August 18th, 2007, 01:57 PM
i would like to know peoples views on the moonlanding and the conspiracy theories surrounding it. im new to this forum, i apologise if this is old hat, and dont mind moving it to general discussion if recommended.
my personal point of view is the whole thing is believeable, apart from the footprints in the dust. the amount of thrust needed to land the pod vertically would have blown any dust away for miles with the lack of atmosphere. that reason alone does it for me.
August 18th, 2007, 02:23 PM
We got some good science out of the moon landings aswell as the achievement of landing on another planetary body . The latter is BUNK AND EVERY CONSPIRACY MYTH CAN be more than adequetly explained with a little scientific knowledge.Originally Posted by beats666
ive seen a few documentaries for and against the landings, on one a russian cosmonaut even stated they were glad they lost the race and pulled out because they knew the van allen belt would have killed them, but ive recently read 1mm of lead can protect you against the radiation, you can even avoid it altogether if you take off in the right place. so we can take what we see on the box with a pinch of salt, im big enough to make up my own mind. but there is the dust that helped make the very first footstep, and the force needed to land the pod vertically, i just cant see there being any dust.
Most evidence I've seen for "conspiracy" is ridiculous. If you ever see any evidence you can't refute, just google around. Someone will have done it for you. With actual science as opposed to "HOW CONVENIENT!!!".
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons
And there's one for the 911 "conspiracy".
As for the footprints on the moon...what are you referring to specifically? The pictures of footprints where taken quite a while ago. And when a lander lands, it doesn't kick up dust for "miles around". That's ridiculous. It assumes there is enough air resistance on the moon to cause surrounding areas to be blown (you're applying earth conditions to the moon).
On the moon, the landing could fly right past you and you wouldn't be blown back (and moon landings aren't vertical). If you're talking about the thrust specifically moving the dust...it doesn't blow it up for miles around. What it would do is scatter it in some areas I believe, but nothing further. Then again I'm not fully briefed on landing procedure or technique.
One thing about the moon landing is that it's a literal MIRACLE we made it. We didn't know how dangerous space was at the time, and so many things could have gone wrong. What it was? It was pure dumb luck.
The dust is what is know as regolith and is basically differing sized(micro metres to mm in size) fragments of rock and congealed glass globuals left from lunar impacts. tHIS creates a soil that can hold the form of a footprint.
As for the vertical landing, I dont see the problem . Can you clarify what you mean, taking into account that he moon has 1/6 gravity and no more than a fleeting atmosphere.
Most conspiracies are created by over-analyzing the data at hand. As the moon conspiracy goes, I do not see enough cumulative evidence to suggest that it was truly a conspiracy. I suggest you check out the following:
this is great. i know the pictures of the footprints were taken a while ago, they were taken in 1969. surely there is"less" resistance on the moon because theres only one sixth our gravity. the vertical landing is pertinent because the thrust required to stop the lander crashing to the ground would be enough to send the dust, immaterial of its compound, far and wide, moreso than on earth because there is less frictional loss, i am more than happy to accept man went to the moon, but surely hes got to prove he did.
i recently read Andrew Smith's 'Moon dust' where the author interviews as many of the surviving moon walkers as he could find (funny enough he didn't interview Michael Jackson) - whenever the subject of the moonlanding conspiracy is raised, their common reaction is to roll their eyes, implying that you can't argue with someone who's convinced of a conspiracy (except for Buzz Aldrin, he's more likely to punch you)
ive just read the article on the footprints in the dust, but my arguement is that the dust shouldnt have been there in the first place because it would most certainly have been displaced by the thrusters.
Who or what says the dust didnt do this?
This is definitely a big blunder on the part of the conspiracy theorists. You only kick up dust for miles around if your thrust is creating a lot of pressure in the surrounding atmosphere. The pressure spreads the effect.
On the moon, there's no atmosphere to create pressure in. Each particle thrown out by the thrusters goes straight down with no detours, and while some dust would be kicked up for a moment, it would only be the dust located exactly directly below the thrusters, and it would fall back down immediately. (Not drift around in the air, like it does on earth because .........again....... there's no air to drift around in)
Usually, "luck" doesn't happen. That's why it's called "luck". If a theory requires you to believe that the laws of probability were temporarily suspended, or that our side won the lottery......... then the burden of evidence shifts.
