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
The whole RUnet fall from the chair from the laughter, when read this. Even protectors NASA not steels to rehabilitate this author.

I was advised with specialists on radio communications. And they have said me that radio engineering facilities from land to distinguish a space shuttle with the people on board from relay impossible.

From land impossible to find a signal walking aside Apollo.

Such specialist of by name Molotov nor who does not know. Usually, when write like become indicate completely as a name of person and its service record. That reader saw possible to entrust this or no. As judged by the choice of surname "Molotov" author of article a foreigner, who not powerfully knows what surnames russian have. This common newspaper lying. I consider that to the Moon flew relay in the manner of "Apollo".

It may be the language problem, but I am having great difficulty understanding your arguments. Why can't you track Apollo? Didn't the Russians track their own lunar spacecraft? While communications are not my speciality, I am an engineer and the details of the tracking system made sense to me. Are you saying that it is impossible for a Russian to be called Molotov? Wasn't there a prominent Russian politican with just that name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
Surveyor has flown earlier Lunar Orbiter, and its problem more complex than beside Lunar Orbiter. Well, all flight Lunar Orbiter ingenious. What it changes in the Surveyor's statistics? This statistical table I has brought for proof of difficulties of space flights. Fly on the Moon this not on the picnic to go. But you certain that having gone on the picnic beside you will not be broken car? In space flights either as in any deal does not can be 100% success. Lunar Orbite has done 5 flights, Surveyor has done 7 flights. If Lunar Orbite has done 7 flights you will give a warranty that with him nor what did not occur?

I don't see that any of this refutes my argument. You were bending the statistics and the true ones don't support your original position.

Main problem LM not evolutions on orbit, but boarding and ascent from Moons. Nor on the Land, nor on orbit this do not feel. Only real boarding on the Moon and ascent in the automatic mode. And simulator do not give real skills of pilotting LM in conditions of the Moon. You will sit in the plane if you will say that pilot nor when real did not fly on this plane, but exams on the simulator has delivered on fine? I seem probability of ingenious boarding LM on the Moon must be 50% in such conditions.

Now I am an engineer, and I understand what is difficult to do and what isn't, so you will have to do better than this. Why is lift-off so difficult? Didn't the unmanned Russian Luna probes return from the moon with no problems, though several of them had problems getting there.

On Shuttle excellent statistics, unless consider 14 dead bodies!

Shuttle this veins of activity NASA. Technical level that who do Shuttle above that who do an Apollo, but tragedy has happenned don't care.

The Shuttle never killed anyone until it had flown a lot more missions that Apollo did.

You don't compare analytical possibilities Surveyor with possibilities a labs. of institute.

And you still haven't said what substance could plausibly be present and a danger.

Geologists with the pleasure have searched in 380 кг. heap of Moon soil interesting stones. Yes only who it this will allow?

Than is distinguished tiny bit of soil from the whole stone? That that sand can and automaton to take like Luna-16. But interesting piece of sorts to split off from mountains can only person!

Moon rocks have been described in peer-reviewed scientific papers. Try doing a bit of research instead of making these unfounded accusations. The Lunar Science Conferences are a good starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Here you go: Feasibility analysis of cis-lunar flight using the Shuttle Orbiter (PDF document)

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19910014907

Indeed, Obviousman.

NASA studies all kinds of things...even those things that are probably unfeasible.

The poster was referring to a shuttle being used to go to the Moon, and of course I went all the way to the Moon and described simplistically, the problems.

That study concerned using the OV as a delivery system for lunar orbital payloads...in a time when they were trying anything they could muster to figure out ways to use what they had at their disposal.

It outlines the dificulties and feasibility of using the Orbiter as a trans-lunar vehicle and LO delivery vehicle.

...no one would ever consider analysing using the OV as a landing vehicle...that, would be funny! :D )

The fact that it was revealed that 712mt of cryo would have to be delivered to the ET in orbit (that's 234,000 pounds) in order to get the total payload and spacecraft out there...in order to deliver a 10,000 pound payload (which is about 2% of the payload mass the thing would have to deliver in order to be "efficient").

Thus...they termed it a "poor vehicle for payload delivery missions in lunar orbit". This of course is an understatement if one takes time to read the particulars of the analysis. And I tend to use much more simplistic terms to explain things to folks, like:

...we still need more fuel (mass...my God the thing's going to have to be twice it's size with the fuel tanks...),

That's about right, actually.

