Notices

View Poll Results: So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • [Yes]

    5 22.73%
  • [No]

    17 77.27%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 212 of 212

Thread: So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake?

  1. #201  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    5
    Cheers Lynx_Fox, but please answer my questions, if you'd be so kind, sir/madam? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, kind person, but QED, please, or it didnt happen. Regards, Snide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202 Re: Just some info, si'l vouz plait? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Snidery Mark
    1. Judging by the quality of television transmissions in 1969, I doubt the quality of the video returned to Earth from the moon landing.
    I'm not sure what you are saying here. The quality of TV transmission in the late 1960s was about as good as it was in the early 1990s. The transmissions from the moon were bloody awful. But why would you expect them to be any better than they were? TV cameras at that time were large. With weight and size constraints, the camera(s) used on the Apollo missions necessarily offered second rate quality. Add in the signl deteriroration over distance and you get the end result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snidery Mark
    2. Where and how do they store oxygen in a) The lunar Module b) The Spacesuits and how did they generate enough air to suffice the time they were on the moon (all you ever see here is the space suit with the backpack on the front and the fishbowl on their heads)? For SCUBA diving (for example) the tanks hold enough air to last 80 minutes at one atmospheric pressure. The size of the spacesuit, the size of the lunar module (which was in orbit around the moon for a fair while - See NASA's website) both seem to me to be inconsistent with the SCUBA air tank size. Remembering, of course, that this was in 1969.
    a) With a SCUBA system you take a breath and all the air is expelled. Although it still contains a large volume of usable oxygen, that oxygen is lost. The LM and SM both scrubbed the carbon dioxide out of the air, so that one had only to 'top up' the oxygen.
    b) The spacecraft did not actually use air, but pure oxygen (at a lower pressure).
    c) You can work out for yourself, based upon typical oxygen consumptions, what volume/mass of oxygen would be required for a lunar trip and what volume this would occupy in compressed foem, you will see that this problem simply disappears.


    Quote Originally Posted by Snidery Mark
    3. Who took the film of Neil Armstrong coming down the stairs, if Buzz was inside the module?.

    Have you bothered to do any research on this at all.
    The camera was on a boom which swun out from the spacecraft.

    i have to say your objections appear to be based almost entirely on not knowing what the hell you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snidery Mark
    4. This is a photo of a restored 1969 Sunbeam motor. This seems to be very inconsistent with the technology available in that time to enable a trip to the shops, let alone to the moon..
    The astronauts did not drive to the moon as you well know. do you really think the performance of a 69 Sunbeam was dramatically different from a Toyota Avensis? Oh, your right. as I recall it the Sunbeam brakes worked correctly all the time.

    The present generation of rocket motors are pretty much the same as the rocket motors that were in the Saturn V. Would you like to specify which specific aspects of current rocket technology are markedly superior to the 60s technology? I'd be fascinated to see what you come up with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Snidery Mark
    Cheers Lynx_Fox, but please answer my questions, if you'd be so kind, sir/madam? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, kind person, but QED, please, or it didnt happen. Regards, Snide.
    I'm addressing the technology part. As difficult as the mission was, it wasn't terribly advanced of the sort that required anything approaching complex computational power. The math and physics are simple (both established centuries before), we had lots of experience with the engineering involved with the chemical rocketry which is why it was launched with a transformed military rocket. Even the landing wasn't that complex, Neil did it manually if you remember (I do but I'm old enough to have watched it along with the rest of the nation).
    I guess I'm wondering why showing how obsolete our computers were has anything to do credibility of shooting the moon unless there's some underlying belief that it took a lot of computer power-It didn't.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204 Re: Just some info, si'l vouz plait? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Snidery Mark
    I'm a bit skeptical that man landed on the moon. My main reasons are:

    3. Who took the film of Neil Armstrong coming down the stairs, if Buzz was inside the module?
    No one took it. It was taken by a camera on a leg of the lunar lander.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205 Re: Just some info, si'l vouz plait? 
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The present generation of rocket motors are pretty much the same as the rocket motors that were in the Saturn V. Would you like to specify which specific aspects of current rocket technology are markedly superior to the 60s technology? I'd be fascinated to see what you come up with.
    I feel the need to point out that there are, in fact, no 'motors' on a rocket. Motors would be rather useless, really, seeing as how all a rocket is, in it's simplest form, is a massive concentrate-combustion device, where the fuel burns and ejects the spent fuel as a propellant. This is what drives the rocket, no necessity for any moving parts whatsoever.

    Hell, we could have put a man on the moon way back in the early 1900's. Probably wouldn't have survived, but we could have.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206 Cheers 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    5
    Thanks for that!

    Oh, and I'm just asking questions, Ophiolite, no need to be so condescending. How does anyone learn if they dont ask questions? I'd expect that people on this forum (dedicated to Science) would have the answers - and I was right. You needn't chastise me. S'pose that's what happens when you live in the colder climes, eh?

    Thanks for the info, I'm fairly convinced. Now I have to go find an answer to my JFK questions (See James Files) and I can die in peace! You've made an humble Aussie quite content, danke!