Whichever side is making all the luck claims is the one that needs to be providing all the evidence.
i read somewhere that if a risk analysis had been done on the facts as they are known now, NASA in its current more risk-averse incarnation would not have sent anyone to the moon
seeing the many things that could have gone wrong, it really is a miracle that only Apollo 13 had a mishap
Again with the miracles.......
How many missions did we do? Only 11 and 13 are really all that famous. Didn't we go up to like 17?
If it was a miracle, it probably wouldn't have happened. The odds of a mishap were probably only around 10% or so. Radiation sounds like the most dangerous part, but even if you get hit by a goodly amount of it, you've still only got only so large a chance of dying.
Back then, they only sent Airforce pilots up. They're in the business of risking their life for the benefit of their country. I think it's mostly because of the challenger mission, where an honest to goodness civilian got killed, that they've really had pressure on them to be extra careful.
.......... and that takes all the fun out of it, so no more good TV ratings.
Here is a list of Apollo crews who landed on the moon, along with their military affiliation.
Neil Armstrong Civilian
Buzz Aldrin US Airforce
Pete Conrad US Navy
Alan Bean US Navy
Alan Shepard US Navy
Edgar Mitchell US Navy
David Scott US Airforce
James Irwin US Airforce
John Young US Navy
Charles Duke US Airforce
Eugene Cernan US Navy
Harrison Schmitt Civilian
Now, I know what you meant, but out of deference to the Navy boys I think you should retract the remark that NASA only sent Airforce pilots. 8)
beats666. If you watch and listen to footage of the landing you will hear the remark, moments before touchdown, "kicking up dust", and you will see it very plainly in the film. However, with no atmosphere to suspend it and no wind to carry it away, the dust pretty much settled back down to where it had been. Kojax has made this point already, but it bears repeating because it wholly answers your point, I think.
well thanks everyone for your comments i admit there was a lack of understanding with the dust problem, which seem to have been cleared up, i was surprised there was only me out there with any doubt, but there you go, ill gladly read any more comments anyone would like to make.
I also was concerned about conspiracy on the moon landing issue. What was done with images, I figured, was probably
simply some cosmetics to making them look better and more sensational, I wouldn't really mind that. We all do love
it, right?
I thought about if it was possible such a long way, and back in the '60, like that. But, it's about computers I think. There
was a course set, and it's flying automatically. Kind of drawing an ever straight line for thousands of miles, or in any other
shape you want it to be.being.
Probably, NASA has had radio data transmission back then, and so has been able to even alter the programming, and
that made landing on the moon possible. Chances at least are pretty good for it's truly happened, I would say.
The technology was so advanced, respectively the appliance thereof, even today it's not done no where else as for my
knowledge.
technology advanced ? i think the LEM had something like 64kB computer on board, far less than would fit on a basic floppy
yes i think it would be todays equivelant of a basic calculator was responsible for taking them up there. id still like it to be faked i think, if just for the reason my mother in law said "it must be true i seen it on the telly". it would shut her up. my response was"well i seen predator on the telly!" not a very mature response i know.
Computers back in those days didnt have frivolous memory consumers like graphical displays and user interfaces. It was just pure machine code in and pure code out.
Interestingly enough, I've had numerous well-educated people in the varying computer fields agree that the computers back then were perfectly capable of the trip. The only difficulty they would have had was with landing (if you'll read up, that's just where they had difficulty). The rest is just simple calculations that didn't stress them whatsoever.
Thats what I mean, basically. They don't had to be as advanced as todays operating programs or there like, I thing. But tzhey could have
kept the space vehicle on track, flying it automatically, even with likely interrupted sight towards to the destination (whatsoever ).
Landing on the moon self could have been done manually, again, I guess. That simply also holds some kind of psychological aspects, as
the fact, that no one except astronauts (cosmonauts :-) as well ) are probably used to that kind of procedures. Your computer at home
has not to fly around, it's a statinary item. Thus, interaction of hardware and its programming were not as advance as if the computer had
to be moved by some means, and their programming or would move itself. Its simply the lack motion or the lack of the neccesity to
program hardware towards a certain goal.
