Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,116 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

flyingswan
You do not present what indignation have caused in russian internet video's and photo's materials of NASA! On free forums much speak of NASA forgeries. Only on the official sites like "http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/" this subject of discussion is mercilessly suppressed.

Why do you say Novosti Kosmonavtiki is official? It's a magazine, and a very good one too. Do you think "Spaceflight" or "Flight International" or "Air et Cosmos" are official? How about "Aviation Week", well known for carrying leaked information?

None of these magazines support Apollo being a hoax because their are aimed at an informed readership that has the technical background to see how ridiculous the hoax theory is.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
I does not want to enter in technical jungle. I want to speak about things, comprehensibles for any persons.

You don't want to enter into the technicalities, because that is where all the data are that refute the hoax theory.

In other words, don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
Here is interesting link about landing on the Moon

http://greyfalcon.us/restored/German%20Moo...ase%20Alpha.htm

And a site that makes the idiotic claim that the Germans landed on the Moon in 1942 is supposed to support the fact that America couldn't get to the Moon in 1969 how exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ufogovernment
And a site that makes the idiotic claim that the Germans landed on the Moon in 1942 is supposed to support the fact that America couldn't get to the Moon in 1969 how exactly?

Use your brain, life don`t give you everything on the plate ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
Use your brain, life don`t give you everything on the plate ;)

I did use my brain which is why I described the site as idiotic. Now please avoid personal attacks in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
Use your brain, life don`t give you everything on the plate ;)

Ok, I think that these folks (the German moon base authors) don't even have 'the plate'...let alone any evidence to put on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
Interesting only if you like badly written science fiction.

I object to you calling this science fiction, that implies the use of at least some science. Fantasy would be a more appropriate genre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ufogovernment
I did use my brain which is why I described the site as idiotic. Now please avoid personal attacks in future.

I didn`t attack you in any way. If you feel attacked it is your problem ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
I didn`t attack you in any way. If you feel attacked it is your problem ;)

*Sigh* When you imply that someone isn't "using their brain" it just isn't very nice, it's clearly an implication of stupidity on their part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ufogovernment
*Sigh* When you imply that someone isn't "using their brain" it just isn't very nice, it's clearly an implication of stupidity on their part.

No, use your brain means: think, don`t wait other to do something for you or tell you everything. If you are interested in something think about it before you ask anything. And when someone say somethink think about it, don`t just accept it or not...There are many stupid texts and books, but if you see little bit deeper in every you can find something good what can help you in building a puzzle. So, use your brains and don`t be a sponge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

I have an honest question for those with NASA knowledge.....If the moon goal had already been obtained by apollo...why not design the space shuttle to reach the moon?....and why cant the space shuttle reach the moon?....please dont be sarcastic in answering. im honostly perplexed by this?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
No, use your brain means: think, don`t wait other to do something for you or tell you everything.

So, use your brains and don`t be a sponge

Do tell? So, exactly what leads you to believe that one of the forum leaders from 'Space and Astronomy', 'Science &Technology' and 'Space News' is not using his brain in this regard? Exactly where, why, and how is his analysis of this "German moon base" notion scientifically flawed? In other words, other than the piece of fiction linked to...where's the evidence that this outrageous idea is anything but fantasy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
I have an honest question for those with NASA knowledge.....If the moon goal had already been obtained by apollo...why not design the space shuttle to reach the moon?....and why cant the space shuttle reach the moon?....please dont be sarcastic in answering. im honostly perplexed by this?...

Because although it is possible, it is very wasteful of money.

Would you like a link to the study?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
I have an honest question for those with NASA knowledge.....If the moon goal had already been obtained by apollo...why not design the space shuttle to reach the moon?....and why cant the space shuttle reach the moon?....please dont be sarcastic in answering. im honostly perplexed by this?...

The Shuttle was designed to a mission model that consisted mainly of low earth orbit flights, eg space station support. It was supposed to use additional upper stages for geostationary and earth escape missions, as indeed it did on quite a few occasions. If it had proved as cheap to operate as initially claimed it could have supported a manned lunar programme, but it would have needed several Shuttle missions to assemble each moon flight's hardware in low earth orbit. As the Shuttle proved in the event to cost a similar amount per mission to a Saturn V, this approach would have been ruinously expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

thanks for the replies...so it's just a matter of money I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ufogovernment
Do tell? So, exactly what leads you to believe that one of the forum leaders from 'Space and Astronomy', 'Science &Technology' and 'Space News' is not using his brain in this regard? Exactly where, why, and how is his analysis of this "German moon base" notion scientifically flawed? In other words, other than the piece of fiction linked to...where's the evidence that this outrageous idea is anything but fantasy?

