Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 20 votes

Did we land on the moon?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14134 replies to this topic

#391    R3LOAD

R3LOAD

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 651 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2006

Posted 18 May 2007 - 10:01 PM

Did we land on the moon?
I dont know, you dont know
NEXT
thumbsup.gif


#392    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 18 May 2007 - 10:37 PM

Quote

Did we land on the moon?
I dont know, you dont know
NEXT
thumbsup.gif




You may not know, R3LOAD.
I do (as well as several others around this place...).


If you'd like to know, this is the place to get the information which will give you the knowledge that we did.

Your questions, and anyone else's, are more than welcome.







#393    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,848 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 18 May 2007 - 10:44 PM

I found this interesting:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constell...inspection.html



#394    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,215 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 18 May 2007 - 11:42 PM

Quote

You may not know, R3LOAD.
I do (as well as several others around this place...).


With out getting into the philosophical argument as to what knowledge is and whether any thing is actually knowable, I can say that I am as sure as it is possible for me to be that between 1969 and 1972 Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon and returned them safely to the Earth.

I have seen far more evidence for this occurring than I have for Hillary and Tenzing reaching the summit of Everest, Amundsen reaching the South Pole, Picard reaching the Challenger Deep and Alcock and Brown flying the Atlantic combined.

All of these events required great courage and were on the very edge of what was technically achievable at the time, in that they do not differ from Apollo. All of these events have far less evidence to back them up than Apollo and yet very, few people in their right mind, doubt that they happened. We don't have charlatans trying to prove that Everest has never been conquered and that the photos are fake, so what is it with the Moon?

I base my opinion not on pure belief and wishful thinking, but on the vast amount of evidence that shows that Apollo happened and the total lack of evidence to show that there was any hoax.

I admit that I don't understand all the arguments (for example I have never taken photographs in a studio with studio lighting so I am not in a position to comment on that but I do understand landscape photography). I am by profession a chemist, by hobby a photographer and astronomer so I understand a fair few.

When I look at the arguments put forward by the so called (and usually self proclaimed) experts that claim Apollo was a hoax I can honestly say that of those arguments I do understand not one of them holds up to scrutiny. When I can see that those who put forward the case for Apollo being a hoax are purveyors of falsehoods why should I take their word on the the arguments I don't understand?

When I look at the arguments of the experts that show that the Apollo evidence is genuine I find that it holds up to what I know to be correct. In some cases this is because of my professional training or my experience with my hobbies. In some case I have replicated some of the results for myself (several of my photographs appear in various threads on this subject). So when I can see that the pro-Apollo experts are correct in their assertions why should I doubt their word on the arguments that I don't understand?

This is how I came to my conclusion, not the result of blindly following the government line (it's not even my government). Not the result of not being able to see the truth, or think outside the box, or being a sheep and following the majority, or being blind, or being stupid or being a NASA disinformation agent (I have been accused of all of these things). I came to my conclusion the same way I came to my conclusions when analysing a sample in the lab, by believing the evidence before me.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#395    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 19 May 2007 - 10:17 PM

Quote

This is how I came to my conclusion, not the result of blindly following the government line (it's not even my government). Not the result of not being able to see the truth, or think outside the box, or being a sheep and following the majority, or being blind, or being stupid or being a NASA disinformation agent (I have been accused of all of these things). I came to my conclusion the same way I came to my conclusions when analysing a sample in the lab, by believing the evidence before me.


This, ladies and gentlemen of the CT and HB persuasion, is an illustration of SCIENCE in action, as described by a SCIENTIST.  
It is a valuable lesson to learn.


Advice for anyone who wishes to call Waspie stupid ( wacko.gif ):

Chemists are not stupid.  Chemists are really smart folks who do stuff that always made me crazy (Chemistry was always the toughest science for me.  Those guys were always smart beyond smart in my book).  I could only follow them so far before my eyes got blurry, and that was because they were really alot smarter than me.


Advice for anyone who has called Waspie a NASA disinformation specialist:

He cannot be one.  As he pointed out, he's not an American.  
He is a Brit...who happens to have more knowledge and more passion about the history and execution of American spaceflight than many Americans do!

thumbsup.gif





#396    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,215 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 19 May 2007 - 10:46 PM

Quote

Chemistry was always the toughest science for me.

