The Moonlanding Conspiracy whacks are apparently ignorant of science. It is a scientific FACT that, um, yes we did land on the moon. Please read this: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

I often was accused of lying when I was a kid over things that I had done, or my parents had helped with.

It really bugged me when I was a kid and often went into the did.... didnt.... did arguement.

Looking back now I raise a smile. Who cared if they did not believe me? I know I did it and my parents knew I had. From that point I was able to progress to a point where others noted.

Is it important whether we landed on the moon or not?

I guess when (however long down the line) some major step occurs (such as habitation of the moon. example) that could only have come about from learning and progressing earlier occurs then there hopefully will be little arguement.

If the hoax believers want to live in a false belief that is their choice. The problem is they are not prepared to keep quiet about it. They try to spread their brand of ignorance, half truths and lies. Sadly their will always be more people without the education or scientific understanding to make an informed decision (or those who are just plain guilllable) they are taken in by this rubbish. The lie spreads.

I feel it is the duty of those with knoweldege to counter these false accusations to do so. Ignorance is a dangerous thing and it should be contained and eradicated where ever possible. The single most important in the world is education. Without it man would have acheived nothing.

Of course the hoax believers will tell you that they are the educators and those of us that actually know what we are talking about are spreading the lies.

Exactly. They live in this world in their head, with their own reason that makes sense. They come to their conclusions that seem perfectly logical (and could to us if we didn't live in the real world). When a normal, reasonable person sees evidence that contradicts an assumption, the normal person will change the way they think. But someone like the moon hoaxer, will see the evidence and assume it's false. The assumption is always that evidence refuting their claims is false no matter how many times their claims have been shown to be bogus. Eventually they'll refuse to accept any evidence not from their own "deductions" because it comes from someone they have decided is either taken in or perpetrating the suppsoed lie.

It's like conspiracy theorists who refuse to listen to a politician, even if that politician is right. They're politicians, therefore they are lying. If a politician said "the sky is blue," a rabid conspiracy theorist will insist that the sky is red, despite all evidence to the contrary (i.e. looking up).

In order for evidence of the moon landing to be a hoax, everyone would have to either be lying about the basic laws of physics or we are learning them wrong in every school in the world. To me, that is a more fantastical idea than going to the moon.

Out of curiosity, I would like to see those Converse foot prints

But to continue, people have tried to duplicate the "slow-mo" walking of the astronauts, but have failed to reproduce the precieved "lightness" in the astronauts steps.

The same scenes? I admit, I have yet to hear a good explination about that.

Armstongs comment? What else was he supposed to say? "Its just like movie!"? Navada is also home to many many square miles of desert, and a training ground for the moon landings. Obviously its just a simple association he made. When you say this open field reminds me of my backyard, it doesnt mean that they are the same places. Even if your backyard is home to secret military base.

No crater? becasue the LEM's power was severly reduced for landing. There are also tell-tale signs of disturbance. Granted, not as much as would be expected... However, after the fine layer of dust, the surface appeares to be pretty hard as demonstrated by the difficulty Buzz and Niel had in gettting the flag grounded.

As for the exaust plume, that is also very interesting...I would like to hear a good explination

But the sshadow thing is prety easy to explain. The moon is a spehere much like the earth and thus, even at small scales, slight difference in angle from the sun will change the angle of the shadows themselves. Look out side on a sunny day after noon or befor noon, youll see shadows arent prefectly parallel. they will skew widely depending on the terrain and position of the sun - its a matter of geometry. Even in an airless place like the moon the same affect will still apply. The resulting shadows are from the terrain not from variable ligh sources.

Another thing to point out, if the Apollo missions never made it, how dod all that hardware get left behind,,,including the laser reflection mirror used for gauging the moons distance, and now in use by New Mexico's Apache Point Observatory.

Also, a quick note about a the popular flag myth is that on closer inspection, it never waved when astrobauts walked by it.

And finally, if it was all faked, you can bet your tootsie that the USSR would have something to say about it. There is no way they would have remained quiet.

Exactly! Why dont the hoax believers ask the fine people of Apache Point Observatory? They can tell them all about the reflective plates left there

I'm certainly not a rocket scientist, but not all rockets leave a visible plume, I would think it would depend on fuels used amongst other things. To prove the point here is a photograph of Britains one and only satellite launch, Prospero 1, aboard a Black Arrow launch vehicle in 1971:

[attachmentid=26173]

In the photo the Black Arrow seems to be suspended in mid-air due to the lack of exhaust plume.

if it was filmed in area 51 why would they allow Neil to say "one small step for man, one giant leap for Mankind" instead of what was suppose to be said "one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for Mankind". They could simply redo the scene.

