An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by crowdtransplanter
The thing few people put on the table is the re-entry issue, which is really my only perplexity; how could they make everything so precise with 60s technology keeps being a mistery,

Well, even before Apollo was conceived,and for the last 55 years both the US & Russia have been very interested in improving the accuracy and controllability of high-speed re-entering objects:

I'm sorry, I didn't make my point clear enough, the re-entry term was quite misleading; I was referring to getting back on the orbital module from the moon surface, not reentering the atmosphere, which was something that had been achieved way earlier. That is a challenge, you have to hit a moving object, whose position is known with a certain error and get there at the right speed; what I think is that the errors in those measurements with the technology of the time (and I don't know how much better it would be with the technology of today) was inevitably so big that trying to come back from the moon surface was some serious gambling challenge. Then of course I could be misinformed, like everyone else. I'm not taking a position in this, I really don't know.

Originally posted by crowdtransplanter
I'm sorry, I didn't make my point clear enough, the re-entry term was quite misleading; I was referring to getting back on the orbital module from the moon surface, not reentering the atmosphere, which was something that had been achieved way earlier. That is a challenge, you have to hit a moving object, whose position is known with a certain error and get there at the right speed;

That had been achieved way earlier, too, with the Gemini 6/7 meetup and the Agena dockings in Earth orbit.

reply to post by crowdtransplanter

The ascent stage of the Lunar Module was steer-able, so it's not like they only had one shot at getting it perfect. They certainly did need to get pretty darn close due to limited fuel on the LEM, but once they got the trajectory "close enough", they could fine-tune their docking approach by using 16 reaction control thrusters. As I said, the amount they could correct their docking approach was limited by fuel, but they were given enough fuel so some course correction could still be done.

All of the orbital mechanics and rocket thrust knowledge required to get the LEM ascent stage to dock with the Command Module were well-known at the time. All it took was for someone to do the math. I'm not saying the math was easy, but it wasn't something that couldn't be done "technologically speaking".

the only thing that will end the moon conspiracy is for NASA to go back to the moon and to continue to do so.

"Hey kids, let me tell you of the moon landing we did in 1969, it was a great success...then we stopped and never went back again. But we were there I tell ya, we were there!"

"Sure grandpa, whatever you say "

Originally posted by mwm1331
and video of our astronauts while on the moon haven't put this to rest, how would new pictures really help?

well hold on now, NASA lost the moon landing footage, so can you really use this as evidence?

Originally posted by filosophia
the only thing that will end the moon conspiracy is for NASA to go back to the moon and to continue to do so...

What makes you think the hoax believers would believe a new mission would be real and not another hoax?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by filosophia
the only thing that will end the moon conspiracy is for NASA to go back to the moon and to continue to do so...

What makes you think the hoax believers would believe a new mission would be real and not another hoax?

hmm, good hypothetical question, let's wait until NASA returns to the moon and then see how the hoax believers take it. I'll contact you in 2025

reply to post by MickeyDee


Hi all, sorry to post hin here as I do not have enough credits to post a new topic yet, so if this is in the wrong place then apologies and I would appreciate someone putting it in the correct thread or start a new topic on my behalf.

I read on google news the following article this morning. www.guardian.co.uk...

Its all about the google prize to land a robot on the moon, well NASA have suddenly introduced guidelines about places they shouldn't go etc in order to preserve artefacts etc etc.

This to me sounds a bit odd, why suddenly now are they saying this? Have they got something to hide. Anyway, take a look folks and see what you think.

reply to post by Bramstone


There have already been a few threads on that subject. Here's the most recent one: Link

Take a read through the actual NASA PDF file that's linked to in the opening post and see what they are suggesting and the reasons why. They aren't trying to hide anything. They simply want to protect the sites (mostly Apollo 11 and 17).

reply to post by Bramstone


please read NASA`s actual request , to paraphrase :

" please stay 75m away from a list of important Apollo program artefacts "

seems perfectly reasonable to me - and will ensure that , if abided by - no inadvertant damage will be done to the apollo artefacts

you wonder if " they are hiding something " - please go outside and examine your car from 75m away

Originally posted by Bramstone
I read on google news the following article this morning. www.guardian.co.uk...

Its all about the google prize to land a robot on the moon, well NASA have suddenly introduced guidelines about places they shouldn't go etc in order to preserve artefacts etc etc.