...), since we're gonna have to slow down...alot... in order to allow the Shuttle to enter the Earth's atmosphere at a speed which its design parameters will allow it to (gentle, shallow, at Earth Orbital velocity...not the velocity ot would necessartily attain on a trans earth trajectory).

...which is stated in the report as follows:

"...due to the TPS limitations the Orbiter cannot make an Apollo-style direct entry upon Eartn return. Therefore an EOI maneuver is necessary to brake the spacecraft into the desired LEO. This is a serious handicapo as the impulse needed is about the same as for TLI!"

Anyway...yes, the idea was studied...16 years ago. And of course, that study, diligently done, has been filed away for a long time, and shows that we ain't doin' it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
yeah its pretty interesting that we havent gone back to the moon since then

makes you wonder why Money is not the answer at all if NASA really wanted

another moonshot theyd have had it when Ronnie was at the Helm and Yet natta

we have sent men to space stations and for fancy plane rides above the atmosphere but NOBODY

from either the US....China.....Korea....or Russia has gone again

there must be real reasons why and those listed as

Money

money

and money

thats BUNK

If you think that's bunk, then you have no idea about reality.

NASA has always wanted another "moon shot", as you say. In fact, "Ronnie" was a staunch supporter of space exploration.

However, what you do not seem to understand is that "Ronnie" didn't have absolute control over the purse strings (President's don't...try to remember your Government classes (I have no idea what they call Civics and stuff like that anymore...or if they even teach about that stuff)).

The Congress has control of the appropriations. "Ronnie's" Congress wouldn't have it, so it didn't happen.

That is the way it was...and it is.

That's the reason why the U.S. hasn't gone back. As to China, Russia, and Korea (?), they never had the capability in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Main problem LM not evolutions on orbit, but boarding and ascent from Moons. Nor on the Land, nor on orbit this do not feel. Only real boarding on the Moon and ascent in the automatic mode. And simulator do not give real skills of pilotting LM in conditions of the Moon. You will sit in the plane if you will say that pilot nor when real did not fly on this plane, but exams on the simulator has delivered on fine? I seem probability of ingenious boarding LM on the Moon must be 50% in such conditions.

Now I am an engineer, and I understand what is difficult to do and what isn't, so you will have to do better than this. Why is lift-off so difficult? Didn't the unmanned Russian Luna probes return from the moon with no problems, though several of them had problems getting there.

Swanny...

As an engineeer, I also should think you're having a devil of a time understanding what that meant!

I think he's referring to boarding a vehicle and leaving the lunar surface. You seem to think so too...although honestly it's difficult to understand what

Nor on the Land, nor on orbit this do not feel
...and...
I seem probability of ingenious boarding LM on the Moon must be 50% in such conditions.
....means.

:blink:

However, up to a certain point, I think I understand this.

And simulator do not give real skills of pilotting LM in conditions of the Moon. You will sit in the plane if you will say that pilot nor when real did not fly on this plane, but exams on the simulator has delivered on fine?

I think he's an HB, and he believes that simulators didn't prepare anyone for the real thing. Thus, we couldn't have done it.

The SIMS were pretty good, all the way around (people with brains devised these systems...folks like YOU!). And of course we have the LLTVs and LLRVs...designed by people similarly smart.

The premise of this thing was logical and sort of simple....

How do we make a flying machine that's gonna simulate how a LM will handle in 1/6 g?

Well, let's make a deal that's kinda like a LM...then let's simulate 1/6g by putting a set of jets on it with a constant thrust of 83% of the thing's weight. That'll simulate the gravity, right? Yea! Then, we'll slap another engine on it that'll let it go up and down. That's the ticket. Then, we've gotta simulate the RCS, so lets slap another set of jets on it that'll allow us to pitch, yaw and roill around, while these other engines are running.

Know what? We oughta theoretically have something that'll behave like a LM probably will!

They were right...despite the fact that the piece of genius was a bleeding train wreck that looked like a broken steam engine when it was operating.

...there's a reason the astronauts were adamant about not scrapping that thing...despite the fact that sometimes it had a propensity to crap out.

Of course, the lunar crews all commented that their LLTV time had been of great benefit, since it did in fact simulate terminal phase handling of the LM very well.