From The Moon Hoax Debate (thanks 49erscout)

"Two photographs show an identical mountain background, yet in one the Lunar Module is present while in the other the LM is absent. The mountain scene must be an artificial backdrop."

"The above example, which was presented in the FOX TV program, is just one of many hoax claims about "identical backgrounds" and "artificial backdrops" [see photos]. If someone is going to claim the backgrounds are identical, they had better be IDENTICAL. In this case, as in all such claims, the backgrounds are clearly not identical. If you examine the photos with scrutiny, differences can be easily identified. For example, look closely at the hill on the right of each photo and you will notice that the angles of view are significantly different. It is obvious the photos were taken from different camera positions, thus we see different foreground terrain. In the right photo it appears the LM is off-camera to the left.

Another factor to consider is, due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth, thus the background mountains may be more distant than they appear to be. As such, a change in camera position may, at first observation, have a nearly unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background. However, close examination will reveal otherwise. "



No kidding. They would gleefully expose it to the entire damned world. It would certainly give them the advantage, politically.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/324100.html

The vesion i believed most of my life was the 'a' was present but the source degraded temporarily, but in either case its a vaild point, in whether he could have redone it or that signal from the moon (not 5 miles down the road) degraded.

Just some info someone may find interesting

And i feel the need to say it again... of course we went to the moon

My God...
ivy, forgive my lack of sense there when I said "He".

Of course, no offense meant. I must've been blurry-eyed and inattentive to that rather pertinent detail last night. My bad, m'aam. See? We can all be dumb sometimes!

Those are pretty fascinating areas of interest you have.
Geologists with girl parts are pretty smart people!

Hitchhiker,

The lack of exhaust plume on the LM APS engine is a typical thing in most all rocket engines operating in a vacuum.

You see, the exhaust plume you observe on a typical earth launch is largely the product of the exhaust of the engine(s) interacting with the atmosphere. In a non-atmosphere environment, you generally see very little or no evidence of rocket engine operation unless you're looking right into the engine bell (where you'll see a glow in there from the combustion). A plume requires some atmospheric constituent to make it visible.

You can see this in any of the films made of Saturn launches from inside the 2nd stage, which show the 3rd stage igniting to boost the Apollo spacecraft into orbit. You'll see the initial flash of ignition, then, no plume at all, just a glow in the engine bell, because the engine bell is already high above any tenable atmosphere.

Additionally, hypergolic fuels (fuels that require no igniter, but rather ignite upon contact with each other), such as were used in the LM engines, characteristically produce a relatively minimal plume even in an atmosphere, and in vacuum, there's virtually no evidence of operation at all, save the initial flash of ignition, incomplete initial combustion and the mess that generally happens on all rocket engine ignitions.

In a nutshell, the LM aps made no plume because it couldn't. If you watch carefully as the LM ascends on AS-16 or 17, you'll see evidence of the engine operating inside the engine bell as the vehicle pitches over shortly after lunar liftoff...a little whitish glow up inside the bell.

is my topic dead yet?

sorry, back on topic...

thank you for all the informaton... especially when 49erscout called me a conspiracy whako and said i was ignorant of science... thank you so much!!

punk...

Things have gotten a little off track. We have been infiltrated of recent date by some trollers and folks who want to post silliness.

This was actually your thread, and there was a point...some time ago, when you were asking some questions I think

...I may have actually been answering...I can't remember!

By all means, re-direct as you see fit. I'm more than happy to discuss.

Yes. I think it is.

Many died to accomplish this feat. Many studies their whole careers to accomplish this. Many risked all they have to see this was carried out to take man one step further.

For all this they are called liars by armchair critics. Pathetic. Once again, this claim should be regarded as treason. Shame on those of you who do not recognise the selfless efforts of these individuals.

They deserve recognition and respect, not to be called liars and have their important achievments belittled and forgotten.

Why waste so much research effort on such a mindless theory. I cannot help but imagine how this energy could be so much better utilised.

Recyling aluminum cans.

Not sure if you are 100% serious as you are dead right, and quite amusing at the same time.

