Did we really land on the Moon?

Post Reply New Topic

Though that Philidelphia Experiment bullsh*t definately had spawned a pretty cool movie several years ago!

I think that depends on to what extent a person espouses certain beliefs, claims, theories. And that there's a difference between espousing a thing and just entertaining a thought.

For me personally it's entertaining a thought. For the most part I don't really care about moon landings one way or another. It's basically been said one of the main reasons why no further expeditions were made is because there was no point in it. As in it's just not that important.

So I think how important an issue is to someone, is a determining factor in how nuts they are regarding any thoughts they espouse regarding a subject.

Dear Ezra, stop believing these nonsense when I read your posts at wrongplanet.net, I have always had you too smart kid, although you are probably an adult now, I would have liked to read your thoughts, I had you as an open minded person, but by such posts as This one, I'm starting to doubt it

You may also write that "the Earth is a flat disk" based on four crocodiles (In this version, believed by the ancient Egyptians.

Apollo's design technology was very simple; from today, every modern pocket calculator has more computational power than Apollo's computer, but people landed on the moon, just as the Vikings landed in North America in 980, and Columbus repeated their feat in 1492. 512 years later.

As for the Van Allana belts, here you have some interesting materials




The apollo programme(discussion + analysis of conspiracy theories)

PM me if you want talk about it more

I have run across the opposite conspiracy theory before now: that the Apollo landings were staged to hide the fact that the USA already had a military base on the far side of the Moon....

My understanding is that we haven't gone back to the Moon because "We've got the tech, but the money ain't there." Humans are heavy, awkward things that are difficult to keep alive in space- to send them any great distance needs a lot of extra fuel, a lot of extra equipment and a huge commitment to keeping them safe. For scientific missions beyond Low Earth Orbit, it's far cheaper and more effective to use robotics.

In the 60s, the governments of the USA and USSR were willing to throw vast sums of money at manned spaceflight because of the Cold War. It got going as a way of showing off /missile/ technology: "Our rockets are so big they can throw a dog into space!" A more diplomatically acceptable way of displaying the prowess of your rocket scientists than firing nuclear warheads over the Pacific would've been.

I think there just hasn't been the motivation for nations to spend that much money on an equivalent space project since, and private companies aren't yet in a position to. Eventually the costs of manned spaceflight should go down enough that the benefits of sending humans beyond LEO finally outweigh them. Til then, it's all robot probes and orbital labs, which get you more scientific data for your money.

It's taking longer than anyone expected in the 60s, but the political and economic reasons seem valid enough. 'Course, a new superpower arms race would change that. But... no thanks.

Yes, two Americans landed on the moon in the July of 1969.

I wasn't claiming humas can't pass the van allen belts. I'm saying for a period of nearly half a century no human has gone out that far. There's been well over 100 space missions between America and Russia since Apollo. Yet none of them has ever ventured out past a certain point.

The constant claim is no one can afford to go into outer space one more time, and yet there have over 100 space missions. This is all factual. I think a demonstration of not being open minded and not using intellect, would be to never adress facts or wonder about certain things.

Going to the moon was just a d*ck measuring contest between us and the Soviets, and we proved to have the longest and thickest. Now that the Cold War is over, and China feels they have something to prove, they'll be metaphorically whipping it out possibly in the near future.
That is why we chose to go to the moon in the 60s and 70s, but have not since.

It's funny to me how those who strongly object to even the idea that the moon missions were faked or rigged in some way, will go on to state the fact that they were nothing more than a penis contest and there is/was basically no value in going to the moon and no point in going back. I mean why care about someone questioning the authenticity of something that was basically pointless and valueless?

The problem is that the people who decide weather to fund things like Moon missions are politicians. They don't care as much about the advancement of science as they do about winning d**k measuring contests like the space race. If it were scientists in charge of choosing to fund space programs then we would probably have colonies on the Moon and Mars by now but unfortunately it's not their call.

To the politicians there was indeed a motive to fake the Moon landings because they just wanted to win the space race, but to scientists they had been dreaming of landing on the Moon and would have to be crazy to pass up the opportunity for politicians to support that.

In the end the reason we got to the Moon before the Soviet Union despite them beating us at everything else was because of the different approaches the two nations took. The United States was cautious and consequently took longer, while the diciest rushed things which made their rockets more dangerous. In the end that became their downfall because they had a bunch of problems and all 4 of their test flights ended in bangs. The American approach simply worked better for such a complicated project.