I wonder if you can explain to this fellow what simulators actually did, how they did it, and the minds that thought up this stuff...

You've got your hands full, me thinks!

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Go gently with this guy's English people. I'm guessing he's doing a lot better than most of us would do on a Russian speaking board.

If you are having trouble understanding what Rusich is trying to say then asking him politely to rephrase it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
auhsoj
It may be the language problem, but I am having great difficulty understanding your arguments. Why can't you track Apollo? Didn't the Russians track their own lunar spacecraft? While communications are not my speciality, I am an engineer and the details of the tracking system made sense to me. Are you saying that it is impossible for a Russian to be called Molotov? Wasn't there a prominent Russian politican with just that name?

... i'm wondering, if this guy's english is that bad how's he managing to understand anything you're writing?

...but he does have some awesome points... :tu:

Edited by auhsoj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
...but he does have some awesome points... :tu:

No he doesn't. He has the same old tired points that have been shown to be false time and time again. His English is poor, his understanding of Apollo is nonexistent.

Let's look at the logic of his "awsome points" shall we? He is claiming that the Saturn V was not powerful enough for the job. He has produced not one single piece of evidence t back up his claim, hence his "awsome point" is just personal opinion. When it was pointed out to him that there are thousands of experts in the world that could determine whether the Saturn V was capable of doing what NASA claimed his reply (if I understood it) was that NASA were clever enough to produce a paper design that would have the claimed capabilities.

If this "awsome point" contained a single piece of common sense it would be obvious that if a design can be producd on paper which will work then their is no reason why you can't build the actual thing that will work.

The Saturn V was not some revolutionary piece of equipment, it was much the same as the rockets that went before it only bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
... i'm wondering, if this guy's english is that bad how's he managing to understand anything you're writing?

Being able to understand another language comes first. Being able to readily use (written or spoken) another language comes later on. This is something I'm quite certain of, I teach English as a Second Language. So, I'd say understanding what's being written is somewhat easier for Mr. Rusich then composing a rebuttal in English. What to do about this issue...just keep plugging away on both sides (trust me, I do this all the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
That is the way it was...and it is.

That's the reason why the U.S. hasn't gone back. As to China, Russia, and Korea (?), they never had the capability in the first place.

Or the russians and chinese know the craft will burn up going thru the belt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
Or the russians and chinese know the craft will burn up going thru the belt...

Well as they are both now attempting to place men on the Moon themselves they have a strange way of showing it.

Besides which even the "real" hoax believers have enough knowledge to not make themselves look really sillly by using expressions like "craft will burn up" when talking about the Van Allen Belts as even they have enough sense to try and pretend they know what the are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
Well as they are both now attempting to place men on the Moon themselves they have a strange way of showing it.

Besides which even the "real" hoax believers have enough knowledge to not make themselves look really sillly by using expressions like "craft will burn up" when talking about the Van Allen Belts as even they have enough sense to try and pretend they know what the are talking about.

what expression would I use?....this is the first time i've been flame baited by a mod...good work keep it up...the russians and chinese talk about going to the moon and thats all it is...talk...the US doesnt even talk about going back...I know they are strapped for cash...thats why they spend billions on mars.... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

How is it flame baiting to point out that someone doesn't know what they are talking about? The fact you have to ask what expression you should use rather confirms I am right.

Craft do not burn up passing through the Van Allen belts, even the hoax believers can understand this. You do realise that those telecommunications satellites the beam TV into your house and telephone calls around the world are 22,500 miles up and have passed through the Van Allen Belts don't you? Maybe you don't.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
fixed typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Honestly, it really does help matters to understand the subject one is talking about. I'm not flaming here, but the Van Allen Belts simply do not "burn up spacecraft". To say such is rather silly. See this question and answer session from Caltech. The author sums things up quite nicely:

By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
Honestly, it really does help matters to understand the subject one is talking about. I'm not flaming here, but the Van Allen Belts simply do not "burn up spacecraft". To say such is rather silly. See this question and answer session from Caltech. The author sums things up quite nicely:

ok I guess i dont know what im talking about...the physics of a large manned craft are the same as a small satellite or probe I guess?..and not one human from any country has passed thru the belt in almost 40 years because?....oh ya lack of funding....

Edited by limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
ok I guess i dont know what im talking about...the physics of a large manned craft are the same as a small satellite or probe I guess?

They sure are. Why would they be different?

Now the point that the Moon Hoax believers wrongly make is that the human occupants would not survive the radiation. This claim is only made by those who don't realise that there are different types of radiation and that radiation exposure is dependent on time exposed as well as the strength of the radiation. If they did understand this they would be able to understand why they can't find a single expert on the Van Allen belts that will back up their claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtomicDog
ok I guess i dont know what im talking about...the physics of a large manned craft are the same as a small satellite or probe I guess?..and not one human from any country has passed thru the belt in almost 40 years because?....oh ya lack of funding....

Actually, yes. They are identical. Can you demonstrate that they are not?

As to funding, I can post article after article and editorial after editorial decrying even the thought of returning to the Moon by writers and Congresscritters for the entire 40 year period as a waste of money. If the people that control the pursestrings aren't convinced, we ain't going.

It's somewhat of a miracle that the current RTTM proposal is going as well as it is. As I have said before, it is dependent on the Space Shuttle being retired by 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
Actually, yes. They are identical. Can you demonstrate that they are not?

a large manned vehicle has human bodies on it that will suffer the radiation...a probe is man made material....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
a large manned vehicle has human bodies on it that will suffer the radiation...a probe is man made material....

And that makes the craft burn up? Well you have now made it clear that you don't understand the word "physics" either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
And that makes the craft burn up? Well you have now made it clear that you don't understand the word "physics" either.

no i dont understand physics....I understand logic though...honestly I dont know if we made it to the moon or not...I know the US govt lies incredibly, and if it was a hoax. they could never tell anyone.. or risk being overthrown...Im just fascinated that if people did go to the moon.. then why not go back for 38 years?...and have no plan too....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
no i dont understand physics....

Obviously

I understand logic though...

Really?

honestly I dont know if we made it to the moon or not...

Then where is the logic of getting involved in a debate in which you admit you don't understand and don't know whos is right?

I know the US govt lies incredibly, and if it was a hoax. they could never tell anyone.. or risk being overthrown...

Then why didn't the Soviet Union, or the Chinese or any of the rest of the USAs enemies that would have been aware of the truth reveal this to the World and watch the US collapse. And you claim to understand logic?

Im just fascinated that if people did go to the moon.. then why not go back for 38 years?.

Just how many tiome does this have to be explained to you?

..and have no plan too....

Now you are just plain wrong. The USA is planning to go to the Moon again (in their case by about by 2020), as are the Russians, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese and possibly the Indians (I don't think I have left anyone out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtomicDog
no i dont understand physics....I understand logic though...honestly I dont know if we made it to the moon or not...I know the US govt lies incredibly, and if it was a hoax. they could never tell anyone.. or risk being overthrown...Im just fascinated that if people did go to the moon.. then why not go back for 38 years?...and have no plan too(to?)....

This is the third time you have said this. Have you not heard of Project Constellation?

Project Constellation

You may take it is a lie or not, but it is an announced plan to return to the Moon and go on to Mars.

Edited by AtomicDog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

your right I had no business commenting here....I bet noone makes it to the moon in your lifetime though...good luck with the NASA agenda...peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtomicDog
your right I had no business commenting here....I bet noone makes it to the moon in your lifetime though...good luck with the NASA agenda...peace

Ah, young Grasshopper, I suggest these sites to go on your journey to enlightenment:

Moon Base Clavius

The Bad Astronomy Moon Hoax page

Both of these sites have forums devoted to discussing (and debunking) the Apollo Moon Hoax.

If you want to really learn about one of Civilization's greatest achievements, please, drop in for a spell. Tell 'em AtomicDog sent you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
your right I had no business commenting here....

It's not about having a right or not, you have as much right as anyone else. It is an issue of common sense. If you are going to come in making statements of fact about a subject which you admit you know nothing you are going to crash and burn. If you phrase the ame thing as a question then people will answer it and you don't end up looking silly.

I bet noone makes it to the moon in your lifetime though

I intend to live well past 2020. I expect to see the first NASA moon base, the first non-American mission and the first woman on the Moon in my life time. I also suspect I have a very good chance of seeing the first human on Mars.

I find it amazing that someone that believes that NASA is hiding the technology to cross interstellar space can not see the contradiction in believing that NASA has not got the technology to go to the Moon.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

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.