I think scraping bugs of windshields would be time better spent than on such offensive rubbish

Ok.... I will try to rephrase what I meant -

Is it important to joe Bloggs on Earth that we landed on the Moon or not when the progress we make can be important to the Scientific world in going forward with our technology and expanding civilisation?

Hope this explains better as I am being taken a little out of context.

I still think finding penacillan (sp?) or making that forst phone call is a bigger step than landing on the moon in the big picture.
Without these small steps chances are we would never have even got a shuttle built..... or even a space station

I think of it in context of how we visualize our skills and abilities as a species. Creating new drugs, the telephone, computer, etc are very importat steps, of course, but they're still the smaller (albeit necessary) steps we take every day in our technology. The moon landing represents something unprecedented, something so large in our development that it speaks volumes about what we can do. It seems obvious that an intelligent species could come up with medicine and forms of long distance communication, but to break the bonds of the planet and go to another astral body is literally, a giant leap to a path that might never happen otherwise.

If we had never landed on the moon and were as cynical and apathetic as we are today, would we even bother now? The average person (at least in the Western world) is so stuck in his/her own head that anything bigger seems out of reach, if not pointless. Most people today probably wouldn't give a rat's ass if we landed on the moon or not. I think that's a very sad view. But, knowing that we did it before, that we were that awesome to do that, gives us just enough of a spark to realize the potential we do have. I think that spark is very important. To not have it, and something like the moon landing to keep it alive, we might just eventually decline without ever really getting off this rock and seeing the bigger picture.

We might still decline that way, but at least we can say that once upon a time we did something great and looked beyond ourselves to the universe. And no one, especially not hoaxers who can't be bothered to read the evidence and are so cynical to think we can barely tie our shoes, can take that away from us.

That's why I think it's important, even the the average person. To know there is something else beyond our gravitational field, and that we once got to touch a part of it.

hey... i wont be back on this thread because after a while everybody startied flaming and posting for pure silliness.... i hate it when my topics turn into that.... if you want to talk to me about this PM me... it just got too out of hand here

see you on another topic!

I didn't realize that refuting false evidence was "silly." Someone had better tell the classic philosophers, like Aristotle. I'm sure they would like to know that.

We didn't flame you. We told you why your evidence didn't work and that it couldn't hold up to basic scientific evidence, knowledge, and principles. Then you accused us of flaming you and ignored the evidence presented and just kept saying the same thing over or picking up some other evidence that got refuted again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I guess if that's silly flaming, then someone forgot to inform every researcher in the world. Not to mention debate teams.

So you hate it when your thread about how the moon landing was a hoax... turns silly.

You know what I hate? When Bozo won't be serious. What is he, a clown?

Ironic, isn't it?

Thank you. Eloquently put. Exactly what I wanted to say, just far better phrasing



LOL so well put.

I didnt flame you neither. I told you why your evidence is also opinionated and the realm of possiblity that exists to invent reality with it comes the process of making it so but it is up to you which direction to go. You ignored the basic principle outlined in the beginning when i presented the idea of inventing reality. If you were not ignoring the idea then your posts would have taken that consideration.

here is another comment from another person who has a different opinion other than your own:

"…Excellent video. As a professional photographer, I see that the evidence is clear that the photographs have numerous technical errors. I am convinced these photos are staged as anyone with minimal experience in photography will quickly see. The footage of them staging this fake event actually coming from NASA leaves no question the moon landing was a fraud. Another unsolved mystery solved." - - J.D. (IL)
---------------------------------------------------------------

Yet here you find that just because your opinions dont match with skeptism doesnt mean that skeptism shouldnt be present and that goes for you and that person giving that comment.

You have to be freaking blind to not see the stiffening rod. Let's take another look shall we?



And nother shot:



Last I looked when flags wave in a breeze or wind the WHOLE thing flaps. The top doesn't stay perfectly horizontal like in the above pictures. LOL!!!

If you don't believe me go outside and have a look! Sounds more like to me you are only seeing what you want to see and not what's really there.

To be fair to punkmonkey123, in this post from 4th June he concedes that he can see the support rod, although he does come up with a few more factually incorrect objections which I believe MID replied to.

Nomrad, your second image is so large that it is distorting the page, would it be possible to edit your post so that the image is smaller. Thank you.

next we'll hear that the World Cup Soccer is all a hoax too i assume...What is the world coming to now a day?

