A snap poll, did we land on the moon?

Another question, why nobody tries to revisit the moon after so many years?

This post has been edited by Panda: Jun 23 2009, 02:08 AM

mythbuster said it's true!

The 1st person dat landed on the moon never came back. So, the Mythbusters is kinda true, i guess.

I think there were later visits.

The reason nobody tries is the cost involved compared to what may be gained from visiting the moon. We pretty know enough of our moon. Better to spend resources on researching Mars.

Because the moon had been conquered by mankind already... so its kinda boring to visit again
The new frontier is Mars...

we should go to Jupiter~ or Titan(Saturn largest moon)

Titan is the only moon known to have a dense atmosphere, and the only object other than Earth for which clear evidence of stable bodies of surface liquid.

This post has been edited by Alex_tan168: Jun 23 2009, 02:47 AM

if proven to be true or fake, nothing is going to be changed. science is all about paradigm shifts. so whats this again?

This hoax is getting stale...

Moon landing was more of a political objective rather than scientific one. US and USSR was in a arm race as well as a space race so everybody is racing to be the first in everything that time including landing on the moon. Interest on moon landing diminished as political will shrunk after the end of the Cold War.

Another hoax thread.

This subforum is about science,not hoax like this.

the only point needed to debunk this is that soviet never expose US for staging a fake moon landing.

Morning!

WOW! From Nuclear Physics to Moon Landing! This is endless!

With the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017%, it really makes your brain came into clock thinking, eh?

What's with the commotion of the Moon Landing was a fake? Photos as evidence? Hmmm...Still skeptical? The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. But then again, with the temperatures reaching till a high magnitude, the film would melt like chocolate on the moon at 250° temperatures. So, how the ~!@#$%^&* heck did the photos came from? Aaahhhh...there's alwaiz a catch! Don't yu love it, eh? The Estar melting point is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at approximately 200° F. (As advanced technologies can be, it MUST have a point of limitation at a certain point)

Another point to ponder: If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface? Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. (They are not Dotards for Christ sake!)

Computer technology. Ring a bell, eh? Mind yu that the computer technology did not exist in the 1960's to build the Apollo guidance computer. How the frigging heck did they guide the Apollo? Skeptical, eh?

To me, for America to came with an idea of a hoax makes absolutely ~!@#$%^&* no sense! Yes...I know and it is true the Americans were at competition with the USSR, but the risk involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax would be tremendous. It takes no Einstein to figure out the devastating effect of the hoax being exposed. Hey, reputation of United States would be at stake for ~!@#$%^&* Christ! More humiliating than failing to land/reach the moon. (It's akin to a feeder in DotA if yu ask me)

Would NASA would be willing to take that risk? After Apollo 11, what's with the following landings? Come on! Okie, NASA would pawn a Dotard like me anytime but of course not the Russians, right? The USSR fully understood the difficulties of a Moon landing and they were smart and they tracked American progress closely...and hey! They acknowledged that the Apollo moon landing were as real as yu and me.

Came year 2009, to fly to the moon today would be nearly as difficult and likely more expensive than it was three decades ago (Technology is there but costing (fundings) is another issue. Psychologically speaking, where is the motivation? Ask yu? Ask me?

Anyway, NASA is one of the more open and well received of all government agencies. Questions? No problem, it will be addressed accordingly. They are a group (came in a dozen to thousands) of "smart scientists, researchers, mathematical analysts, engineers, astronauts, cosmonauts, etc...they are the brains of NASA. But would they lie? For those who believes they did lie, I'll take it as an ignorance. Given the opportunity, I wouldn't trust a sales person more than a NASA's personnel.

Regards, Joey

p.s: I have often been "misunderstood" of "providing no more proof than the plausible advocates", which in a sense I admit it is correct. I have not proven anything, nor do I assert otherwise. This goes the same to the correlation of science is art or art is science thread that I've initiated.

This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 23 2009, 10:34 AM

come to think of it ........... there's several issues that is pending ...


1. Supercomputer vs mainframe (desktop-size vs room-size)
2. Weight of the rocket
3. Extreme efficient shuttle design (aka Inspector Gadget's all-in-one body)
3. Super human (aka astronaut) adaptive brains
4. Insane luck


1. Supercomputer vs mainframe (desktop-size vs room-size)
Basically, in 1969 ... we know those computers is basically mainframes ... so they do calculations ... like our computer do


not just that .. mainframes consists of around 1800 sq feet (that time) .. it looks like this design


btw like this model Imsai 8 bit computer (8 BIT!!) built in 1974 ... most of our pc is around average 2.4ghz (overclocked ones no need to mention)
http://www.futurebots.com/imsai1.jpg

ok, this RCA 1802 Microcomputer controllers is control STOP TRAFFIC LIGHTS ...


so we roughly know how BIIIIIIGGGGG is the computer to fly and land to the moon ... and how FAASSST is the processing for what-farking-experiment they do in moon ... i dun know how they stuff the computer in the space shuttle ... obviously it's important to have computer ..... or else, how to they keep the space shuttle HOVERING (AKA AUTO-PILOT) on their head, while they land on moon

that time, there is NO AUTO-PILOT, unlike nowadays, in the comercial airplane (Boeing etc) .. the pilot can sit back and enjoy the cruise ...