I didn` say do I believe in German moon base and I didn`t say any my opinion here. People use their brains, someone more someone less..like here. I hate when people ask me questions which I can see they didn`t think about. They ask just to say something against. Ego people..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich
It is your statisicts which are crude as they give no indication of what was actually happening.

Fair enough

Let?s have a look at the statistics of the American unmanned lunar missions in more detail. I will break them up into 2 year periods. I will ignore the Soviet programme as Soviet technological success is irrelevant to what the USA could achieve.

1958 - 1959

Pioneer 0 ? launcher failure

Pioneer 1 ? launcher failure

Pioneer 2 ? launcher failure

Pioneer 3 ? launcher failure

Pioneer 4 ? launcher failure

Pioneer/Orbiter ? launcher exploded during ground test

Pioneer/Orbiter ? launcher failure

Number of launch attempts = 7. Success rate 0%

1960 ? 1961

Pioneer/Orbiter ? launcher failure

Pioneer/Orbiter ? launcher failure

Ranger 1 (Earth orbital test only) ? did not achieve desired orbit ? launcher malfunction

Ranger 2 (Earth orbital test only) ? did not achieve desired orbit ? launcher malfunction

Number of launch attempts = 4. Success rate 0%

1962 ? 1963

Ranger 3 ? Missed Moon ? launcher malfunction

Ranger 4 ? Impacted Moon as planned ? no results due to onboard timer failure (not applicable to manned flights)

Ranger 5 ? Missed moon due to onboard power failure (not applicable to manned flights)

Number of launch attempts = 3. Success rate 0%

1964 ? 1965

Ranger 6 ? Impacted Moon as planed ? TV camera failed (not applicable to manned flights)

Ranger 7 ? Success

Ranger 8 ? Success

Ranger 9 ? Success

Number of launch attempts = 4. Success rate 75%

1966 ? 1967

Surveyor 1 ? Success

Lunar Orbiter 1? Success

Surveyor 2 ? Crashed on Moon

Lunar Orbiter 2 ? Success

Lunar Orbiter 2 ? Success

Lunar Orbiter 3 ? Success

Surveyor 3 ? Success

Lunar Orbiter 2? Success

Surveyor 4 ? Crashed on Moon

Lunar Orbiter 5 ? Success

Surveyor 5 ? Success

Surveyor 6 ? Success

Number of launch attempts = 12. Success rate 83.33%

The Surveyor 7 mission of January 1968 was the last American unmanned mission to the Moon before Apollo. It was a success.

Only the Surveyor missions were attempts to soft land on the Moon and these had a 71.43% success rate.

These statistics are actually slightly misleading in Rusich's favour as I have counted only missions which were a only a partial success as failures.

When the statistics are presented by date as above, it shows a far different picture from that which Rusich would have us believe. It shows that far from being a near impossible task to land on the Moon in 1969 the USA had steadily improved the techniques needed to land. They had learned from the problems that had blighted them at the start of space exploration (hardly surprising) and by 1969 had developed reliable missions to the Moon.

I highly grateful by Waspie_Dwarf that it said my thought on good english.

Your statistics not differ from my statistics in principle. We say - "first pancake always a lump". Or on english - "you must spoil before you spin well".

Accuracy of numerals to me was not it is important. I wanted to show you a trend of statistical data. From bad to good.

In case of LM this statistical trend is violated. Land and liftoff LM is the most difficult stage of debarkation on Moon. Apollo-10 not checked this device on real unmanned land on Moon. This may compare with astronauts start on Saturh-5 which was checked only on stands. End be easy guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich
I hate to go off topic, and I rarely post in any of the million or so "moon hoax" threads that we have floating around this forum, but I just have to add that Rusich has the cooest Russian accent I have ever read...not heard, but read. I might be the only one, but I can't read his posts in my mind without thinking about every Russian spy movie I have ever seen. I like the accent, it is cool...

I am obligated to issue myself a warning for posting off topic. Dang.

It was worth it...

I am not russian spy. I worse than russian spy - I am russian conspirolog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
In case of LM this statistical trend is violated. Land and liftoff LM is the most difficult stage of debarkation on Moon. Apollo-10 not checked this device on real unmanned land on Moon. This may compare with astronauts start on Saturh-5 which was checked only on stands. End be easy guess.

You have still not given any real reasons why you think LM landing and lift-off so difficult. Why is LM landing any different from landing a helicopter? Why is LM lift-off any different from Luna lift-off which worked every time?

The Saturn V was flown unmanned twice before its first manned flight. Although one of the tests had problems, in both cases the Apollo CM was recovered successfully. The trouble with the Russian N1 was that it was never checked on a stand before the first launch attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
You not rule. We, russian, be aware of the debarkation of americana on the Moon.

On this have reported in main newspapers. Device Saturn5, Apollo and LM was described In research journals. But tv-reports from Moon we not saw.