When I remember driving the Oldsmobile true 3 states in the US, it did about all itself, but not steering and applying the brakes. I mean
this kind of procedures have not have any impact so far on technologies used out off space programs making it so mysterious.
Again, I don't think you would have to use some outstanding, fancy stuff in terms of computers memory and things like that. Just to keep
the vehicle pointed towards the moon, and having the doors well sealed, of course.
Steve
What you are look-look-look-ing for, you are not willing to interpret...........leave what you guys do, in style, to terror-terror-terror-ists............
you want jewels of opinion???????
what does hollywood da-da-da-MAN-ddddd OF THE scientific community?
OK, excuse my "disorientation"........who's giving the speech.......one day........because it;s like we're all in a foyer............like, is it going to be HAWKING........WHO...........advertisers have a riiiiiiiiighttttttt to know!
Do scientists imagine themselves as THE ONE, or do they have enough respect to know who the ONE is?
The 1 (nnnnnnnnnnnnnn).........to answer what none of you are serious about answering...........
"what will your G-U-T leader look like"?
Are you escaped somewhere, somehow? I'm serious asking. Or too much of the A-Team? Col. Decker? Ever heard of him?
I once heard that there was a theory going around about the Moon landings, that apparently some people believed we never went to the Moon, and that all the images and video were made using (get this) an anti-gravity device we stole from aliens.
...
Okay, yeah, that sounds more plausible than firing a rocket into a Moon. Seriously, can't we hunt these people down and sterilize them or something?
Honestly, though, the most plausible theory I've ever heard of "fake" Moon landings was that NASA goofed and the project got set back, so the first Moon landing was faked as a way of buying more time.
Although I still believe even that is total crap, it's more believable than "anti-gravity devices stolen from space aliens."
I wonder why some people think it's so impossible for someone to have gone to the Moon? Even if you ignore the historical facts and events...the technology, physics, and capabilities of the US space program, were certainly capable of doing the deed. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe.
Don't people have anything better to do with their time and brain matter?
it's a warped sort of (in)credulity - it's totally incredible that people landed on the moon, but it's perfectly OK to believe in alien abductions
Sometimes I think we should cram all those people in a rocket and dump them on the Moon. Give them just enough air to say "Huh."
Dont you guys find it wonderful that we did something they said we couldn't ?and still interrogate in retrospect? This was also an achievement that was for the good of advancement not for destruction .
To you Bible buffs: Perhaps good can prevail from evil after all!
Please don't start a religious flame in here....We all know how tiring they can be.
My apolgies if you felt that way.
I prefer to think of it as accommodating the more stupi......oops! I mean the religious.
I think it just comes from people who genuinely don't believe in their government or maybe just in other human beings in general.
I mean, paranoia, if it comes from personal life experiences, maybe authority figures you've trusted who didn't deliver (like a few preachers that have been getting charged with child molestation), doesn't necessarily mean bad genetics.
I get what you're saying, though. Why attack something that there's little or no evidence to believe against? We've got plenty of more productive things in life to be directing that kind of cynicism toward.
I bet a lot of these people are the same kind of suckers who fall for those lottery scams (where they tell you you won the lottery but they need a special "processing fee" up front).
Maybe so, but don't you think it's a far stretch to go from "government mistrust" to "stolen super-technology from aliens"?
Although I will admit that anyone who blindly believes the government is a fool. There's never been, nor ever will be, a truly honest democracy. There is too much need for half-ways and compensations for the government to be "pure of heart." So there's probably always going to be some modicum of falsehood in everything. That's just the way things are.
So that probably means not all of the Moon mission history is true...but you'd have to really find a battleship worth of hard-steel facts to disprove what we did.
And let's not forget that the same thinking used by many Moon-mission conspiracy buffs, can be used to bunk nearly every piece of history on the planet. That's a downward spiral of stupidity I'd rather avoid with every grain of common sense I possess...
Apropos cynicism, see what a nice huge gash. It's a post landing shot of the shuttle, it' said, as it looks
reaching all the way down to the shuttles body the tiles normally should protect.
