moon landing

I can concede that point to you as well.. but we're talking about the FIRST of anything mankind has supposedly ever done. Don't you think would be a bit more emphasis on recovering, storing and preserving these documents? I mean they're as much a national treasure as the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the portrait of George Washington when those god damned English burnt down D.C. in the War of 1812!
 
I don't have an informed opinion about this.

But I remember being told that the spaceship had 4 shadows [Despite the only light being the sun] and the flag blowing in the wind or something.

Is there any truth in that?
 
The flag couldn't have blown anywhere as it wasn't a fabric flag. It was a plastic one that stuck out straight.

Now then, as for it being imposible for 70's tenchology to make it to the moon- that is rediculous. Really. Getting into orbit is merely a question of velocity. You have to have enough velocity to make it through the atmosphere and once you do, you are just free falling around the Earth. To get to the moon, you have to have enough velocity to counter the earth's gravitational field to make it to the moon. The moon has its own gravity so you just hang out there for a while. Sure the technology wasn't as advanced, but all you really need is enough fuel to make it there and back. The conspiracy theory on this is utter crap from people who have too much time on their hands and not enough working knowledge of what they are talking about. End of story.
 
You'd think there would be a gazillion copies around. I'm not sure how well old film holds up.
 
People wondering how 70s technology made it to the moon? Just watch the next Russian rocket launch - the rocket and Soyuz craft used are based on the work of Sergei Korolev who put Gagarin into space.
 
Oh really? Well explain to me this. How is it US Space shuttles have THREE boosters for getting into space. 2 auxillary boosters, which pop off, then one MASSIVE fuel tank, which is also jettisoned. The rocket that 'carried' man to the moon would need much more fuel than the shuttle has.. and the rocket was nowhere near the dimensions of the shuttle and its 3 fuel tanks.

I'm not even going into the consideration of.. in late '60s technology.. How did they scrub the air of CO2? Where would they put the oxygen tanks required for such a long distance to go? Surely you don't mean to tell me they trained the astronauts to hold their breath for that long..

Its not being a conspiracy theorist... Its FRICKIN COMMON SENSE! Now please. Your rebuttle.
 
Hence the slight difference in size:



Just the very top of the Saturn (on the left) actually went through space, landed on the moon and returned compared to the whole orbiter on the shuttle.
 
Which confirms my point. How did the Saturn with that small end section designed for passenger, food, fuel, AND air.. make it all the way back? I mean they would have had to use up most if not all of the fuel to get there in the first place, but to say they relied upon the orbiter to carry enough fuel to propel them back seems farfetched. Call me crazy.....
 
When was the movie "Capricorn One" released, and did it have any influence over the "faked" theorists?
 
Don't you have like a cow tipping league or something like that to do out in West Texas?
 
DarkJester this actually seems to be a thread dedicated to teaching you about rockets and the practicalities of space flight rather than you providing a strong case that the moon landing was faked. If you took 5 minutes you could find numerous websites offering many relevant professional responses completely refuting all the standard 'evidence' of the moon landing conspiracy theorists. If you then went out to the bookstore and purchased a good book on the space race and/or space flight hopefully your incredulous questions would be solved and we could all go back and stop talking about another ridiculous conspiracy theory.
 
If they did, I was too busy having a life to bother joining in But I hear its real fun.
 
Did you ever even go near someone whose friend's friend had taken a physics class? Have you even heard of the Newton guy and his apple???
 
There was a programme on this a while back, and I have to say, some of the reasons given that nam never went to the moon were very convincing. That programme just confused me so much, and I can't decide which is true or false anymore. The reasons on both sides make sense and could easily be true, so I gave up thinking because it was hurting my poor ickle pink sparkly brain....
 
Honestly I don't care that much about the topic.
One - its fun to debate.
Two - Its making my workday go by that much faster.
Three - I haven't heard anything from anybody here yet that sounds like an informed rebuttle that doesn't sound like spoonfed crap from 'the man'

Not that I'm much of a conspiracy theorist. I just don't believe government is there to be honest with its people, and that I have a problem with. So when the government gives me its rendition on an important event that occured, naturally I'm skeptical. Goes back to what my mother taught me.

"Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see."
 
...which is perhaps the best technique to render information useless, intentionally or not .
 
The people in the aerospace and national-defense industries are our proof.

From 96-99 I worked with satellites and rockets at one of the companies that makes satellites and rockets and the groundstations to monitor those satellites and rockets. I worked along side old guys who were there in the 60s.
 
Simple physics really. If you accept that F = GmM/rr and that if you integrate this formula to give an expression for the potential energy that needs to be overcome to get from the Earth to the moon, it's pretty big. But, most of that energy is used up getting into orbit. Once you're ina stable orbit, any noticeable impulse is going to send you out of orbit and off in whatever direction you were orbiting in plus a change depending on the direction of the impulse. Once you're in a frictionless environment and have escaped most of the gravitational pull of the earth, getting to the moon actually takes surprisingly little fuel.

On the way back, escaping the moon's gravitational field is simple as the gravity is much lower there. After that, point in the direction of earth and get a little speed, and you can use the earth's gravity to do most of the work for you, with some fuel used for simple course corrections.

Not too difficult really.
 
Back
Top