miles above the surface...

I'm tired of the excuses...i want proof that man was there...show me the flag or flags, show me the moon buggy, show me all the other stuff that was left behind...no more excuses with this new probe...

I mean if google map can zoom in on my home and car...then surely the technology has been out long enough for NASA equiptment to be able to zoom in on a space buggy left up there...

I've seen the Lunar lander before, or models of...and I wonder how a gigantic Jeep Cherokee dune buggy could fit inside that thing...



Tires and all....how did this thing fit inside the lander?

And what powered it?

Solar power?

That things kicken up dirt...I've never seen a solar powered vehicle on earth with that kind of torque...

I'm just saying...with this new NASA orbiter circling the moon...i would like to see evidence of all the hardware we left up there...

And if Russia was the first into space, why did they or could they not, continue onto the moon?
Seeing as their rockets were just as advanced and powerful as Americas...

Scientist working with slide rulers could get us to the moon, but todays scientist cannot?

I believe we went ok, I just want some hard evidence...as in a photo of the hardware we left up there...
NASA knows they've been there. Why should they blow millions of taxpayer dollars and extremely valuable time that can be used to further scientific knowledge to prove a dumb point to you and others consipiracy theorists? Seriously, it's like digging into the landfill to find an old diaper of mine just to prove I once $*%t in pants 30 years ago.
 
Old 01-06-2012, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, CO
521 posts, read 733,757 times
Reputation: 1160
There's no way I was going to take an hour to read this most entertaining thread and not post in it.

plwhit. . .You're my hero.

But, to make a relevant post, yes, we landed on the moon, the Allen Belt debate is laughable, pointing a shuttle at the moon and that's all could, possibly, be the single, most ignorant thing I've ever seen on the internet, Aldrin punching that guy was priceless and still is, the "tin can" argument is equally laughable, and the amount of self hijacking, and backtracking, is the worst I've ever seen on any messageboard ever; not to mention how ironic it is to read someone's posts who is trying so hard to be intelligent, yet with so many errors.

OP, plwhit, thanks for making my day.

Now, if only someone could direct me to the thread where he talks about geological formations, I'd be most appreciative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:57 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top