Was it fixed in space and the filler went lost on re entry? I seemingly missed this one.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...n_07pd2305.jpg
Not really sure how this relates to the topic, but it was partially patched in space. The fault was deemed not significant enough to cause significant risk during re-entry.
I don't think a full report has been issued yet. The shuttle landed only a few days ago.
There might also some conspiracy taking effect, in blowing up space shuttles. A secret department of NASA fooling us
about alleged advancements. This was the ultimate method to cranking money off the governments back.
You know, when the moon landing was yet fake, lot's of folks within NASA will have no idea, meaning, 'Oh sure that's
not as bad as to lie about landing on the moon.' Let's blow up some shuttle. Like that. Maybe. However there are such
kinds of ambitions within such agencies resulting in errors like the weather being too cold to keeping everything sealed
up, and, therefore, ending in a disaster. There was no other clue cause many say the more expensive, the better, or
saver.
But truly hundreds of millions are being spend, and a seal to cost about some cents doesn't keep up. That's not about
money but about the whole structure of enterprises like that,.stemming from, partly, not to research, but from
interpreting nature.
As an sample, in aviation, in the last decades, the mentality switched from, it had to cause of deadly fatalities, one,
the flight captain, has the last word, the supreme command on board of an airplane towards everyone was being involved
in decision making to determine the faith of the airplane, the crew, the passengers. The cockpit crew I mean, mainly.
It's like moving away from structures of a maritime origin to facing the real situation. As long as there was but a pilot
and a captain on board of airplanes, the situation will not never change cause of the real facts. The captain will have to
decide at the end cause of his superior rank. As long as there are not two pilots an board of an airplane no one should
get on board of a plane cause there is a no way out situation costing the lives of air travelers. The effect will be 'huuch,
now the chances are worse we get killed while flying to some place (we already know what we have to face otherwise),
let's stay home', which, then, saves fuel. I'm kidding, but situations are like that. Not sure if it was to far off topic. But,
also to have one captain on board of airplanes could be due to conspiracy. It's everywhere. Oh my god, THEY ARE
ABOUT TO KILL ALL OF US.
As an sample, in aviation, in the last decades, the mentality switched from, it had to cause of deadly fatalities, one,
the flight captain has the last word the supreme command, on board of an airplane towards everyone is being involved
in decisions to determine the faith of the airplane, the crew, the passengers.
Its liking moving away from structures of a maritime origin to facing the real situation. As long as there was but a pilot
and a captain on board of airplanes, the situation will not never change cause of the real facts. The captain will have to
decide at the end cause of his superior rank. As long as there are not two pilots an board of an airplane no one should
get on board of a plane cause there is a no way out situation costing the lives of air travelers. The effect will be 'huuch,
now the chances are worse we get killed while flying to some place (we already know what we have to face otherwise),
let's stay home', which, then, saves fuel. I'm kidding, but situations are like that. not sure if it was to far off topic. But,
also to have one captain on board of airplanes could be due to conspiracy. It's everywhere. Oh my god, THEY ARE
ABOUT TO KILL ALL OF US.
he he you guys you kill me
I won't, well, I guess.
Nah, go ahead. He's all yours.
You are so sweet.
Supposing Spy satelites can read a cars license plate on earth, cant the biggest telescope photograph on of the various lunar modual remains.
(I know tinfoil hats would say that such a photo was a fake, but for the rest of us it would be a cool photo)
Spy satellites cant read license plates though.
Currently, optical capabilities for research telescopes are capable of resolving objects a little bit smaller than a basketball on the surface of the moon. Footprints being much smaller, and hard to see anyway, are as yet impossible to see. They're probably not even visible on images taken by the highest grade instruments available to humanity (though those wouldn't be releasable).
There's probably a better chance of spotting some of the larger artifacts left behind, such as the Moon rover tracks, or the landing sections of the surface modules.
Literal bugger! :P
They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading.
They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading.
Ever try Google Earth? I'm not sure how much of that is satellites and how much of it is compiled aerial photos, though.
