Is it even possible to go to the Moon?

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I remember as a kid my father, brothers, and I went outside one night after the Apollo had launched and with a pair of high powered binoculars we took turns looking at a red dot heading toward the moon. Must have spent an hour watching that dot and talking about what they would find and hoping they would safely get there and back.

My mother back then was never into science and knew very little of such things and thought the Moon's illumination came from an internal source like the sun. She found it hard to believe that the sun was the cause of the illumination. Schools at that time were more involved in history as it happened before our eyes and I remember all of the hoopla of what the future might entail as far as future space missions and possibly landing on Mars.

But I'll never forget that red dot in the sky. My dad is gone now and so is that dot but what a time to be alive and to share it with someone special.
edit on 12-1-2012 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Wasn't there a story recently which said the only remaining rock/crystals assumed to only be found on the moon (which the astronauts bought back) was actually found on earth in the desert?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I'm sure we have been to the moon, i'm sure they have craft that can fly to the moon in less than a couple days if not even faster, what we have gotten to see with the shuttle is old technology and before that thing was ever launched they already had the next generation after next generation that wasn't ever to be seen, its all smoke and mirrors.

someone going to honestly say that we don't have farther advanced technology than the shuttle???
you know as well as i that when computer technology is released to the public that its already outdated by months if not years,so you can imagine how far along with their space program they are, i mean look at all these physicists that were working on all those propulsion systems back in the 50s 60s 70s and beyond that, that you hear about in popular mechanics, but you never knew anything more, that's because they are in use or have been antiquated by something better.

Here's one, have you ever wondered why most of the fighter aircraft run over budget and they can never seem to fill any orders, and they are always upgrading for a better technology half way through a project???

Its because of the smoke and mirrors to allocate money under false pretenses to hide the truth, thats why



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by 11I11
 



Wasn't there a story recently which said the only remaining rock/crystals assumed to only be found on the moon (which the astronauts bought back) was actually found on earth in the desert?


The mineral Armalcolite can sometimes be found on Earth. What does this have to do with whether or not it is possible to go to the Moon?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetnlow
 



I'm sure we have been to the moon, i'm sure they have craft that can fly to the moon in less than a couple days if not even faster, what we have gotten to see with the shuttle is old technology and before that thing was ever launched they already had the next generation after next generation that wasn't ever to be seen, its all smoke and mirrors.


Do you have any actual evidence for this?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


my data comes from google, so your welcome to have all that I have!
I think that it's possible, but not with the tech they had back then.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Although there are obviously risks involved, such a mission could easily be undertaken with existing technology. All that is required is money.


I certainly agree with you, and anyone that doesn't is in such an unbelievable state of denial that they should be relegated to living in a remote cave where they can sit in a corner and rock and mumble to themselves in peace. There have already been tourist trips to the space station, and a person has already ponied up the bills to be the first person to take a tourist trip around the moon:


Space Adventures already has one customer signed on for the circumlunar joyride and is in contract negotiations with a second, which means the first flight could occur as soon as the end of 2015, said the company's chairman Eric Anderson.


Source

Clearly the next step will be tourist trips to the moon surface and if I had Paris Hilton's money I'd happily sign up.

I think I know where you are going, which is to say if we have the technology now, then when did we obtain it? 10 years ago? 20? 40? And it's a valid point, we didn't develop it yesterday. Certainly we have excellent tech today and thus can make trips into space very safely. One would think it would have taken 40+ years of development to get to where we are now and that it would have been much more risky and dangerous early on. And indeed, that's exactly what the historical record indicates. There's a reason all the early astronauts were taken from the test pilot pool, they had to be brave and fearless to do what they did.




edit on 12-1-2012 by SavedOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Billions went somewhere.

While the government definably has funding vacuums for nefarious purposes, to ignore the combined labor of thousands of Americans and other nationals, their words, research, works, and experiments, the billions in equipment, and 10 years worth of experimentation?


I'm sorry. Only an idiot says that.


If they didn't land on the moon, then everything they ever did was fake and it was a 10 year tv show. There is no middle ground. They either wasted their lives and somehow perfectly constructed false science and math for a decade to justify its own existence....or they actually did those things.


These things ACTUALLY happened.

They actually took 10 years to learn and figure it out. They didn't just do nothing between Kennedy's speech and A11. They did science and labor.

AS-202 actually went unmanned

Apollo 1 actually blew up and killed people.

Apollo 4 was an actual successful test.

Apollo 5 actually demoed the craft was capable of doing it unmanned

Apollo 6 actually demoed the abort plan b if anything went wrong.

Apollo 7 actually successfully demoed the technical know how of manned missions

Apollo 8 actually successfully orbited the moon

Apollo 9 actually successfully performed docking procedures

Apollo 10 actually successfully dry ran the mission

And Apollo 11 and the rest? Well the rest is ACTUAL history.




They did not snap their fingers and make it happened. They actually worked hard for 10 years and did it.




Don't come to me and say it's all fake without realizing the ramifications.
edit on 12-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I respectfully submit you go back and read the OP. The question has nothing to do with the historicity of the Apollo program.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
To answer the op question, yes. It is totally possible to go to the moon. It's pretty much the same as going to the depths of the ocean in a submarine. The tech necessary to survive underwater is basicaly the same as required to go into space. The biggest difference being protection from radiation. But we're good at protecting ourselves from radiation, just look at nuclear submarines. It's not quite the same as the radiation we find in space, but there is radioactive material on subs that the crew is protected from. We all know that gold can block radiation, so lining our space suits and space craft with gold (which we do) provides enough protection for short term exposure.

The only reason why we "can't" go to the moon is cost, and, at least in North America, no one wants to spend that kind of money. Since there's no countries with oil to invade up there, there is no reason to go. (personal opinion)

We will see in a few years just how possible it is when China lands people there. That should put all argument to bed about the subject. High Def cameras, real time video feeds and possible realtime chat with the Chinese Astronauts will ensure that everyone see's it happen, right before their eyes.

And thats, my 2 cents.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I think that if any were staged it was only the first one, maybe the second.

My reason for this is Apollo 13, which had major issues in transit and couldnt land.

Why go through all that then not stage it as another "success", doesnt make sense to me.

Either 13 was a planned moon landing that went wrong, OR, it was a dry test run to see if we could actually get to the moon and back and the issue's were a cover up that it was just a test run.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I see where you're going with this thread


Buried in your OP is something that stuck out at me, and perhaps might have been overlooked by others. It involves the mechanics of "orbital mechanics", and the question as to whether any of our current "off-the-shelf" hardware is capable of achieving the orbital parameters as you properly described:


This must be given a high enough impulse to achieve an elliptical orbit with a perigee of, say, 300 kilometers and an apogee of 400,000 kilometers.


Alas, I fear that many in the audience won't have the first clue what any of that means. However, hopefully will draw the attention of those who do.

Also, hopefully those may be able to elucidate with some actual performance capability figures and specifications, which will take some digging, but should be able to piece together, if not known off the top of one's head (and only specialists and experts in current rocket technology from NASA, ESA or the Russian Space Agency are likely to be "up to speed" and current in those areas).



This can be provided by any number of extant upper stages.


As mentioned above, this will depend on the possible configurations, I'd think. A defining limitation is the initial lift from the Earth.....the "extant upper stages" by their nature are massive, with hardware and fuel requirements, and therefore they are an additional "payload" burden on the first stage lift needs.....probably more than the more "routine" launch payloads to Low Earth Orbits. So, there is a "law of diminishing returns" situation here.

Back to the above and the "experts", will have to research (or just ask) from the available specs to see if anything can do this.

SINCE this is only about a circumnavigation trip to the Moon, the mission is "easier", since there is no need for the added mass of any Lunar Lander and associated fuel, etc. One could calculate a "streamlined" concept, just to "do it".