Here's a question I have though. Why was it possible to fund 135 space shuttle launches and missions, but not possible to fund one single more mission beyond that distance into outer space for nearly half a century?

Because space shuttles were reusable, whereas moon rockets were a one shot deal.

Read Mikeman's response, as that pretty much says it all.

It's not like NASA hasn't tried, a while ago they attempted to get funding for making another manned Moon rocket but that failed, and now they are making a huge push for putting humans on Mars sparing no expense on getting the public hyped about it so that hopefully they can convince politicians to keep the program going.

One of the biggest problems with getting politicians to fund space missions is how long it will take. A presidential term in the United States is 4 years long so a president doesn't really have much incentive to support programs that will take more then 4 years. Space shuttle missions were great because they are short term and we already had the designs so research and development wasn't really necessary. To fund a Moon mission would require convincing a president to spend some of the national budget on a program that will produce bugger all by the time he's out of office. That is not easy.

Do you think SpaceX will reach the moon in 2018?

Possibly. I mean, they have done some pretty amazing things that NASA has not and they don't have to worry about politicians.

there was the spirit of human endeavor more in the 1960's and early 70's which made it a "feel good" mission as well.

there was insufficient technology available at the time to design landers that could perform tests and do all the analysis of samples on the moon without bringing them back to earth with the samples.

so much of the lunar material has been allotted (albeit in small amounts) to so many universities to study, that surely some geologist would recognize a rat somewhere in the material if it was bogus.

for example, most rocks on the earths surface can be found to have isotopes of carbon that can only be the result of past life.

the solution is not to irradiate the rocks and sterilize them to make them believable. it is to molecularly pulverize them and extract all molecules in the dust that indicate life, and then reformulate them.
this would be easily discovered due to the process of reformulation being impossible to replicate in a natural sense.

so, man can say "we have walked on another world than earth".
that is good enough.
public sentiment these days would be hysterically against another feel good mission that costs a huge amount and puts human lives at risk.

also, with humans, there is waste elimination technology costs, oxygen, water, and food payload, and mechanisms spaced far apart so the human can maneuver through them, thus creating a much larger craft.

there is no current benefit in landing anything on the moon at this point.

mars is apparently where humans will go to next.

wow!! ! why?
why humans?
so they can do intelligent work and expand bases on mars by utilizing surrounding raw materials, rather than having to build a base piece by piece ferrying everything there from earth.

hmm...but what have we got to gain from establishing a human colony on mars?
it is not terraformable. it is geologically dead.

anyway, if there was some reason to plonk a base there, then the moon would be the next step in the process after the initial trial of a few astronauts to land on mars, and "have a trot around", and come straight back to earth.

if it was decided that there were many more people needed for missions such as a mars base, then it would be wise to create water on the moon from the hydrogen and oxygen in the rocks, and then blast off to mars from there after loading up with supplies as it has only one sixth the gravity of earth.

send supplies on unmanned cargo ships to the moon, have a few people based there to process it and also mine water and pure oxygen and fuels to load the actual manned vehicles to embark for mars.

the moon has a minimal "slingshot" capacity, so when more frequencies of missions are factored in, it is wiser to have shuttles to the moon and then the mars craft fully laden can embark from there.

but there is no reason to go to mars. it's got nothing we need except for a deep seated idea in religion as to "are we the only ones?"

the earth has more minerals than it can ever use, and the only thing we are going to run out of is fossil fuels and you are not going to find them on mars (let alone the moon).

some very silly people assert that humans must strive to find another planet on which to live because the sun will not last forever.

jeez we have to hurry up!! ! we only have 250 million years of the habitable time left!! !
(it is the case that while the sun is going to become a red giant in about 4 billion years (another topic which i must be careful not to get snared in), in 250 million years, the habitability of earth in human terms will be quite low.

250 million years is longer than the dinosaurs existed.

humans will certainly have become extinct or morphed into something we today can not recognize by then.

there is no way human brains can solve how to go faster than the speed of light within even millions more years of evolution.

whatever.
it's great fun to play with rockets and send adrenaline junkies going on daring missions.

maybe they could make a reality TV show like "big brother" that covers the whole trip and partially funds the mission and also entices people to join up for the program.