I wouldn't be too surprised if they were able to do serious analysis on the newspaper you're holding and figure out what issue it is, but I'm pretty sure they're not just going to be able to look at the photo and read the headlines with their eyes.
surely we have powerful enough telescopes to see the moons surface very clearly, has anyone ever tried, sucessfully or unsucessfully to observe any remnants of a lunar landing. the moon is vast yes, but we know the landing site, and a shiny object reflecting the sun like a mirror would be easy to spot amidst all the dull grey i would have thought, especially if you know where to look.
KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...
They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading.
But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...
They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading.
But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
And what about your claim that "the smallest they caresolve is in the metres"? :wink:Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...
They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading.
But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
Oh fuck offAnd what about your claim that "the smallest they caresolve is in the metres"? :wink:Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...
They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading.
But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
That would be problematic for Hubble then, too, wouldn't it? I never really considered that, even though Hubble doesn't have to deal with the atmosphere like ground based telescopes, it also doesn't have any huge mirrors.Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...
They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading.
But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
Mind you, I really doubt Nasa is going to turn Hubble on the Moon just to clear this up. They seem to be having too much trouble with its gyroscopes wearing out and such to waste valuable viewing time confirming the Moon landing. Besides, even if they did use it for this, people would just claim the images were faked.
Now Hubble pointing at the moon definitely could only resolve in the metres.That would be problematic for Hubble then, too, wouldn't it? I never really considered that, even though Hubble doesn't have to deal with the atmosphere like ground based telescopes, it also doesn't have any huge mirrors.Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...
They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading.
But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
Mind you, I really doubt Nasa is going to turn Hubble on the Moon just to clear this up. They seem to be having too much trouble with its gyroscopes wearing out and such to waste valuable viewing time confirming the Moon landing. Besides, even if they did use it for this, people would just claim the images were faked.
If people have no knowledge of optical resolution. I recommend people look at some of the images we have of the solar system, before they believe these myths that contemporary probes or satellites can resolve anything.
You would be wrong. The moon is 1/4 million miles away. Have you any idea of the massive radius of aperture you would need to resolve the detail of the remains of the lunar landing sites from that distance?
[quote="kojax
That would be problematic for Hubble then, too, wouldn't it? I never really considered that, even though Hubble doesn't have to deal with the atmosphere like ground based telescopes, it also doesn't have any huge mirrors.
[/quote]
The Hubble has a resolution of .1 arcsec (1/36000 of a degree) At 384,000 km, the distance of the Moon, it would be able to resolve objects no smaller than 186 meters.
Indeed. Assuming Janus's figures are correct(they sound about right), that would mean a 10 km optical diameter would still only resolve 2cm from the earth to the moon. I guess you could be reasonably certain that you could then image the lunar landing sites with that baby.
I love hearing that some people think Google-Earth images represent the pinnacle of imaging technology today. It's good to know someone thinks the government relies on Google-Earth for its operations.
And I'd have to agree, a single telescope with a single mirror, that's using technology as old and public as Hubble's, would have trouble finding a car in a mall parking lot.
Don't worry, though. Publicly releasable imaging technology is identical to the equipment used by the NRO...so s'all good. </sarcasm>
I love hearing that some people think Google-Earth images represent the pinnacle of imaging technology today. It's good to know someone thinks the government relies on Google-Earth for its operations.
And I'd have to agree, a single telescope with a single mirror, that's using technology as old and public as Hubble's, would have trouble finding a car in a mall parking lot.
Don't worry, though. Publicly releasable imaging technology is identical to the equipment used by the NRO...so s'all good. </sarcasm>
$500billion Space interferometers are years off! even for NASA.
Are you sure those figures are taking the lack of atmospheric interference into account? Or maybe atmospheric interference isn't really an issue. I'm not prepared to do that math on those numbers just now. I'd have to fire up Excel, and then remember how to do everything... :x
Google Earth is based upon hybrid imaging. It uses satellite imaging of commercial low resolution (usually Landsat 6/7 imagery at 15 meters per pixel) and aerial ortophotography where available at a resolution of 1 meter per pixel or better.
Most imagery on Google Earth is >3 years old, btw.
And as I said above, the best commercial satellite imagery available is at 60 centimeters per pixel.
| « Exoplanets - can someone explain? | Gaping hole could be a black hole scar? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