That is what I said. The TV from the Moon was not broadcast iun the U.S.S.R.

I did not say that the news wasn't eventually made public. Everyone knew about it quickly...the Soviet people, a little less quickly.

I think reports from Moon didn't show us on other reason.

I am aware of that.

I have also explained to you why that would have been.

The "other reason" was that the Soviet government hid everything. It was all in secret, until it was completed. They only ever gave brief, cryptic descriptions of missions to their people...until, and if there was a success. Occasionally, they said too much, too soon (refer to Soyuz 1--a mission that should never have been launched, in a spacecraft that had never sucessfully flown un-manned and which had over 100 un-corrected technical problems) given the condition of their space program and spacecraft.

You were not shown the television coverage from Apollo 11 because it was in fact a humiliation to those in power. Of course, they already knew that the race to the Moon was lost completely by that time. I am quite certain that showing everyone Apollo 11 as it happened would've been horrific for those in power, as they would further lose face with the people.

That's really the only reason. The Soviets knew full well we had succeeded, and they knew they couldn't pose a serious challenge after the July 1969 disaster at Baikonur involving the ill-fated N1.

You do not present what indignation have caused in russian internet video's and photo's materials of NASA! On free forums much speak of NASA forgeries.

I am fully aware of the "free forum" situation pertaining to NASA "forgeries", etc. That is why I am here.

I am not here to address that junk. I am here to explain the situation to people who buy into this silliness.

If in 1969 s we have shown reporting from Moon, this has caused greater indignation of research workmans

If I am reading this correctly, it seems to confirm why the Apollo 11 mission was not shown to Soviet citizenry.

I nor what did not miss, all materials be available on NASA's sites.

I was refering to seeing it as it happened, not to what is available today on NASA sites.

You missed it when it happened.

Besides, you weren't old enough to have completely grasped what was happening at the time anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
I have an honest question for those with NASA knowledge.....If the moon goal had already been obtained by apollo...why not design the space shuttle to reach the moon?....and why cant the space shuttle reach the moon?....please dont be sarcastic in answering. im honostly perplexed by this?...

The two programs have nothing to do with each other.

The Shuttle was ostensibly designed to be a more cost-effective, re-usable Earth-orbital delivery system. Originally, a workhorse vehicle to serve as a support for space staions, and the construction of manned vehicles for planetary exploration missions, etc. A truck...in other words. Not "the program", so-to-speak, but an integral and essential part of it.

Of course, this became a bit of a problem, but the bottom line is, we design vehicles for a specific purpose. The Shuttle, despite being studied as a possible lunar-orbit delivery system (which was done 10 years after the Shuttle program became flight-active...because we were looking for ways to use what we had for possible future projects, given the fact that the budget wasn't entirely forthcoming to allow anything else), was not designed for that purpose, could not efficiently perform it, and has an intended purpose and flight regime for which it has been designed.

...the study has been linked herein. It shows the obvious inefficacy of such a proposal.

When the Shuttle program became the primary U.S. manned-space program, there were no plans for further lunar exploration. The vehicle was designed and built for LEO operations, because that was the program. To return to the Moon, special vehicles will be built which are designed to efficiently execute that task, which is of course being done now.

It really isn't any more complicated than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
No, use your brain means: think, don`t wait other to do something for you or tell you everything. If you are interested in something think about it before you ask anything. And when someone say somethink think about it, don`t just accept it or not...There are many stupid texts and books, but if you see little bit deeper in every you can find something good what can help you in building a puzzle. So, use your brains and don`t be a sponge.

This is precisely what I have implored HBs to do right here on this board.

You, however, appear to take this to mean that one should do precisely the opposite, a rather typical, but skewed reveral of the concept.

Waspie says (regarding your link to utter non-sense):

And a site that makes the idiotic claim that the Germans landed on the Moon in 1942 is supposed to support the fact that America couldn't get to the Moon in 1969 how exactly?

So you say:

Use your brain, life don`t give you everything on the plate

You seem to be implying that this nonsense link has something to say?

No, life doesn't give you everything on a plate.

If you want to learn, you need to work. You need to study, and understand.

People like Waspie have done so in their lives. They are intelligent and discerning enough to realize that a site such as the one you link to is baloney. They know something of science. They know something of Apollo and the lunar program, which of course, happened precisely as it has been documented.

Using your brain would've led you to the conclusion, and the knowledge that this 1942 German lunar landing stuff was baloney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
magnetar

I understand that Dr. Teller was concerned about using space as a platform for conducting tests on nuclear devices. Was there a treaty signed, back in the 1960's to prevent such efforts? I also read (source unknown) that NASA made plans, nonetheless, to carry out such a test on the Moon.

I would imagine simple physics models would satisfy any such curiosities.

Is this historical trivia innacurate information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.