2. Weight of the rocket
So far, we all know ... if you travel to Singapore (or other place) ... ur car must have enough fuel to come back .. am i right? so basically they go to the moon also applies to this .... they have to come back to tell their Story .....

apparently ... during that time ...... all the rockets was able to carry 14-15 tons weight (ONE WAY ONLY) .. normally for orbital trips.. and satelites ..
tip: orbital (cosmonaut) trips just need 1 way fuel to go up .. then the gravity will put it back down (go down = free ride)

today ........ rockets are more larger and able to carry up to 25 tons (US carry the largest weight)


3. Extreme efficient shuttle design (aka Inspector Gadget's all-in-one body)
basically .... we assume US in 1969 has a SPECIAL TECHNOLOGY that can carry the fuel + astronaut + space shuttle + mini space shuttle (landing) + computer (1800sq feet size) + power generator (to run the pc) or big battery (duracell rabbit maybe)

unbelievable? well ... believe it ...... they even provide MAKAN for the astronauts ....... hey, astronaut also human mah, they also need to makan ...
dun ask about kencing and berak .... that time no toilet ... they have SH|T in their suits (or pants)

dun even ask if the space shuttle got equipment to REPAIR things if emergency occurs .... US are 100% percent they'll success, NO FAILURES, so everything is PERFECT, no need fire extinguisher etc ... no need tools either


3. Super adaptive human (aka astronaut) brains

And so they went to the moon, and sit on their MINI SHUTTLE and proceeds to land on the moon, leaving their space shuttle in AUTO PILOT mode (assuming the mainframe is running)

since this is a 1st time landing ....... Neil Armstrong must be having a hard time .... THEY'RE LANDING ON AN ALIEN ENVIRONMENT ... EVERY MOVE MUST BE PERFECT .... so the astronauts manage to land safely ... i dun even know how they land .... even vertical landing vehicle, helicopter is not manufactured at that time .... maybe US has some alien vertical landing tech that time ...
(even today, probes are landed using balloons and parachute, and out of 24 probe missions to Mars, only 1 success)

so they open the champage ... partied ... then ready to go back the Main Shuttle .. the moment they step in the Mini Shuttle ... check the MINYAK, OK minyak cukup, time to blast up .... start the engine ... and return to the Main Shuttle


4. Insane luck
AGAIN ... Neil Armstrong is having DAMM hard time .... LANDING/DOCKING on the Main Shuttle requires PERFECT, GOD-LIKE LUCK to have 100% success ... failure, the Mini Shuttle might have to crash to the Main Shuttle, and they cannot come back to tell their Story

and so, with again the Super adaptive human brains ... he manage to land on the Main Shuttle (remember: there's NO TRAINING, NO EXPERIMENT, NO PROTOTYPE, JUST PURE LUCK)

(even today ... docking in the Space Station, require not only pure accuracy (computer aided with calculations), but there's a mechanical hand to actually put the shuttle closer and locking it ...... there's no such thing as combining 2 space shuttle together in space ........ even today, there's no aeroplane which can land on other aeroplane)




Mini Shuttle



the more i think, the more it sound like a big joke ................ just like Christoper Columbus story ..... sailing to the New World with 1-way food supply and a sure-success plan ........

even today .... US cannot make the space station alone .... let alone travel to the moon and back

1. The computer on board Apollo is a small one, the size of a shoe box and have the processing power of about today's ordinary calculator. It is enough to do calculations that are based on set formula, moreover, the computer's job are dedicated, calculating all the required parameters.

Computers on a modern commercial jet are about as powerful as a 386 processors, they do not have to work around a universal platform like windows/linux/mac OS so they require significantly less processing power.

2. The rockets used to send Apollo astronauts are the same kind that put US spy satellite into space during the cold war. Majority of the fuel spent is to escape Earth's gravity. Since astronaut simply drop into the atmosphere and have a ocean landing. You don't have to carry the same amount of fuel for your return trip.

As for the part where the lunar lander return to it's orbiting module, there's enough fuel on the lunar lander to launch PART of the entire package landed on the moon. They don't bring everything back. At 1/6 the gravity of earth and no atmosphere, you need significantly less fuel to exit the gravity of the Moon.