Me too. I became a chemist by accident. I would rather have been a physicist. Anyone that loves organic chemistry has a serious psychological problem in my view.

Quote

Chemists are not stupid.

I am not a great fan of generalisations. Some of the smartest people I have known have been chemists but I have had the misfortune to work with at least one chemist, with far better qualifications than I, who was stupid to the point of being dangerous.

One of the smartest people I know is a friend of mine who is a factory worker.

Qualifications do not always show how bright someone is but they do show that they have expertise in a relevant area. That is why I will believe dozens of qualified geologists that say that the moon rocks are genuine over a (second rate) documentary film maker that says they aren't every single time.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 19 May 2007 - 10:47 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#397    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 20 May 2007 - 10:05 AM

38 years ago, it wasn't that difficult to put men on the Moon.

In 1961, JFK announced men would land on the Moon before the end of the decade. And so we did, 8 years later.

But times have really changed since then. And hardly for the better.

In 2004, Bush announced men would return to the Moon by 2015......well, by 2020, tops.

To the casual observer, it may seem quite odd that it could take up to twice as long to return to the Moon as it did the first time, several decades ago.

Others are puzzled as to why the return trip apparently will require two rockets, when they only needed one rocket, back then.

The answer is really quite simple - we now know much more than they did in the 1960's!

For example, space radiation can be lethal nowadays. In 1969, it was just as lethal. But, since we didn't know that, it wasn't that big a deal. In fact, it was during the Gemini program in the mid-60's when NASA coined their now-famous phrase...."What you don't know can't hurt you!"

As for needing two rockets in the future? It's a little known fact that Apollo capsules were literally running on fumes by the time they got back to Earth. Next time, we'll have a second, fully fueled-up rocket waiting for us in Earth orbit.

I can't wait.





#398    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 20 May 2007 - 10:59 AM

Quote

38 years ago, it wasn't that difficult to put men on the Moon.

In 1961, JFK announced men would land on the Moon before the end of the decade. And so we did, 8 years later.

But times have really changed since then. And hardly for the better.

In 2004, Bush announced men would return to the Moon by 2015......well, by 2020, tops.

To the casual observer, it may seem quite odd that it could take up to twice as long to return to the Moon as it did the first time, several decades ago.

As a matter of interest, Turbonium, how long do you think it will be before a supersonic airliner comes into service?  And was Concorde therefore a hoax?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#399    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 20 May 2007 - 07:42 PM

Quote

Me too. I became a chemist by accident. I would rather have been a physicist. Anyone that loves organic chemistry has a serious psychological problem in my view.


I'm glad you said it, Waspie!
thumbsup.gif


Quote

I am not a great fan of generalisations. Some of the smartest people I have known have been chemists but I have had the misfortune to work with at least one chemist, with far better qualifications than I, who was stupid to the point of being dangerous.

One of the smartest people I know is a friend of mine who is a factory worker.

Qualifications do not always show how bright someone is but they do show that they have expertise in a relevant area. That is why I will believe dozens of qualified geologists that say that the moon rocks are genuine over a (second rate) documentary film maker that says they aren't every single time.


You are, of course, absolutely correct, my friend.
Absolutely correct.

To be honest, I know of one chemist who is indeed intelligent, smart, and all that, but is one of the most miserable human beings, with an overtly inflated ego and dominating nature, that I've seen.

I also know factory workers and truck drivers who are damned smart people.  

I've probably told you before, somewhere, that most all of the guys in the MOCR during the Apollo missions were smart guys.   You'd never guess it by their demeanor.   BS's all, these fellows were, by and large, just regular beer guzzling guys with alot of passion and desire.   They were no more qualified than many to do what they did...in fact, most will tell you that none of them were  qualified to do what they did....they invented how to do what they did as they went along.

As Bob Carlton (an Apollo flight controller) once said:  "We were just a bunch a dumb guys who didn't realize it couldn't be done."  


Perhaps the epitome of smart...


At any rate, I pay you a compliment.
Despite taking three years of Chemistry in high school and college, I was always intimidated by it (or perhaps, more properly, I should say that I found it difficult), and by the chemists whose brains operated in a way that seemed daunting to me (I was just a dumb guy who liked to fly airplanes!!!).