OK I just read the first 4 pages of this thread...damn it's long. I wish I was here when this thread started. All the same, I'd like to throw in my two cents.

First, I'd like to say that there is no need to act condescendingly toward anyone who believes the moon landing was real or to anyone who thinks it was fake. I, myself, am on the fence. I want to believe it was real, because it's mankind's greatest feat if so. Having said that, if it was a fake I don't want to believe it was real.

It doesn't matter if it was real or fake, these arguments would exist either way. These little details based on speculation would exist anyway because we don't know enough about the moon surface and how its gravity, etc would work in comparison to that on Earth.

So forgetting all the little things, the only thing that has me completely lost is the radiation thing. I mean, is it really possible for man to deal with such exposure to radiation? This is the only thing that makes me think it could have all been faked, because as I said before these other arguments would exist either way.

MID...if you still read this thread, would you be able to explain the radiation problems to me, and how they were overcome?

It is rather a shame you didn't persist a little further as this has already been covered. Rather than have MID repeat himself I'll provide links to posts that deal with this.

Page 4 - post 58

Page 5 - post 65

From another, now closed, thread on the hoax theory:

Hey whats that on the moon - page 1 - post6

There are probably other posts on that thread, but it is 25 pages long and turned rather ugly.

If you want to look at other threads on this there is a pinned thread in the Space and Astronomy forum which provides links to some of them.

I hope this has been of some help.

I would of course agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. From a purely visceral point of view, I especially concur with the feeling that comes when we realize that "we once got to touch a part of it". We did, and that realization, for some of us, is profound even today, when we look up at the moon and remember.

I would, with your indulgence, ivy, add the following:

It indeed speaks volumes about what we can do, our potential. However, it alse speaks volumes about what we did indeed do, and the evidence of that period of innovation is present everywhere in common everyday life today.

Many do not realize it.

The period between 1961 and 1972, when this thing was done by so many, was a period that I've always associated with an adolescent growth spurt...a massive period of growth, where a young person develops physically and mentally at an alarming rate.

Often, this development ceases ands there's a sort of lull. The 1960s represented such a growth spurt in human consciousness. Yes, it was populated by many excesses in certain areas, but it also produced virtually quantum leaps in many fields, the arts, music, and of course, technological accomplishment, which can be seen in Apollo.

The results of Apollo are manifest directly, and indirectly today in many areas.

Quite often, an HB will sit at his computer and type in some statement concerning the computers used in the Apollo mission control and aboard the spacecraft, saying something like, "It takes 64 MB (or some other arbitrary number) just to run a flight simulator, and the Apollo computer only had a memory of XYZkb. They had to have faked it."

Of course, there were no flight simulators in 1969 that are anything close to what we have today (we had no graphics capability back then, and didn't need it for the purpose at hand), but the fact is that the computers we had in the MOCR in 1969 were the most powerful and sophisticated in the world, and were in fact designed and built for the purpose they fulfilled there.
They were, of course, low-end compared to todays typical PC or MAC, but the fact is that the research into micro-circuitry, which was spawned by Apollo, resulted in the developments of the computers that the HBs write their comments on. You are sitting in front of a result of the technological revolution of the 1960s, and of Apollo.

And microwaves, and cordless phones, and cell phones, and all of the modern technological conveniences we take for granted, all came out of that era's impetus.

It's influence is present in business today as well.

Some of you who may be involved in management may know of, or may be a part of organizations who adopt the concepts of total quality management (TQM). If so, you also know that these companies succeed at rates that were seemingly not possible before. They improve their productivity, and inspire things like personal responsibility and teamwork through these concepts.


It might be interesting to note where this TQM concept was actually invented, and put into practice.


Mission Control in Houston. Yes, TQM was invented there, and its results were astounding.
Another by product of Apollo.


But that just scratches the surface of areas of science, and business, and technology that were affected by what happened during the 1960s in places like Houston, Texas, and Cape Canaveral in Florida, and Huntville, Alabama, and Bethpage, NY, and Downey, California, and several other places.

Apollo is apparent today, despite the fact that many don't realize it.

I think that the fact that we landed on the moon all those decades ago is very important to everyone, whether they know it or not. It is hard to imagine what society in modern life would be like if we hadn't done that.

That's the onlu issue I have with it too. It's totally possibile that they did knownng the danger. Do we know if the astronauts are healthy or have any complications as a result of their trip to the moon? The material the capsul was made of was pretty thin. Can't see it providing much protection against radiation. But maybe I'm wrong?

Test Subject...

Yes, I am still around here.

Above is a post by Waspie that directs you to a couple of posts regarding your questions directly.

Quite frankly, people's concern with the radiation problem on Apollo missions is an area that is perhaps the least important in my view. It was never really considered as a danger that occupied people's minds...certainly not the crews, and certainly not mission control.
Plans were made to traverse the thinnest parts of the van Allen belts, and in a very short amount of time, so as to minimize crew exposure to that radiation, and there was never any exposure measured on any Apollo mission that came any where close to a minimally dangerous level to the crews.

Some people speak of transient solar events, as if they happen all the time and the crews would've been fried by these solar flare eruptions. While that was certainly a consideration, they were also planned for by timing the missions properly so as to minimize the chance of one of these things happening on a mission (and, one of any significance never did occur on any mission...we lucked out! ).

Were these things a risk? Yes. Were they managable and acceptable? Absolutely.
How did the radiation risks weigh against other risks? Relatively low on the scale, frankly (Dr. van Allen even says so...).

Consider the point in a mission where the crew was standing there in their LM, on the moon, preparing to lift of for lunar orbit rendevous with their CM. There was one engine which had to fire. No redundancy to speak of, just a single hypergolic engine. That potential risk far and away outweighed the risk of van Allen radiation to a lunar crew, and yet, even that was an acceptable and managed risk, because the thing had been tested and proven many times.

A Saturn V contained something like 2 million functional parts. 99.9% reliability meant that 2000 of those parts would fail. Was that a risk? Yes, indeed. But it was acceptable. And the confidence in that magnificent and well proven and tested machine (perhaps the greatest technological accomplishment in human history) was unprecedented. It also proved itself many times...the product of genius and human effort.

In fact, just one of those parts failed on Apollo 13. The risk became manifest. A 1/20000 % failure rate in that vehicle produced the life threatening drama that unfolded in space in April 1970.

But you know what? The phenomenal abilities of the men in mission control proved that that risk, and its manifestation could be overcome, and a sucess could result, which indeed Apollo 13 represented...perhaps the crowning accomplishment of Apollo.

Those risks, and their potential, far and away outweighed the risks of van Allen transit.


By all means, check out Waspie's links. I think they'll explain what was done regarding radiation satisfactorily.

Actually, Nomran..., they did know the dangers involved (and as you'll see by investigatring the links provided, they were planned for), and the Apollo CM provided adequate protection for the duration of the crews exposure. The CM is where the crew was during van Allen transit, and that vehicle's shell tapered between about 2 inches (at the nose end) to 4 inches thick (at the crew couch and base area)...multiple layers.

It afforded more than adequate protection against van Allen radiation.

Why the Apollo photographs don't show any stars in the lunar sky

One of the most common claims of the hoax believers is that you can tell that the Apollo photographs are fake because there are no stars in the sky in any of the photographs. They argue that with no atmosphere stars should be visible on the moon in daylight. The fact that there are no stars proves the photos are fake.

There is an element of truth to this. Stars should be visible to the eye, in daylight on the moon. Photography however does not work in the same way as the human eye.

A basic knowledge of photography will explain why there are no stars in the Apollo photographs, yet despite the fact that just about every basic photography book on the planet will give the explanation, this false accusation is still made over and over again.

Some time ago I decided to back up the simple explanation with some photographs to prove the point. The problem I had was how to simulate this, you simply can't photograph stars in daylight on Earth. A little while ago I decided how to do it. Sadly, since then I haven't had a clear enough night to photograph stars (overcast skies are not a problem on the moon, they are in South East England). Tonight the sky was clear.

First of all the basic photography lesson. On a camera such as those used by the Apollo astronautss there are three things they need to worry about. The first is focus. This is irrelevant to this argument. The other two are shutter speed and apperture. Both of these alter the amount of light falling on the film (or in a modern digital camera the CCD). The wider the apperture the more light that is let in, the narrower the less. Shutter speed also determines the amount of light faling on the film, the slower the sutter sped the more light and vice versa.

For a photograph not to be under or over exposed these two settings must becorrect. Here in lies a problem. You need more light to fall on the film for dim objects to show up. So if the Astronauts had chosen to photograph the stars, the lunar surface would have been totally washed out as a result of being grossly over exposed. As it was they went to photograph the moon. There cameras were set to the correct shutter speeds and appertures for the lunar surface. As a result the stars were so underexposed that they didn't register on the film.