    Regards

    Snide

    PS I hated high school science! :-D

    PPS Oh, and I wasnt saying they had the lumper PCs on board, either. I was just trying to compare the technology of the day with the enormity of the event.

    PPPS Oh, and if Wallace & Gromit can do it, I'm sure the US can, too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207 Re: Just some info, si'l vouz plait? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I feel the need to point out that there are, in fact, no 'motors' on a rocket. Motors would be rather useless, really, seeing as how all a rocket is, in it's simplest form, is a massive concentrate-combustion device, where the fuel burns and ejects the spent fuel as a propellant. This is what drives the rocket, no necessity for any moving parts whatsoever.
    Rockets, powered by liquid fuel, are typically referred to as either rocket engines, or rocket motors (though I agree the latter is less common). the use of the word motor, or engine, does not imply (or exclude) moving parts.

    While the heart of the rocket is nothing more than a combustion chamber, as you say, modern rockets actually have many motors on them, driving pumps. Without these motors fuel could not be fed to the combustion chamber at the required rate, nor could adequate cooling of the combustion chamber be achieved.

    Quote Originally Posted by snideryMark
    Oh, and I'm just asking questions, Ophiolite, no need to be so condescending.
    Some of your questions were good questions. I addressed them objectively. Others, revealed that you had not taken the trouble to do even minor research or employ a modicum of common sense. For those I was condescending. But I thought aussies were meant to be immune to condescension, especially from poms. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    5
    I am not the sort of person that would disrespect you, especially in the field of science (I'm about as noobie in science as a five year old).

    As for pre-researching the subject - I had tried googling, alta vista-ing, etc. but the specific questions I entered into google came back with the usual 3,241 pages of anything varying from animal porn to how to make a rice cake.

    I went to the NASA site and spent a bit of time there. Yet they dont answer specific questions. I read this thread and some of the other myriad posts on this site and realised that my pointlessly stupid questions would be answered here. I am truly in awe of some of the comments posted in response and being made to feel inadequate isnt one of my strong suits.

    As for being an Aussie - I was born in Swindon to Irish parents and am the progeny of the 2 bob poms, so maybe I am a little bit more sensitive than your everyday Aussie, especially now we have a girl leader. :-D

    Thanks very much for your responses and I am very humbled by the quality of response.

    I havent finished with this thread, yet, but havent the time right now to continue. I may have time tomorrow (Sunday) or later this week coming. I hope I may have amused you a little with the Sunbeam motor and the lumper PC. I may not be as ignorant as I appear.

    Nice to meet you Ophiolite and stay warm!

    Cheers

    Sean
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Junior JennLonhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Under the Sun, Moon and Stars
    Posts
    215
    "Be the change you want to see in the world"
    Mahatma Gandhi

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace"
    Jimmy Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    You missed the 5th video where they reflect a laser off of a retro-reflector left on the moon.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dTATMEJSuQ
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Junior JennLonhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Under the Sun, Moon and Stars
    Posts
    215
    My bad =) But anyway, I think that even though it is a TV show, they really proved the point. I mean.... They "busted" all of the conspiracy theories....
    "Be the change you want to see in the world"
    Mahatma Gandhi

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace"
    Jimmy Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212 Re: Just some info, si'l vouz plait? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    These "Dark side of the Moon" videos come the closest of anything I've ever seen toward convincing me the video footage could have been faked. Just cause they actually tell a semi-coherent story, and present a few witnesses to the claimed events who would have been in a position to know. (If they're telling the truth.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ge8KiaWTA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUmqv...eature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j5PQ...eature=related

    However, even in the documentary, they don't go so far as to suggest the landing didn't happen, just that the video wasn't real. (Supposedly they could do everything except bring back film.) Anyway.... you might find them entertaining.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snidery Mark
    2. Where and how do they store oxygen in a) The lunar Module b) The Spacesuits and how did they generate enough air to suffice the time they were on the moon (all you ever see here is the space suit with the backpack on the front and the fishbowl on their heads)? For SCUBA diving (for example) the tanks hold enough air to last 80 minutes at one atmospheric pressure. The size of the spacesuit, the size of the lunar module (which was in orbit around the moon for a fair while - See NASA's website) both seem to me to be inconsistent with the SCUBA air tank size. Remembering, of course, that this was in 1969.
    You can compress air into a pretty small amount of space if you have a strong enough pump. If you compress it too much for a scuba dive, then it would have a density greater than the water around it..... which would weigh the diver down. In space, of course, that isn't a serious concern.

    78% of the air is just Nitrogen, which can be reused (re-breathed) again and again and again. The 20% of it which is oxygen is the part you'd need to compress and bring in a tank.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

    4. This is a photo of a restored 1969 Sunbeam motor. This seems to be very inconsistent with the technology available in that time to enable a trip to the shops, let alone to the moon.
    Ophiolite already mentioned this, but rocket tech hasn't substantially improved in the last 30 years. They had everything we have today in that respect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •