Notices
Results 1 to 57 of 57

Thread: How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon?

  1. #1 How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911
    How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon?
    Or do we take whatever NASA's word, and pictures for it?

    Can we be surer that that actually happened?

    Aren't the only things we have to 'know' that he landed on the moon:
    1) NASA said it.
    2) NASA gave some low definition pictures of it.
    3) NASA gave some low sound clips of it?


    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,542
    Ramen, do you go out of your way to find crank stuff to ask about?

    Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Here are pictures of the lunar lander taken from earths telescopes. Now is that enough proof or do you want to see my moon rocks?

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon?
    Or do we take whatever NASA's word, and pictures for it?

    Can we be surer that that actually happened?...
    Well, we do know they would not have had enough time or enough fuel to land on on Mars or anywhere like that, so yeah, it pretty much has to be the moon they landed on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    Aren't the only things we have to 'know' that he landed on the moon:
    1) NASA said it.
    2) NASA gave some low definition pictures of it.
    3) NASA gave some low sound clips of it?
    We have a lot more than that, including physical proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Well, we do know they would not have had enough time or enough fuel to land on on Mars or anywhere like that, so yeah, it pretty much has to be the moon they landed on.
    That had enough fuel to land on Earth!
    *cough*Nevada desert*cough*

    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    @ Red Panda:
    If they had gone there the Mexican illegal immigrants would have stole their moonbuggy, and we know that didn't happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    *cough*Nevada desert*cough*

    Capricorn One reference?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Capricorn One reference?
    Thanks, I missed that one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon?
    Or do we take whatever NASA's word, and pictures for it?

    Can we be surer that that actually happened?

    Aren't the only things we have to 'know' that he landed on the moon:
    1) NASA said it.
    2) NASA gave some low definition pictures of it.
    3) NASA gave some low sound clips of it?
    I doubt that you're actually curious to know the answer, for a 3-second Google search turns up many definitive refutations of the standard conspiracy fantasy. But if you are merely misguided and are sincerely interested in the answer, rather than trolling, go study Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax for a start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon?
    This gets the award for the "Most Unoriginal Thought of the Year." Why choose a tired, worn-out, idiotic, debunked at least 1000 times, conspiracy theory? Couldn't you find something equally stupid, but newer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    I'm with Chuck...this train done rode out the station. Let's come up with some new conspiracies. Like the shooting down of the plane by "Russian Separatists" ...Clearly this was a case of the Mossad and Illuminati taking control of existing military assets, and shooting down the plane....in order to kill several key members of the Reptilian elite....duh! it's right in front of your face! Wake up Sheeple!

    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon?
    This gets the award for the "Most Unoriginal Thought of the Year." Why choose a tired, worn-out, idiotic, debunked at least 1000 times, conspiracy theory? Couldn't you find something equally stupid, but newer?
    I agree completely. RamenNoodles apparently didn't read the memo. This topic is stone-cold dead. Even BAUT/CQ doesn't get posts by these guys these days. Sites like clavius.org have taken the wind out of their sails. And Buzz Aldrin's "punch heard 'round the moon" took care of Sibrel in a way that reasoned argument couldn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    And Buzz Aldrin's "punch heard 'round the moon" took care of Sibrel in a way that reasoned argument couldn't.
    That was a great event. I read somewhere that Sibrel even had to apologize to Aldrin later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    I'd seen this 2min clip posted up on a similar thread. Sums it up a bit.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    I'd seen this 2min clip posted up on a similar thread. Sums it up a bit.
    I love those guys.

    The bit about catering costs is brilliant. Gets me every time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    ...
    This topic is stone-cold dead. Even BAUT/CQ doesn't get posts by these guys these days. Sites like clavius.org have taken the wind out of their sails.
    ...
    Lately the comment I see a lot (from people who presumably hadn't been "involved" in such discussions before) is "oh, the mythbusters already proved it wasn't a hoax".

    That initially irked me a little as these people don't seem aware of all the others who've already been fighting the good fight against ignorance, but in the end, it's good that the truth gets out in any form.

    (Probably fair enough, too, as some people got introduced to the idea of a hoax through that Fox "documentary"; if they get back to the truth through another populist TV show, that may be 'balanced'.)

    I think the other reason for the deadness of the topic is that real hoax believers (as opposed to Trolls trying to kick up a fuss) don't bother much with moderated forums anyway, as they can't get their lies to stick. They instead use things like youtube to post videos - where they can control the comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Hunter
    @ Red Panda:
    If they had gone there the Mexican illegal immigrants would have stole their moonbuggy, and we know that didn't happen.
    The moonbuggy was made of cardboard.
    No-one wanted to steal it.

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    *cough*Nevada desert*cough*
    Capricorn One reference?
    Although yes, it was a reference, the film actually came out after the conspiracies involving the Nevada desert.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    Lately the comment I see a lot (from people who presumably hadn't been "involved" in such discussions before) is "oh, the mythbusters already proved it wasn't a hoax".

    That initially irked me a little as these people don't seem aware of all the others who've already been fighting the good fight against ignorance, but in the end, it's good that the truth gets out in any form.

    (Probably fair enough, too, as some people got introduced to the idea of a hoax through that Fox "documentary"; if they get back to the truth through another populist TV show, that may be 'balanced'.)
    I guess that does satisfy a certain Dali-esque symmetry principle.

    I think the other reason for the deadness of the topic is that real hoax believers (as opposed to Trolls trying to kick up a fuss) don't bother much with moderated forums anyway, as they can't get their lies to stick. They instead use things like youtube to post videos - where they can control the comments.
    I continue to hope that Idiocracy was just a movie, rather than prophecy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    This topic is stone-cold dead.
    Obviously. The OP can't even be bothered to respond.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Ramen, do you go out of your way to find crank stuff to ask about?

    Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    After reading most of the third party sources, I believe that the spacecraft landed on the moon.

    But how about the original post about "Neil Armstrong actually landing on the moon"?
    Can the first party (NASA, the U.S. government) prove that the mission had men on it, with the footstep/ flag as evidence?

    Not trying to encourage raging here...
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,542
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Yeah, it was Armstrong because he flubbed his famous quote.
    snopes.com: Neil Armstrong's First Words on the Moon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,825
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon?
    I have the commemorative mug.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Theoretically speaking such an major event could be a setup.
    (Just to get things straight : i am no hoax believer at all.)
    But that would require a huge huge huge conspiracy, with a huge huge huge amount of people involved in it
    to cover a huge huge huge amount of angles.

    >To rediculous and to improbable to be true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    But how about the original post about "Neil Armstrong actually landing on the moon"?
    Can the first party (NASA, the U.S. government) prove that the mission had men on it, with the footstep/ flag as evidence?

    Not trying to encourage raging here...
    What uneducated, backwards, paranoid place on this planet do these people come from? And how do they accumulate 850+ posts on a science forum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon?
    Or do we take whatever NASA's word, and pictures for it?

    Can we be surer that that actually happened?

    Aren't the only things we have to 'know' that he landed on the moon:
    1) NASA said it.
    2) NASA gave some low definition pictures of it.
    3) NASA gave some low sound clips of it?
    Don't forget that it was a space race and it was a major embarrassment for the USSR for us to get there first. They therefore must have tried everything to prove that we didn't get there such as pointing out that the radio signals and telemetry weren't coming from the moon. They could also shine a laser beam onto the corner-cube reflector mirrors that Neil and Buzz left on the moon.

    You mean to tell me that you never considered these very obvious points?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Laredo, TX, USA
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by physicist View Post
    Don't forget that it was a space race and it was a major embarrassment for the USSR for us to get there first. They therefore must have tried everything to prove that we didn't get there such as pointing out that the radio signals and telemetry weren't coming from the moon. They could also shine a laser beam onto the corner-cube reflector mirrors that Neil and Buzz left on the moon.

    You mean to tell me that you never considered these very obvious points?
    Maybe these people seriously think the USSR agreed to be humiliated as the loser in the race to the moon? I don't think a Russian would stop with a single punch if that was ever said to his face, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Relevant:


    (taken from xkcd)
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    ^like
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    A picture of a man walking on the moon from Google.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...GpIGnPlgvS2X0Q
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Relevant:


    (taken from xkcd)

    *cough* curiosity *cough*
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Relevant:


    (taken from xkcd)

    *cough* curiosity *cough*

    When you go to the original webpage and hover with mouse over the comic, it states:
    Ok, so Spirit and Opportunity are pretty awesome. And Kepler. And New Horizons, Cassini, Curiosity, TiME, and Project M. But c'mon, if the Earth were a basketball, in 40 years no human's been more than half an inch from the surface.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    True, but has there been a REASON to put a human on the surface of another body? Personally, I think drones are the future of exploration and humans will only step foot in dangerous new environments after the machines have set up shop. Makes more sense financially and in terms of risk to life. I would apologize for derailing the thread, but after another glance at the title...meh.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    I would like to know how they got off the Moon. This little capsule on top of the landing module had to have the capability to rise up and accelerate to the speed of the lunar orbiting module. It is not just a matter of being fired up from the surface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would like to know how they got off the Moon. This little capsule on top of the landing module had to have the capability to rise up and accelerate to the speed of the lunar orbiting module. It is not just a matter of being fired up from the surface.
    They used a felt pen, look it up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Relevant:


    (taken from xkcd)
    Actually, the reverse argument makes a good case of why we did go to the Moon. They did it more than once. It's the old magician adage: "Never repeat a trick". If you faked a Moon landing and got away with it, you don't risk everything by faking a second, third, etc. Every time you do so increases the chance of the fakery being uncovered. Instead you do it once, then "decide" that the risks are too high and benefits too low to warrant a second trip.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would like to know how they got off the Moon. This little capsule on top of the landing module had to have the capability to rise up and accelerate to the speed of the lunar orbiting module. It is not just a matter of being fired up from the surface.
    They used a felt pen, look it up.
    A felt pen? Do they even work on the Moon?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would like to know how they got off the Moon. This little capsule on top of the landing module had to have the capability to rise up and accelerate to the speed of the lunar orbiting module. It is not just a matter of being fired up from the surface.
    Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. They needed a propulsion system that could accelerate a spacecraft through space somehow. If only someone could invent such a propulsion system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would like to know how they got off the Moon. This little capsule on top of the landing module had to have the capability to rise up and accelerate to the speed of the lunar orbiting module. It is not just a matter of being fired up from the surface.
    Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. They needed a propulsion system that could accelerate a spacecraft through space somehow. If only someone could invent such a propulsion system.
    Guidance systems retro-rockets propulsion, stabilizers what else? There was no ground control. It really is the feat that takes my surprise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would like to know how they got off the Moon. This little capsule on top of the landing module had to have the capability to rise up and accelerate to the speed of the lunar orbiting module. It is not just a matter of being fired up from the surface.
    Well let's see:

    The fully fueled mass of the ascent stage was 4700 kg and its dry mass was 2150 kg. ( most of its mass was fuel) It has an engine with a an ISP of 311, so using the rocket equation we get an estimated delta v of ~2.4 km/s. The escape velocity from the surface of the Moon is 2.375 km/s, and to reach lunar orbit you don't need to fully reach escape velocity, so there we have it.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Well let's see:
    The fully fueled mass of the ascent stage was 4700 kg and its dry mass was 2150 kg. ( most of its mass was fuel) It has an engine with a an ISP of 311, so using the rocket equation we get an estimated delta v of ~2.4 km/s. The escape velocity from the surface of the Moon is 2.375 km/s, and to reach lunar orbit you don't need to fully reach escape velocity, so there we have it.
    Are saying it WASN'T aliens?
    Or even magic?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would like to know how they got off the Moon. This little capsule on top of the landing module had to have the capability to rise up and accelerate to the speed of the lunar orbiting module. It is not just a matter of being fired up from the surface.
    They used a felt pen, look it up.
    A felt pen? Do they even work on the Moon?
    They broke the switch to fire their rockets. They were able to use the felt pen as a fix for the problem.
    To bad you didn't look it up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would like to know how they got off the Moon. This little capsule on top of the landing module had to have the capability to rise up and accelerate to the speed of the lunar orbiting module. It is not just a matter of being fired up from the surface.
    They used a felt pen, look it up.
    A felt pen? Do they even work on the Moon?
    They broke the switch to fire their rockets. They were able to use the felt pen as a fix for the problem.
    To bad you didn't look it up.
    Rome wasn't built in a day!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    79
    The command module would have continued to orbit in the same plane as it was in when the lander detached and landed. So there's no all that much guidance going on for the rendevouz.

    And the timings for it all would have been able to have been worked out well in advance - on Earth with all the big heavy computers. (Known altitude of command module, speed of orbit, acceleration of ascent module, etc, all knowable figures - and I expect able to be done with pencil by the crews).

    And the final docking once "close" was manually controlled.

    So I'm not at all surprised it was possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    And the final docking once "close" was manually controlled.
    And after ascent, but before they were close, they had rendezvous radar to find each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    The command module would have continued to orbit in the same plane as it was in when the lander detached and landed. So there's no all that much guidance going on for the rendevouz.

    And the timings for it all would have been able to have been worked out well in advance - on Earth with all the big heavy computers. (Known altitude of command module, speed of orbit, acceleration of ascent module, etc, all knowable figures - and I expect able to be done with pencil by the crews).

    And the final docking once "close" was manually controlled.

