Did we land on the moon?

[Rusich]

It would be interesting to get your perspective, Rusich. What is/was the opinion of people in your country as to whether the moon landing was faked? I hope I'm not being too forward, you needn't mention where you are from if you don't want to make it known.

MM

Well. I not hide that I russian. I become interesting, how a discussing this subject between americana pass.

Thesis: I think that between USSR and USA existed secret pact on the Moon.

Project an Apollo first of all political share. you it is necessary was distil us in that that did not become. Is necessary recall in what international situation passed a moon racing. Caribbean crisis, we were on galley proofs of war. Count on atomic warheads obviously was not in our profit that provoked you on resolute actions. News of that years on our cosmic achievements were perceived by you as reportings from wars. "Russian approach, here is-will here is hang a russian fcompanion (satellite) with the atomic bomb on americana heads straight!" But on the war heaven and earth good for the achievement of victory.

People USA lost confidence in its future. Lost confidence in its technical supremacy. Here is necessary add and unchancy war in Vietnam.

Draft "Apollo" was called to return american a faith in itself.

But here is problem, amount of money not all decides. And that term that has measured out a president Kenedi (10 years), was little that real to disembark on the Moon. Too difficult this problem of engineering. Then your government has gone on political way of deciding this problem.

You have offerred to return you a Moon in return for concessions on the Land. Brezhnev has thought and has decided:"Moon this well, but pacific life, without heavy arms race, better...", and has agreed.

So we "have divided cosmos": championship on the orbit - us, Moon - to you.

Not accidentally end of Moon odyssey has complied with signing an agreement on the strategic arms restriction. This agreement has stopped a present arms race.

Symbolically this agreement was supported by the link-up on orbit an Souz-Apollo.

Excuses for my english.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Rusich

[Rusich]

Study of the moon never stopped, only manned missions. Those stopped because they were incredibly expensive and the budget was taken and given to the shuttle program.

I had in mind, why you ceased to debark on the moon an automatic machins (lunohods)?

[Obviousman]

I had in mind, why you ceased to debark on the moon an automatic machins (lunohods)?

Mainly because the Apollo missions had brought back various lunar samples (rocks, soil, core) and left various experiments on the surface. The focus for robotic missions became Mars, and deep space probes like Voyager, etc.

If there was enough money, I'm sure the scientists would like to send some probes back to the lunar surface.

[ReignStarz]

Lets throw this twist in..

I believe we never have even been outside of our atmosphere.

[Obviousman]

Lets throw this twist in..

I believe we never have even been outside of our atmosphere.

That's a good one.

Only manned flight outside the atmosphere, or including unmanned flight?

[ReignStarz]

"Only manned flight outside the atmosphere, or including unmanned flight? " Can you reword that totally missed it lol.

[Obviousman]

Do you believe that we have sent unmanned craft outside the atmosphere?

Or simply that no human has gone outside the atmosphere?

[auhsoj]

all faked... that's why they shot their president for making them do it... coz they realise they'll be pretty embarrased when the truth comes out. i think the rockets went but without humans on board. apollo 13 was probably the first attempt with humans... and we've all seen the film on how that turned out... to all the experts out there, i don't believe it happened but if i wanted to i could still come up with a load of theories ***SNIP*** about who did what and how to prove it was real... c'mon this is 60s america we're talkin about... i.e. will do anything to look good. nuff said!

Edited April 6, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf
the language filters are there for a reason. Do not try to get round them.

[flyingswan]

Thesis: I think that between USSR and USA existed secret pact on the Moon.

As a matter of interest, how old are you? Were you actually an adult before the end of the Cold War?

The biggest problem in getting a man to the moon is the great mass of equipment that has to be launched. The USA solved this with the Saturn V rocket. The Russian programme also attempted a similar vehicle, the N1, but for various reasons - lack of political/financial support, an over complex design, insufficient ground testing - it was never successfully launched.

Edited April 6, 2007 by flyingswan

[Obviousman]

The whole thing really developed because of nuclear weapons.

In the early post-war period, nuclear weapons were heavy. They required large bombers to deliver them to their targets. But soon, the bombers themselves became vulnerable. The rocket (ICBM) provided an 'unstoppable' means of putting bombs on target - if a big enough rocket could be developed.

The initial US and Soviet launchers were all man-rated versions of military designs for delivering nuclear weapons. Redstone (IRBM), Atlas, Titan, the R-7.. all originally meant as weapons of war. But a side benefit was that although designed for atomic warheads, they didn't have to carry a nuclear device. They could also carry other payloads such as spy satellites, scientific experiments... and a manned craft.

When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the achievement was two-fold; not only did it demonstrate the advanced technological capability of the USSR, it showed that they had the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead onto a target of their choosing. This caught the US off-guard, and so there was a concerted effort to close the 'missile gap'.

Even so, the advances in nuclear weaponry meant that more powerful weapons could be made that were smaller and lighter; a large booster wasn't really necessary any more.

In the 50s and early 60s, a massive part of the political game was to demonstrate which 'system' was better - capitalism or socialism. One way to showcase the advantages of a certain system was to demonstrate the technological capability of that system. The 'conquest' of space was an easily understandable illustration of this technology.

The Soviet Union took many of the space age 'firsts' and the US tried to catch up. They needed to make a big splash, something that would show that they were at least equal - if not more advanced - than the USSR.

That's where the moon landings came into play. The technology to put a man on the Moon didn't yet exist - but it could be made a reality... with time & effort. The thing was that it just didn't rely on heavy lift boosters exclusively; there was much more to it. That meant that the Soviet Union's lead in space technology was lessened, that both countries would be on a more or less equal footing. The USSR might win a short race, but over a longer distance they were both contenders.

Both countries took up the challenge, and developed manned lunar landing programmes. What caused the USSR to falter and eventually lose was the loss of a brilliant scientist - Sergei Korolev. His leadership - and ability to unite personnel towards a common goal - helped make many of the Soviet firsts. When he died, there was a split in top Soviet space designers, and major quarrels erupted. These disputes eventually meant that the powerful rocket engines required to launch a moon ship were not made. Instead, multiple smaller engines would be used.

Where the Saturn V had five powerful F-1 engines in its first stage, each developing 1.5 million pounds of thrust, the N-1 (the Soviet moon rocket) had 30 NK-15 engines with each only producing 350 000 pounds of thrust. To control all these engines meant a complex design, a design which was never fully perfected.

So Apollo won the race to the Moon - but the USSR took the lead in manned orbiting space stations with their Salyut programme. Each demonstrated advanced technological capability - but the cost took its toll. The US taxpayers lost interest in the space race, and wanted money spent elsewhere. They were seeing the results of Vietnam, wanted more funds for social programmes. Likewise, the financial cost to the USSR was enormous, military programmes needed money, the Soviet people wanted their own consumer goods, and demonstrating technological superiority to third-world nations was just not that important anymore.

During the race to the Moon, it was foreseen that greater co-operation was going to be needed in the event of a space 'disaster'; if something happened then the resources of both countries might be needed to save lives. Initial talks were held, and the best people to discuss such matters were astronauts and engineers - not politicians. And during these talks, a funny thing happened - these engineers and astronauts discovered that their counterparts weren't all that different from themselves! They had similar ideas, similar dreams, and found respect for each other.

When they reported back to their respective countries, they were enthusiastic. They could sell the idea of co-operation. Imagine the public relations coup of a Soviet spacecraft rescuing stranded US astronauts! Of course, the chance to check out the other guy's hardware was not lost on them, either. There were benefits to co-operation in space - and so the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program (ASTP) was born.

So when you look at it, the whole thing was made possible because of nuclear weapons. The need to demonstrate superior political systems provided the motive. And the notion that we weren't all that different from one another led to the co-operation.

IMO.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Obviousman

[Rusich]

how about a new modern probe orbiting the moon taking high res pictures of the nine or so landing sites on the surface of the moon so we can end this ***SNIP*** debate . see it's very simple why dont we have a satalite like that ? maybe japan will get there probe up there soon or China or maybe India...seems there is a lot still we can learn from the moon and our wonderful government.

A new modern probe orbiting the moon taking high res pictures of the nine or so landing sites on the surface of the moon - it's no problem! We have saved and technologies and specialists capable to create new lunohod. It can consider place of boarding much close. It is no problem.

USA very strong and influential a state - here is problem.

Who to dare to spoil an attitude with USA, having taken pictures place of boarding on the Moon?

Europe? India? China? Exactly not Russia! Example this is a history of probe Smart-1.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf
removed bad language from quote.

[Rusich]

As a matter of interest, how old are you? Were you actually an adult before the end of the Cold War?

The biggest problem in getting a man to the moon is the great mass of equipment that has to be launched. The USA solved this with the Saturn V rocket. The Russian programme also attempted a similar vehicle, the N1, but for various reasons - lack of political/financial support, an over complex design, insufficient ground testing - it was never successfully launched.

That you consider an end of cold war? My age 45 years.

"The USA solved this with the Saturn V rocket." - You certain? But if Saturn V could bring on the orbit on five tons less, than announced, boarding on the Moon possible?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

People, I have just had to waste my time editing posts because of bad language. May I remind everyone that this site considers itself suitable for families and as such does not tolerate bad language and that includes attempting to get around the language filters by use of * or #.

This is a reminder to everyone but in particular to auhsoj and chris0871.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf
corrected typos

[ReignStarz]

Obvious I believe that no man has stepped outside the atmosphere and I would say no unmanned(Machine?) Has either but I get flammed for that lol...I think that our technology is just not suitable yet.

[phunk]

Obvious I believe that no man has stepped outside the atmosphere and I would say no unmanned(Machine?) Has either but I get flammed for that lol...I think that our technology is just not suitable yet.

You really believe that? You actually believe that satellites are a hoax?

[jaylemurph]

So every piece of photography -- still and moving -- has been faked since the 1950s?

And all the telemetry from satellites and probes, too?

Velcro?! Freeze-dried ice cream?! These are lies?! How cruel is fate!

*throws out all his his Tang in disgust

--Jaylemurph

[ReignStarz]

I truly do believe that satellites are a hoax..

I believe that the pressures in outer space are to strong for metals and especially space suits.

[ReignStarz]

So every piece of photography -- still and moving -- has been faked since the 1950s?

And all the telemetry from satellites and probes, too?

Velcro?! Freeze-dried ice cream?! These are lies?! How cruel is fate!

*throws out all his his Tang in disgust

--Jaylemurph

LOL <3 you jay

[phunk]

I truly do believe that satellites are a hoax..

I believe that the pressures in outer space are to strong for metals and especially space suits.

You mean the 0 psi in outer space? Yeah, that's some high pressure.

[flyingswan]

I truly do believe that satellites are a hoax..

So where do you point your satellite TV aerial? How does a GPS set work? Where do the weather forecasters get their pictures? I look forward to your detailed explanations with interest.

[ReignStarz]

Like I said I get flammed for this all the time; so truly its not worth debating lol... I was just saying that I believe no man has stepped outside our atmosphere. And the 0 psi where did you get that. you do understand you implode in outer space. Or explode or what ever. Its like a balloon you let it go up to high what happens?

For the TV thing. I have cable.

And the forecast thing. Just because you look down on something doesnt mean you cant look up.

[flyingswan]

For the TV thing. I have cable.

Very funny - how about your neighbours with satellite TV? And what are those dots of light that move across the sky at such a steady speed? Are you aware that amateur astronomers can resolve details of the larger satellites?

And I did say detailed explanations, not vague ideas.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Like I said I get flammed for this all the time; so truly its not worth debating lol...

No one is flaming you, they are just trying to explain why you are wrong.

And the 0 psi where did you get that.

psi = pounds per square inch. It's a measurement of pressure.

you do understand you implode in outer space. Or explode or what ever. Its like a balloon you let it go up to high what happens?

You do know that you implode at great depth in the ocean don't you? Does that mean you don't believe in submarines either?

[flyingswan]

A new modern probe orbiting the moon taking high res pictures of the nine or so landing sites on the surface of the moon - it's no problem! We have saved and technologies and specialists capable to create new lunohod. It can consider place of boarding much close. It is no problem.

USA very strong and influential a state - here is problem.

Who to dare to spoil an attitude with USA, having taken pictures place of boarding on the Moon?

Europe? India? China? Exactly not Russia! Example this is a history of probe Smart-1.

SMART 1 was a small technology demonstrator that carried a low-res camera to get a bit of science return.

The Japanese SELENE probe will be launched this summer, NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter next year. Both should be able to detect the Apollo LMs and rovers on the moon. In addition, the last three Apollos all photographed their LMs on the lunar surface from orbit. If you consider these pictures fake, consider the following argument:

These Apollo pictures are the highest resolution images available for swathes of the lunar surface. Not just the LMs, but all the small surface features are only known from these pictures. NASA did not need to take these pictures or release them to the public. If they were faked, this could have been discovered at any time by any nation that flew a camera that gave just a bit higher resolution of these areas than was available from non-Apollo sources. What motive could a faking NASA have for releasing these pictures?

Edited April 6, 2007 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

"The USA solved this with the Saturn V rocket." - You certain? But if Saturn V could bring on the orbit on five tons less, than announced, boarding on the Moon possible?

I witnessed the last Apollo launch, in the company of hundreds of thousands of other people. The Saturn V was certainly a lot bigger than any other rocket I've seen, and it certainly flew, most impressively. Why do you think it couldn't do the job? The uprating for the final Apollo missions, minor changes only, provided an extra 6 tonnes to earth orbit anyway. And then these was Skylab, launched by a Saturn V, certainly a very large payload, easily visible and giving tangible evidence of a lot of heavy parts aboard when it eventually decayed over Australia.