One way or another, you're a smart guy who's posts on this board clearly illustrate that fact.   As I've said before, it's not the qualifications...it's the content which is telling.

Content, you've got.  






#400    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 20 May 2007 - 09:10 PM

Quote

38 years ago, it wasn't that difficult to put men on the Moon.



I have to argue with you Turb...

It was indeed difficult.  Trying, dangerous, and costly in a manner that I sometimes wish to forget.

Quote

But times have really changed since then. And hardly for the better.



This I could likely not agree with more, in certain respects.


Quote

In 2004, Bush announced men would return to the Moon by 2015......well, by 2020, tops.

To the casual observer, it may seem quite odd that it could take up to twice as long to return to the Moon as it did the first time, several decades ago.

Others are puzzled as to why the return trip apparently will require two rockets, when they only needed one rocket, back then.

The answer is really quite simple - we now know much more than they did in the 1960's!



We do indeed know more now than we did in 1961.
Twice as long involves the fact that we have to develop spacecraft and launch vehicles not only to go to the Moon again, but to serve the long-term plans of the manned space program far into the future, in lunar exploration, planetary exploration, and EO operations.

This is actually a much more complex scenario, and it does not involve a political threat, or a need to prove ourselves better than the Soviet Union, which, if it existed today,  might push the program along at a breakneck pace.   We will now take our time, and develop a versatile, multi-purpose STS that can serve us long into the future.  This is a very different program from Apollo.


Quote

For example, space radiation can be lethal nowadays. In 1969, it was just as lethal. But, since we didn't know that, it wasn't that big a deal. In fact, it was during the Gemini program in the mid-60's when NASA coined their now-famous phrase...."What you don't know can't hurt you!"


I shall have to argue this as well.

Space radiation has the potential to be lethal now, just as it did then.  
As I've pointed out, radiation's effects are exposure influenced.   It was well understood what the exposures would be in a two week Apollo Moon mission, and the program was designed and constructed to deal with those exposures.  The fact is, we did know about the radiation, and it wasn't an operation problem because we understood it and planned for the exposures that would be encountered.


Now, we plan for extended stays on the lunar surface, and will of course be planning missions to Mars.   The exposures increase the dangers, and planning, research and experimentation is being done to adress this well known threat.  This is not a mystery.  It is prudent scientific development surrounding a somewhat known quantity, or at least a quantity that we need to know more about specifically, so we can design around it.

Quote

As for needing two rockets in the future? It's a little known fact that Apollo capsules were literally running on fumes by the time they got back to Earth. Next time, we'll have a second, fully fueled-up rocket waiting for us in Earth orbit.



I think it has been thoroughly explained why the development of two launch vehicles is prudent, and very wise, given the use of each one and the plans for manned exploration and Earth orbital spaceflight requirements in lieu of the Shuttle.  It is high-end engineeering being done.

I think the statement about Apollo capsules "running on fumes" is a little nebulous, and essentially incorrect.  

The Apollo CM was designed to separate from the SM prior to entry, and was designed to operate on batteries from that point until splashdown.
Electrical power for the Apollo spacecraft was not a problem.   All of them landed with ample power, fuel, oxygen, and water reserves...by design.

If we look at the Apollo 11 CM, it is clearly shown that 83% of the CM RCS fuel was still on board the vehicle at re-entry, oxygen was at 42%, hydrogen was at 35% of launch-loaded values, and of course water was not a problem, since the H2 and O2 produced the water as a by product of electrical power generation via the fuel cells.   The AS-11 CM potable water tank had more water in it at re-entry than it did at launch.  


Thus I am a little confused at this assertion of the little known fact that the Apollo CMs were "running on fumes".

Quite the contrary, these vehicles had ample reserves at re-entry.  They were designed to have them; they utilized SM consumables during the trip to the Moon and back, and the SM had reserves when it was jettisoned just prior to entry.  


As to the future lunar exploratory plans, Orion is intended to return to the Earth in a very similar manner to that which the Apollo CM did.   It will return from the Moon and re-enter the atmosphere, under it's own internal power, will deploy parachutes, fire retro rockets, and soft land on the ground.  
It will do so with ample power and consumable reserves, just as the Apollo CM did.