3. The environment call for innovation. Never heard of energy bars and MRE? Packing boxes of rice onto the lunar module is a waste of space when you can compact all the nutrition and much needed energy into compact form.

Oh, uhh, solar panel anyone? Who need to bring that much batteries on board? In space it's 24/7 sunlight so solar are super efficient even at 10% conversion rate. In situation where you have infinite energy at your disposal, pretty much everything from water to air can be recycled, astronaut didn't liked the idea of eating their own waste(who does?) so, they don't recycle their bowel movement.

The US government has a lot of technology at their disposal that time, they're at least good 10-20 years ahead in technologies before we start seeing mainstream use of similar appliances.

4. lol... do you know they still check docking visually on the ISS? Astronaut can actually override the computer and guide the shuttle into dock with ISS. When you can override a computer in such task, you can bet that human can do that without the intervention of computers.

5. Luck did play a role in Apollo space program, bad luck struck Apollo 13.

Maths of randomization and probability will crush luck into moon dust.

The reason why an airplane can't land on another airplane has more than one factor that lunar modules don't have to live with.

- Planes are flying at a very fast speed relative to each other.
- Atmospheric condition, turbulence, air pressure mean that the plane is never flying at the same speed all the time.

Oh wait, wouldn't that mean mid-flight refueling is impossible? How do they do it I wonder?

People always forgot in outer space, you need little energy to propel a thing going forwards as there is no friction, and once goes forwards, it forever goes forwards without need of any continous energy input. You just need some fuel for escaping the moon's gravitiy and for trajetory for return path.

We cannot apply earth landing difficulty compared to moon that had little gravity and no air. It is harder to land on earth than land on moon due to gravitation pull is larger.

Anyway, I do think helicopter does exist way before the moon landing.

US can make the space station alone if they wish to. A lot of project didn't be carried out due to lesser interest and no major benefit to do so compared to other priority especially on military front. Actually a lot of money and funding is always emphasis on military front, even the internet we are using now is because of military research product.

Were there any research done before any of these statements were made? It is usually a good idea to read up on something before you start talking about it especially if you have no idea on what is going on.


The space shuttle was not used to go to the moon. It didn't even exist during the time of the moon landing. Here's a little link to the wikipedia page in regard to the space shuttle-Space shuttle.

Autopilot system for planes was first created in 1912.-Another wikipedia link-Autopilot

The rocket system that was used to launch the Apollo mission, the Saturn V has the ability to carry a payload of about 47 metric ton to the moon.-Another wikipedia link-Saturn V

The helicopter existed before the moon mission but I'm pretty sure they don't work in space-More wikipedia links-Helicopter

If you compare the trip to the moon as a trip to Singapore by car, at the end of the trip your car would be missing a lot of its parts at the end of the journey. You don't bring back the entire rocket that you use to go into space with. A large part of the rocket ship is left in space to save fuel.

There's a lot more of inaccurate information in that post that if you made it into a drinking game where you drink each time you find wrong information, you would get a lot of people dying from alcohol poisoning.

Oh wow lol, these are even stronger facts that what I could come up with, although of course I didn't wiki anything. I thought he was referring to Saturn V only having 14-15 ton payload capacity. He actually took facts of the shuttle as the lunar lander. o.O

I will choose "not sure" for the poll lolx..i've seen many controversies over the hoax, never rili go n investigate the genuineness..i guess if they happened to grasp some soil on the moon for analysis..that could be a solid proof for the true landing?

btw, what i enjoyed over the moon landing project is the anecdote saying that US discovered the moon gravitational force isn't sufficient to let ballpen work so they dumped alot of fund to invent some anti-gravity ballpen...while USSR easily solved the problem by using a pencil...that was funny....

LOL,

One question on this ballpen issue, means that we can't write on paper when upside down? We can now trying it out to see whether we can write the paper on upside down position.

Ball pen ink doesn't flow back when you put it upside down, right? Because there back of the ink is not open air, just like you turn a bottle/can upside down with a hole straight away with letting chance of flow in the first place, they can't flow out.

In ordinary condition when we writing using a ball pen, besides gravitational pull, ballpen ink flow out based on pull of ink itself. (I forgot what is the term right now), vicious flow something like that?

lolx, ya i noticed tat, ..tatz y it's just an anecdote, and more of a joke for dissing US..btw, ur comment enlighten me that i misintepreted the original story..it's not the gravitational force, it's due to the near-vacuum atmosphere lolx..however, it doesn't change the ballpen ink flow issue, i still perceived the viscous flow explanation is right o..i juz correcting it to fit with the originality of the joke, not because of I want to give a condition where experiment is harder to be done o..lolx..

Capillary action is the words I believe.

I think the entire pen vs pencil thing is a myth anyway. It doesn't take millions of dollar to invent a 50 cent equipment