    So I'm not at all surprised it was possible.
    You are making some wild guesses there, aren't you? I have often planned to study how they met up with each other but generally this bit of the mission just seems to be ignored.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    And the final docking once "close" was manually controlled.
    And after ascent, but before they were close, they had rendezvous radar to find each other.
    That is interesting for it gives me a term ("rendezvous radar") to search for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I have often planned to study how they met up with each other but generally this bit of the mission just seems to be ignored.
    Apollo 11 Lunar Rendezvous - The Untold Story of NASA’s Apollo 11 Moon Mission - Popular Mechanics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I have often planned to study how they met up with each other but generally this bit of the mission just seems to be ignored.
    Apollo 11 Lunar Rendezvous - The Untold Story of NASA’s Apollo 11 Moon Mission - Popular Mechanics
    That was an amazing summary of the issues they faced. Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If you want to see how all the mechanics work, go play Kerbal Space Program. It's a bit silly, and they've taken some liberties with scale and the like, but it does give you a really good feel for how things work in space. After playing for a while, it's really not all that hard to do a rendezvous or fly to the moon and back with almost no planning. Some of that ease is due to the much smaller scale, some of it is due to the fact that kerbals don't need life support, and some is due to the information you've got to work with which real astronauts must calculate for themselves, but some of it is due to how predictable things are without an atmosphere (predictable, but not intuitive for most people).

    Compared to the rockets needed to get in to space in the first place, a ship to go to the moon, land and then come back can be quite small.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ Most of you know these things, and some better than I. The following is a brief run down as I understand it..
    If there remains a argument I am unaware of it.. but would not mind at all being corrected if the need is seen..
    Apollo eight was the first maned flight out to the moon.. It did not have the lander and hardware to make a landing.. and did not..
    I seem to remember it.. Apollo nine did not leave Earth orbit but did undertake the undock and re docking required..
    Apollo ten did the whole thing but could not make the landing as it did not carry a completed ascent engine..
    Apollo eleven we seem to know all about.. twelve was equally successful. Thirteen blew a oxygen bottle and for more detail of that event.. They made a movie for you.. Fourteen through to seventeen were all successful missions to the lunar surface.. The last three included the buggy or maned rover.. That's a very brief and non to accurate account of the Lunar Missions.. Nine maned missions and with twelve people actually walking on the moon... Six manned landings. To ask the question posed is a sample of extreme ignorance and appalling judgments..
    ~ as has been well said; Do you think that the rest of the world would have let such lies become events of history and not made idiots of NASA.. and the USA ?... Yes.. is the only answer acceptable.. Would the USSR have let such as the lies above be unchallenged.. no..
    How can so well educated people be so silly.. I have never understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You are making some wild guesses there, aren't you? I have often planned to study how they met up with each other but generally this bit of the mission just seems to be ignored.
    Nope, I don't think my assumptions were wild at all. My main point was just that I'm not at all surprised it was possible; my surprise is only about your surprise, in post #40.


    (And I don't agree that it's ignored. I've been reading about this stuff for years now, and have seen rendezvous discussed.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    If you want to see how all the mechanics work, go play Kerbal Space Program. It's a bit silly, and they've taken some liberties with scale and the like, but it does give you a really good feel for how things work in space. After playing for a while, it's really not all that hard to do a rendezvous or fly to the moon and back with almost no planning. Some of that ease is due to the much smaller scale, some of it is due to the fact that kerbals don't need life support, and some is due to the information you've got to work with which real astronauts must calculate for themselves, but some of it is due to how predictable things are without an atmosphere (predictable, but not intuitive for most people).

    Compared to the rockets needed to get in to space in the first place, a ship to go to the moon, land and then come back can be quite small.

    Relevant:


    (taken from xkcd)
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    408
    Isn't it as simple as buying yourself a powerful private telescope and aim it at the listed landing sites?

    Or, alternatively, go up there yourself, when we get those space elevators built.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Isn't it as simple as buying yourself a powerful private telescope and aim it at the listed landing sites?

    ...
    Not even Hubble can get a good look at the sites (to a resolution that shows landers).

    Some of the recent "visitors" to the Moon have seen tracks and stuff - I'll do a search for you.


    Edit:
    e.g. http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11...oon-photo.html
    e.g. http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/..._kaguya_e.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Currently and still working, NASA has a Lunar Orbiter mapping and photographing in high resolution the Lunar surface.. All of it.
    Some excellent views of ALL the previous landing sites are available to view.. and a search via Google will reveal all.. or check out the NASA site.. they share.. Some good images of the Apollo sites are freely available.. Just a little research for your self will meet your demands for images.. really.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Neil Armstrong dead
    By Geometrogenesis in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 27th, 2013, 04:03 AM
  2. For you Neil deGrasse Tyson fans...
    By TheCustomer99 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 24th, 2013, 01:50 PM
  3. Neil Degrasse Tyson is awesome
    By SpacemanSpiff in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2012, 06:32 AM
  4. what would happen if aliens landed on earth??
    By Lewis Pratt in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 17th, 2011, 10:05 AM
  5. Karen Armstrong
    By mitchellmckain in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: May 12th, 2010, 09:38 AM
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
  •