I've got to doubt that man ever landed on the Moon...

Zeuhl34

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Posts
2,027
Media
19
Likes
144
Points
208
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Since you asked;

1. Why did NASA recently announce that it would take scientists 15 years to design and build a craft to go back to the moon? Why should it take longer now with more technology? We did it in less than 10 years back in the '60's or did we?

We managed to do it so quickly because A) There was a lot of political capital riding on our beating the Soviets to the moon, and B) Safety standards back then were not quite as rigorous as they are today.

Looking back now, it's clear to see that a lot of the Soviet space program was something of a shit-show, but in the 1960s, nobody outside of the Soviet government knew that. It was of tantamount political importance to upstage the Soviets at something like this.

Also, the Apollo crafts would not pass modern safety rigors. The ship was thrown together (relatively) hastily, and it would not provide adequate shielding from radiation and other spacebound dangers. That's how they were able to do it so quickly.

2. How could they have powered air conditioning in 200+ degrees for three days with only batteries?
I'm not quite sure about this, but I'd wager that NASA would've really loaded up on the batteries. That, and I've heard that it was pretty terribly hot in the ship anyway.

3. The space shuttle has killed approximately 14 people just orbiting about 250 miles above the earth how is it a half century ago we have gone six times to another planet and back with no lives lost?
Firstly, the moon isn't a planet; it's a satellite. Secondly, there have been 134 space shuttle missions over a 30-year span, of which two ended in disaster. Furthermore, both tragedies were the result of oversight of (what turned out to be) a serious issue.

4. Why does the flag that was placed on the moon billow in the wind when there is no atmosphere or wind?
It isn't waving. When it was planted on the moon, the astronauts twisted the pole back and forth to drive it into the lunar soil. This created waves and ripples in the material that stayed like that due to the extremely weak gravitational force. It isn't billowing.

5. Why did NASA in 2002 admit that they could not adequately protect the astronauts working in the International Space Station from radiation yet we did it back in '69?

Because we didn't. Being exposed to the radiation of space (barring a neutrino blast or something of that magnitude) isn't some sort of BAM! You're Dead!-type situation. It means that you'll just very likely get cancer a couple decades down the line if you were exposed to enough.
 
Last edited:

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
3. The space shuttle has killed approximately 14 people just orbiting about 250 miles above the earth how is it a half century ago we have gone six times to another planet and back with no lives lost?
Firstly, the moon isn't a planet; it's a satellite. Secondly, there have been 134 space shuttle missions over a 30-year span, of which two ended in disaster. Furthermore, both tragedies were the result of oversight of (what turned out to be) a serious issue.
Thanks, Zeuhl, for taking the trouble to reply to this stuff, but on this particular point, you might have also mentioned that one of the moon missions, Apollo 13, suffered a disastrous failure which nearly did lead to the death of all three astronauts—although, of course, hoax believers will say that the event was just another elaborate fiction contrived by the people who secretly control the US government. :rolleyes:

Edited to add: Oops! I forgot that there was another Apollo mission in which all three astronauts DID die, namely Apollo 1, though it was not a mission to the moon and the fatal accident occurred during a test on the launching pad. No doubt the hoax believers will tell us that this was because their controllers were afraid that one or more of them would betray the secret of the hoax. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
1

185248

Guest
Geeze...It's not all that hard after the take off...there's nothin in between on the way there, and on the way back it's all downhill. :)
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Geeze...It's not all that hard after the take off...there's nothin in between on the way there, and on the way back it's all downhill. :)

Don't be naive! How can rockets travel through space when there's NOTHING TO PUSH AGAINST?






:rolleyes:
 

ManofThunder

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Posts
4,820
Media
52
Likes
1,913
Points
248
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Don't be naive! How can rockets travel through space when there's NOTHING TO PUSH AGAINST?






:rolleyes:
*in the voice of a child* I lost my grip on a balloon in the garden and it floated away. :frown1: Mummy said it would come back. The next day I found a balloon of slightly different colour in my room. That's science.
 

grumpyguy

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Posts
112
Media
10
Likes
271
Points
418
Location
santa barbara, ca
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
As an aerospace engineer, I'll add my two cents.