Now to my practical demonstration of this. I decided to use a brightly lit window to simulate the lunar surface (it was my own window so I wasn't breaking any laws ). The camera was set up on a tripod and two pictures taken. I used a digital camera (a Canon PowerShot S50) but the priciple is exactly the same as a film camera. It was set on fully mannual. The only thing that has changed between the two pictures is the shutter speed. I set the camera to black and white, because I live close to London and in a long exposure photo the night sky looks a ghastly orange.

In the first a shutter speed of 15 seconds was used:

[attachmentid=26247]

In this photograph stars are clearly visible. However if you look at the lit window there is no visible detail on the curtain. It is over exposed and totally washed out.

In the second photo a shutter speed of 0.5 seconds was used:

[attachmentid=26248]

In this photograph details of the curtain can be seen clearly. The window is now correctly exposed. However there are no stars in the sky.

Neither of these photographs have been touched up or reprocessed in any way, except to reduce them in size.

So there you have it, the reason why none of the Apollo pictures have stars in the lunar sky is just basic photography.

Yep...that's it.

Really... it's basic photographic principal.

Ohhh, ok. I was thinking along those lines too. Because considering the moons significantly weaker gravity, all it took was a single blast to lift the lander off the surface, right?

not a continuous stream like here on earth

Yeah! I finally took the initiative to look up and ask about the chemical process of fule combustion in a vacuum ~ I always figured that since the oxygen is supplied anyway, there would still be the "imperfection" from combustion, i.e. the soot and other gases from compunds formed by oxidizing agents from earth atmosphere...then I realized that shouldnt happen in space
I saw some neat footage on National Geographic the othernight. they were showing some shows on the space-race and other stock footage scenes from the late 60's. And lo -- they essentially explained the combustion bit like you did.

thanks for the feedback!

The escape velocity from the moon is 2.38km/s which is about 8,600 kph or 5,300 mph. This is about a fifth that of the Earth and so a much less powerful engine was needed.

Howeve going from 0 to 5,300mph almost instantly would still be a huge kick in the backside (it would certainly cause serious injury or probably death for the crew). So the LM ascent stage burned for a period of time (MID might be able to provide precise figures) to accelerate the craft at a survivable rate, just as a launch from the Earth would.

Did we go to the moon? did we? really go to the moon? I don't know anymore. Is the moon made of cheese? cheese if you please and I say yes please! more cheese.

I'm thinking a hard cheese, like aged swiss. Meunster, though it's very tasty, is way too soft to have to be bombarded with meteors and solar radiation. And you can forget about velveeta.

Definitely not Velveeta. But, one never can be too sure when it comes to cheese.

That is now the greatest thing I've seen all week.

Well, not exactly, Hitchiker.
It was basically the same thing as any rocket launch that must provide acelleration to orbit...a steady burn of the engine for however much time it took to get to orbital velocity.

On Apollo LM launches from the lunar surface, the APS operated for about 7.25 (+/-) minutes continually in order to provide the roughly 3650 mile per hour orbital velocity, and attain the appropriate altitude for initial orbit entry (around 10-11 miles at engine cut down).

The effect of weaker gravity was to reduce the weight of the approximately 10,000 pound (mass)ascent stage (about half of which was fuel), so that it could be lifted off of the surface by a 3500 pound thrust engine (since the weight of the LM was about 1650 pounds on the moon). But that engine used about 5000 pounds of fuel to get the vehicle into orbit in over 7+ minutes of constant thrust burning (the APS engine was not throttleable).

As Waspie indicated, a "single blast" which provided enough impulse to get the vehicle to orbital velocity would've destroyed the poor little spacecraft, and the fellows inside it! As it was, the average g load on the crew was in the 2-3 g range, which is quite enough push!

I hope this makes sense!

You are welcome!

And, thank you!

I commend you on not taking our word for it, and making the effort to investigate beyond what's said here.

"The truth is out there"....

As always, some people just love to se their crap in print. If you are serious about the moonlading "stuff" you should check this out.

READ THIS.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/index.html

http://www.clavius.org/

There's a name for a device that accelerates a vehicle at such speeds. It's called a "bomb."

I think the moon landing was an actual event. Have you ever paused and reflected on the substantial evidence that the stars in space were not visible to the eye when the space shuttle astronauts were filming in orbit?