This to me sounds a bit odd, why suddenly now are they saying this? Have they got something to hide. Anyway, take a look folks and see what you think.

They are protecting the historical significance of those sites. For example, it would be a damn shame if a future robotic rover ran over Neil Armstrong's first footprints, obliterating them with its own wheel tracks.

Wether we went to the moon or not..
None of us saw the actual photos or videos from it.
Everything we saw was staged.

Personally, I think we did probably get there..
but I'm pretty sure we weren't allowed to actually see it.
What we saw were props and stages. Not the real photos/videos.

I think the US went to the Moon because Operation Paperclip did happen and many German scientists were invited to share the rocketry with the US and a few more years and it happened and space rockets were invented.

Originally posted by Ahmose
None of us saw the actual photos or videos from it.
Everything we saw was staged.

...and what's the basis for such statement?

reply to post by Ahmose


The photos match the videos, and the videos unambiguously show the kicked dust moving in a manner consistent with a 1/6th gravity vacuum environment. This cannot be faked on any stage or in any special effects shop - not even today.

Any and every argument against the photos, videos, science or engineering always boils down to the same thing: "I don't understand it, therefore it must be fake!!!" - which is as silly as it is arrogant.

The videos are real.
The photos are real.
The science is real
The engineering is real.
The mission are real.

Deal with it.

reply to post by Bramstone

.....well NASA have suddenly introduced guidelines about places they shouldn't go etc in order to preserve artefacts etc etc.

Not really "suddenly", as I recall these recommendations were published over a year ago.

Oh, and I see you live in the UK? Well, ever been to Stonehenge? I have.....visited in 2008. How many years ago did the authorities decide to keep the average hordes of tourists the distance away that is the current standard? Roped off, on a pathway that circles the monument, some 100 feet at the closest, it seemed to me.....what's that? About 30 metres or so.


Sure, there are "private access" options, but for your average tourist, that requires some forethought and planning ahead. A bit of research (post-visit, unfortunately for me) and I found this site.

Still, even then:

A Stone Circle Access visit is not a guided tour, and touching of the stones is not permitted.

So, how come if it's perfectly acceptable to preserve and protect an historic site such as Stonehenge, the same respect and care cannot be afforded to the Apollo sites as well??

Originally posted by Bramstone
reply to post by MickeyDee

 

Hi all, sorry to post hin here as I do not have enough credits to post a new topic yet, so if this is in the wrong place then apologies and I would appreciate someone putting it in the correct thread or start a new topic on my behalf.

I read on google news the following article this morning. www.guardian.co.uk...

Its all about the google prize to land a robot on the moon, well NASA have suddenly introduced guidelines about places they shouldn't go etc in order to preserve artefacts etc etc.

This to me sounds a bit odd, why suddenly now are they saying this? Have they got something to hide. Anyway, take a look folks and see what you think.

The answer is right in your post: It's the Google X Prize that prompted these recommendations.

The Apollo landing sites have a historical significance, and NASA feels they should be preserved -- just like other historically significant sites are preserved on earth, such as the Pyramids or the Roman Colosseum. When the Google Lunar X Prize officially got started at the end of 2010 (registration for the Prize closed on December 31, 2010), NASA saw that there may be rovers driving around near those historical Apollo sites, and felt the need to write guidelines and recommendations for how they should be preserved. Those recommendations were released in July of 2011 -- i.e., they've been published for almost a year (they're not a brand-new thing).

Those recommendations specifically mention the Google Lunar X Prize, and the possibility that there may be robotic rovers sent to the moon by X prize contestants, as one of the reasons the recommendations were deemed necessary.

The Apollo 11 and Apollo17 sites (being the first and last) are given the most importance in these recommendations, and have a larger area that robotic rovers should stay clear of. The other Apollo sites have less strict access guidelines. These guidelines in fact encourage detailed photography of some of the Apollo sites by the Google Lunar X prize robots, or other robots.

Here are those recommendations (link opens directly to a 4.5MB pdf file):
www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by UnMature
[m


They faked it so as to cover uP other things. They pretend to do one thing and turn around and do another .

reply to post by WeaselSpencer

They faked it so as to cover uP other things. They pretend to do one thing and turn around and do another .

Perhaps you can start a new thread and present your evidence.

Let the slaughter begin!