There's no question we went to the moon. To say we didn't means we fooled the Russians, their telescopes, their radar, and virtually every engineer, technician, and other personnel that worked on the vehicles, the launches, and the recoveries. Also, the technology spinoffs seem to be from a moon mission, not an elaborate hoax. So, the simplest explanation is we went there.

I agree it does seem impossible though. But consider that most technological advances are related to the silicon chip and computers don't buy you much when you're trying to reach escape velocity. For that, you still need a big rocket. So the advantages we have today don't help that much.

The disadvantages of today are far more daunting. The generation that went to the moon was truly the greatest generation. They won World War II and were used to imagining the impossible, from an invasion the size of Normandy to the atomic bomb. That took a vision of men we could imagine everything but the concept of impossible.

That greatest generation was followed by the worst, one whose vision only extends to their own personal needs, low taxes for themselves, less government except what government does for them, to Hell with everyone else, and a capacity for delusion so great that they imagine that such self-gratification is the teaching of a voluntarily impoverished man of 2 millenia ago. Such a generation couldn't even manage low Earth orbit let alone a man on the moon.

Nice thread and I've enjoyed it very much.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This might help. Moon landing hoax? (Part 1 of 5.)

I watched all five parts. It is very well done, on the whole, but I have some misgiving about how they use the phrase "myth busted." What happens in each case is that an argument for the hoax theory, not the theory itself, is experimentally undermined. The arguments are typically of the form: "In the photos supposedly taken on the moon, we see effect X; but effect X would not occur under lunar conditions; therefore, the photos were faked." The Mythbusters then show that, under the conditions of the moon landing, you can in fact get effect X. What they prove is that the principal arguments for the hoax theory rest on premises that can be experimentally proved false. Of course, a person deeply committed to the hoax theory may maintain it even in the absence of all supporting evidence, and probably will do so. For people who have not gone all the way into Crazy Town, though, it is valuable to have the proof that the principal facts cited by the hoax believers as evidence of fakery are in fact no such evidence.
 

tgirlsrgreat

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Posts
75,013
Media
1,515
Likes
107,368
Points
393
Location
Austin, Texas, US
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Since you asked;

1. Why did NASA recently announce that it would take scientists 15 years to design and build a craft to go back to the moon? Why should it take longer now with more technology? We did it in less than 10 years back in the '60's or did we?

2. How could they have powered air conditioning in 200+ degrees for three days with only batteries?

3. The space shuttle has killed approximately 14 people just orbiting about 250 miles above the earth how is it a half century ago we have gone six times to another planet and back with no lives lost?

4. Why does the flag that was placed on the moon billow in the wind when there is no atmosphere or wind?

5. Why did NASA in 2002 admit that they could not adequately protect the astronauts working in the International Space Station from radiation yet we did it back in '69?

Shall I continue?
thank you

to answer a couple of question

to make it safer

lives were lost(assbag) not only the three on the launchpad, but a number of others in training.

lack of gravity will make a flag float

things change and our willingness to risk lives adapts accordingly

what else would you like to know??
 

ManofThunder

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Posts
4,820
Media
52
Likes
1,913
Points
248
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I watched all five parts. It is very well done, on the whole, but I have some misgiving about how they use the phrase "myth busted." What happens in each case is that an argument for the hoax theory, not the theory itself, is experimentally undermined. The arguments are typically of the form: "In the photos supposedly taken on the moon, we see effect X; but effect X would not occur under lunar conditions; therefore, the photos were faked." The Mythbusters then show that, under the conditions of the moon landing, you can in fact get effect X. What they prove is that the principal arguments for the hoax theory rest on premises that can be experimentally proved false. Of course, a person deeply committed to the hoax theory may maintain it even in the absence of all supporting evidence, and probably will do so. For people who have not gone all the way into Crazy Town, though, it is valuable to have the proof that the principal facts cited by the hoax believers as evidence of fakery are in fact no such evidence.
Yes, I thought they did a good job. I know what you mean, the show can be a little too 'fun-based' at times and that can cause it to appear more amateurish than it really is. Although their use of the phrase, "myth busted" can be technically inaccurate at times - (because some of the time they really do completely 'bust' a myth) I think it's more important that they have a simplified stock-phrase that engages the audience and other people of TV-land. I'd rather see a semi-educational show with a light-side, that appeals to the masses, than a boring science show that feels more like a college lecture. I like to think the show changed the mind of at least one conspiracy theorist. Having said all that - your version could be fun too! I would love them to say (in place of "myth busted"), "...what we've proved is that the principal arguments for the hoax theory rest on premises that can be experimentally proved false". *show ends* :tongue: That would make my day - possibly week.