The primary difference is that the Orion will be recycled for future use.  

There will be no other rocket waiting in Earth orbit for an Orion lunar return.  That will be unnecessary.
In the future, however, an Orion will be the Earth entry vehicle for Mars missions.   It may be waiting in Earth orbit for a future manned Mars exploratory craft, or it may be a part of the Mars vehicles configuration.  I am not sure at this point.

But the bottom line is, Apollo CMs were absolutely not running on fumes when they returned to the Earth, and neither will Orion be when she returns from a lunar mission.


#401    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 22 May 2007 - 10:18 PM

Quote

As a matter of interest, Turbonium, how long do you think it will be before a supersonic airliner comes into service?  And was Concorde therefore a hoax?




This is a very good question, Swanny...

I'm sure we'll come up with something, but it does seem daunting,no?  Everyone loves the idea of slipping across the pond in a few hours...and I never got too involved in the matter, but fuel costs, low passenger capacity due to aerodynamic requirements, engine power to overcome wave drag and the huge Cd as one approaches ~Mach 0.8...


Then strength requirements due to the high pressure differential because of the high altitude requirement...


Personally, I think alot of years will be required to develop something pragmatic and efficient (we've also got this environmental stuff to deal with...).   The era of SST flight which will equal the efficiency of nominal sub-sonic flight is a ways off, me thinks.

But it'll happen.  


Nonetheless, Concorde existed, and it certainly wasn't a hoax!







#402    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,848 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 23 May 2007 - 02:51 AM

I think you are quite right.

Think about when Concorde was in service; what about the Sydney to LA run? That's 12+/- hours for us, and it's no fun in cattle class (I looked at the business class price and near choked on my sausage roll when I found out how much).

That run is a particularly good earner for the service providers, always full flights.

Why didn't we have Concorde doing it in half the time (which is nothing for Aussies, when going Sydney-Perth is about 4.5 hours)?



#403    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 23 May 2007 - 09:29 PM

A couple of reasons why it will take longer to get to the moon this time round:

Allowing for inflation, NASA's budget now is only about a quarter of what it was then.

Modern vehicles have more onboard computational power and more software.  Software validation is a slow process.  Look how long current fighter aircraft take to get into service compared with their 1960s counterparts.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#404    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 23 May 2007 - 09:38 PM

Quote

A couple of reasons why it will take longer to get to the moon this time round:

Allowing for inflation, NASA's budget now is only about a quarter of what it was then.

Modern vehicles have more onboard computational power and more software.  Software validation is a slow process.  Look how long current fighter aircraft take to get into service compared with their 1960s counterparts.



And this thing appears to be making the Apollo CM look like a horse drawn carriage, comparatively speaking!
I can't wait to see the panel layout...glass cockpit, etc...
This thing should be amazing when it's finally flight-ready.


#405    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 23 May 2007 - 10:34 PM

Quote

I think you are quite right.

Think about when Concorde was in service; what about the Sydney to LA run? That's 12+/- hours for us, and it's no fun in cattle class (I looked at the business class price and near choked on my sausage roll when I found out how much).

That run is a particularly good earner for the service providers, always full flights.

Why didn't we have Concorde doing it in half the time (which is nothing for Aussies, when going Sydney-Perth is about 4.5 hours)?



Well, I'd say it was a matter of the following:

1) There were only a dozen Concordes ever in service.   Availability was limited.

2) The thing was exhorbitantly expensive to operate (I never really considered it much more than a really cool novelty for the rather well-off).

3) It's fuel economy (miles per gallon per passenger) was about 6 times worse than a Boeing 747.

4) By 2000, a Paris-New York ticket cost about $8,000.00  (they had to distribute the costs among 100 passengers...that's all she really held...).  I'd bet the price of a ticket from Sydney to LAX would be in the $10-12,000 range!

5) The vehicles range was about 4500 SM, about 3000 miles short of the distance between Sydney and Los Angeles. You'd have to stop in Hawaii to re-fuel. So the trip would likely be 8 hours, provided the Hawaii layover was 1 hour or so.



All in all, she wasn't really as attractive as she might have seemed, economically...unless of course there was a market for 8-10,000 dollar airfares out of Sydney for LAX.    Somehow, I don't think there's be a huge demand at those prices!