Since it's obvious, though, that many satellites have been successfully lofted to Lunar orbit, seems reasonable to presume that such a "round trip sightseeing" type flight could be achieved, since the real difference between a robot and a man is the need for life support equipment, which adds weight and mass.



The passage through the Electromagnetic Radiation Belts can be minimized by inclining the the flight path to an angle of 30 degrees relative to the Earth's equator and passing through them as quickly as possible.


And, of course....many will (and have already in this thread) attempt to say, "We don't know enough about the radiation", which is incorrect, as many, many readings have been collected over many decades, and there is a tremendous amount of data collected.


I will end this post with the beginning: Orbits.

This is a primer for those who care to watch....it's dry and boring, because it's educational.





(The introduction lasts for about the first two minutes).

If you open the YouTube link, there are more relevant videos listed on the right-hand side. And Parts 2 and 3 of the above video.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 



As mentioned above, this will depend on the possible configurations, I'd think. A defining limitation is the initial lift from the Earth.....the "extant upper stages" by their nature are massive, with hardware and fuel requirements, and therefore they are an additional "payload" burden on the first stage lift needs.....probably more than the more "routine" launch payloads to Low Earth Orbits. So, there is a "law of diminishing returns" situation here.


If you think in terms of the old "Earth orbit rendezvous" concept, there is no reason to suppose that the booster used for the TLI would need to be lofted by the same booster that carries the Soyuz CSM. If we suddenly needed to dispatch a manned craft to the Moon to check out some amazing anomaly, the governments of the world could cobble something together and have a team out there in about a week.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by fuserleer
 



I think that if any were staged it was only the first one, maybe the second.


Again, the question is not whether or not you believe people have landed on the Moon historically, the question is whether or not you think it is possible at all.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by fuserleer
 



I think that if any were staged it was only the first one, maybe the second.


Again, the question is not whether or not you believe people have landed on the Moon historically, the question is whether or not you think it is possible at all.


I'm a bit confused with this. If I believe people "landed on the moon historically", then it goes without saying that I also believe it is possible, right? Therefore anyone stating that they believe the Apollo missions occurred would imply that person believes it is possible.

The main reason I believe it possible (and happened) is the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment set up by the Apollo astronauts.

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment WIKI

edit on 12-1-2012 by westo because: spelling - doh!
edit on 12-1-2012 by westo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by westo
 



I'm a bit confused with this. If I believe people "landed on the moon historically", then it goes without saying that I also believe it is possible, right? Therefore anyone stating that they believe the Apollo missions occurred would imply that person believes it is possible.


True, but someone who believes that the lunar landings were "faked" would accuse you of circular reasoning. My intention is to tease out reasons why some people do not think the lunar landings were possible. I find it very telling that, so far, no-one has risen to the challenge. Only one person has brought up the "radiation argument," but their stomach wasn't in it.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



If you think in terms of the old "Earth orbit rendezvous" concept.....


Oh yeah.....forgot about that!!

An added level of complexity and expense, but negates the need for the "Saturn 5" type of heavy first stage booster.....



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
My response to the OP is "yes."

But I'm always surprised that more focus isn't spent on "Can we get back?" I would have thought more Hoaxers would latch on to that one.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
True, but someone who believes that the lunar landings were "faked" would accuse you of circular reasoning. My intention is to tease out reasons why some people do not think the lunar landings were possible. I find it very telling that, so far, no-one has risen to the challenge. Only one person has brought up the "radiation argument," but their stomach wasn't in it.


I think everybody thinks it's possible to travel to the moon. Nobody is really disputing that are they? The people claiming we hoaxed the moon landings are not also by correlation claiming we can't technically go to the moon.

The main argument, from what I gather, is that we hoaxed the moon landings due to the high probability of failure, and at that time, failure was not an option. I believe your thread is asking the wrong question as it relates to your intention.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


I think they faked it....and all 3000 members of NASA were told to keep quite or they would be killed





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join