All them Van Halen radiators bleached the fucker.
Pah! Def Leppard, all the way. :wink:
 

spoon

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
3,206
Media
11
Likes
115
Points
208
Location
On a dark desert highway.
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
i don't think they landed on the moon. government hoax. <<<<<There have been several books written to promote this claim, and more articles. There was even a movie with a similar plot, Capricorn One, (1977). The difference was that in the movie, the fake landing was for Mars, not the moon>>>>>>>>>>>>
 

camper joe

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Posts
2,744
Media
0
Likes
457
Points
193
Location
North Carolina
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I guess I'm one of those. When I say that I mean; Hey I saw the moon landing, so yes it happen. Yes I was one of the millions who watched it live on TV as it happen. Us kids were told to watch as a man stepped on the moon for the first time, we all watch in awe and witness history has it unfolded.:reporter:
Secondly, I agree with what was said earlier, that if we had tried to fate it, the Russians would have been blowing the whistle before the flag didn't go up. :unitedstates:
Thirdly, My mom has always bragged no her first cousin. He had been recruited from Westingtonhouse by NASA to come work on their new project of getting a man to the moon. And that he stayed there until he retired.
 
Last edited:

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
i don't think they landed on the moon. government hoax. <<<<<There have been several books written to promote this claim, and more articles. There was even a movie with a similar plot, Capricorn One, (1977). The difference was that in the movie, the fake landing was for Mars, not the moon>>>>>>>>>>>>
Have you ever tried to educate yourself by reading something written from a skeptical perspective, such as the page by Phil Plait that I cited above? Or at least watched the Mythbusters episode that Manofthunder cited? Have you not been made suspicious by the fact that the arguments in support of the hoax theory are so utterly shabby and misinformed?

And have you never noticed how utterly retarded it seems to suppose that such a hoax could be pulled off, with all the hundreds or thousands of conspirators keeping silent and leaving not a trace of positive evidence?
 

lafever

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Posts
4,934
Media
28
Likes
2,755
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If you sent an unmanned spaceship to the moon and back all you'd have to do is fill in the blanks with studio shots, and the skeptics on earth watching through telescopes could verify the hoax. :eek:
 
Last edited:

workandplay243

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Posts
457
Media
23
Likes
4
Points
53
Location
O.C. California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
WHY would we or our government even try to hoax going to the moon. Doesn't make sense. I always wondered why Nasa hasn't set up shop on the surface, though, instead building elaborate space stations.
 

hypoc8

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
717
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
238
Location
SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Some more questions;

1. If debris from the Apollo missions were left on the moons surface should it not be visible today through a powerful telescope? The Clemintine probe that recently mapped the moons surface failed to show any of the Apollo debris left there by man during these missions. Where did the moon buggy and base of the lunar module go?

2. In '69 computer chips hadn't been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k and was housed in a large air conditioned building. In '02 a computer required a minimum of 64mb of memory to run a simulated moon landing, and that didn't include the memory required to take off again after landing. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory, the equivalent of a simple calculator.

3. Instead of being able to jump at least 10 feet high in one-sixth gravity why was the highest jump less than two feet?

4. Why did the moon buggy have a width similar to a small car if it had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity it would have to have a width of 20 feet to keep from flipping over at most turns.

5. The astronauts water sourced air conditioner back packs should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did!

6. The astronauts were easily able to bend their wrists, knees, fingers at 5.2psi, yet a boxers 4psi speedbag is virtually unbendable. They should have looked like the Michelin Man if their suits had been actually pressurized.

7. The lunar module was about the size of two phone booths. There is no way that an astronaut wearing his spacesuit, oxygen tank and other equipment in their backpacks could first fit into their seat nor could they emerge from the module because the exit door opened to the inside. There wasn't enough room!