Is it even possible to go to the Moon?

reply to post by reddwhite


Oh yes, I see now.....language can be imperfect at times:

I think you misunderstood inside the ERB's to mean in the belts themselves vs my meaning of inside ( towards earth ).

However, I did refer to reports I've read from the Apollo astronauts (sorry, in this mental exercise, we are supposed to ignore the accounts form Apollo, per the OP's intentions...but...).....the Apollo astronauts who did transit the ERBs are the ones who most reported the "flashes". A fact that is hard to ignore, even as we attempt to stick to the OP's intent here......

reply to post by ProudBird


I agree with you though, outside of this specific frame of reference ( no apollo information) that it seems highly unlikely that we would have or could have faked it. George lucas hadn't even invented the necessary tech.. I.e blue screen technology to IMHO to properly fake somthing as well dcumented as this. At the time the government censored things not made them up like today.

In short, I would have to say apon reading some of these musings along with having put a couple of hours of thought into it that they kinda had to have done it, if we would have faked it the russians would have been all over it. Don't you think that is the first thing they thought to check?

reply to post by DJW001


Great, you sent me a paper. So are you using this as your foundation of belief? One paper Vs a lot of eveidence (I don't have to supply this, it's available on the net). Sure, my microwave steel/aliminium combo shields me from being cooked in the kitchen and I get the physics, but it's a whole lot different than the space race.

I have my beliefs and you have yours and just like VAB's, they don't mix. Cheers.

reply to post by CaptainBeno

Great, you sent me a paper. So are you using this as your foundation of belief? One paper Vs a lot of eveidence (I don't have to supply this, it's available on the net). Sure, my microwave steel/aliminium combo shields me from being cooked in the kitchen and I get the physics, but it's a whole lot different than the space race.

I have my beliefs and you have yours and just like VAB's, they don't mix. Cheers.

It is not one paper, it is mountains of data that are summarized in this, and countless other papers. It is not a matter of belief.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by nineix

 

Have you seen a Soyuz capsule? I have. It's a called a "capsule" for a reason. It's a space equivalent of the Smart car. Try driving it for 3 days in a row without ever exiting the vehicle. And you can't land Soyuz on the moon anyhow, so I don't see your point. Also, the rocket itself, sufficient to deliver the payload to the Moon, and enough fuel and hardware to get back, is not a trivial item.

What happened in the Apollo program was an unprecedented (and still not superseded) concentration of effort, by the most industrialized and rich nation on the planet.

Did I say anything about exiting the capsule or landing? No.
Going to the moon, running a lap or two around the block, and coming back is all I was inferring.

Have I seen a Soyuz capsule? Yes.
Have I seen Mercury and Apollo capsules too? Yes. (I live 15 miles from Johnson Space Center Houston).
Do I know how unequivicably large a Saturn 5 is in comparison to other rockets? Yes. Johnson Space Center Houston has a complete Saturn 5 on display next to several other rockets, and the size difference is pretty astounding.

You use driving in an economy car for 3 days straight without exiting as comparison. Would it be uncomfortable? Yes. I never claimed doing a moon shot in a modified Soyuz would be comfortable, or even all that safe.
Getting to LEO, on the former shuttle program, a Soyuz, or any other solution has tons of risks as evidenced by two lost shuttles. Space travel isn't safe.
Possible?
Yes.
Safe and comfortable? No.
but possible?
Very much so yes.

Try travelling 1500 miles cross country on a Triumph Daytona 675 sport bike, in full leathers, at the height of summer, from Houston, to LA, across deserts, in temperatures over 100 degrees F.
Cross country sport bike riding alone is uncomfortable. Toss in the heat, full leathers, dehydration, and all the other road factors, and you've got a fair degree of all sorts of uncomfortable.

Would most people even try such a thing? No. It's dangerous and uncomfortable. Are there people that have that kind of endurance and the willingness to take all the risks and discomfort that comes with any high risk venture?
Yes.

Can we go to the moon?
Yes.
Is it possible with off the shelf hardware?
Yes.

Would it be expensive? Yes, but, not impossible, and there are private interests, if pooled, could very well do it.

Will such happen? No.
But, can it? Is it possible?
Yes.

Our current technology is most likely a tiny bit more advanced than what they would like us to believe.

reply to post by reddwhite


......you're getting close.......to understanding...

George lucas hadn't even invented the necessary tech.. I.e blue screen technology .....

In 1969?? Or even 1968?? No, not even close.

AND, I would tell you, here in 2012?? It STILL cannot be "faked"!

Anyone who cares to learn about the true abilities of Hollywood "Special Effects" (SFX) and all the complexities involved, plus the changes in techniques year-over-year....AND if anyone cares to learn about the realities of actual film-making (and not just basing opinions on the "finished" result)......

....well, once you realize just how complex actual real film making is, and the way it's produced, and edited, and re-worked and tweaked and the re-re-edited.....well.........

I belive it is possible to go the Moon in this age. I'm not a scientist or anything special to know, I just think we've come far enough to go now.


And I read this post, and feel I need to drop an LOL-Bomb on it... [its on the first page, bottom post]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When I toured the NASA facility the tour guide made a point that we don't have the capability to go to the moon anymore.

LOL-BOOM! ..Really? We don't have the capability anymore? So we've declined in technology, in other words.
Have another!
LOL BOOM!

I'm going to jump in here with a little more about the purpose of this thread. Serious historians weigh evidence in the form of documentation, eyewitness accounts and physical remains to piece together a narrative of events. They are generally able to reach a broad consensus on the materiality of events; where they tend to differ is in their interpretations of the various actors' motivations.

For example, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. There are records both by the United States and Imperial Japanese Navies, including films, photographs, orders of battle, and so forth. There are living eyewitnesses and a half sunk battleship still sitting in the harbor to provide tangible proof of the day's events. Where historians diverge is over the motivations and meanings of the events. Some traditionalist American historians might talk about Japanese "ambition" or even "duplicity." Japanese historians often cite America's embargo on Japan for "forcing their hand" making conflict "inevitable." There are even conspiracy theorists who believe that FDR did this consciously to provide a pretext for entering the war. No-one has yet to claim that the attack on Pearl Harbor never occurred.

Now imagine that someone wants to claim that the attack never really happened. All of those films and documents? Faked. The eyewitness testimony? All lies. In his mad ambition to enter the war, FDR secretly ordered a squadron or two of American planes to be painted in Imperial livery and pretend to attack the base. All those films were secretly made in Hollywood using models.

How to prove this contrarian theory? The theorist must either find extensive documentation of this massive project, or prove that it was impossible for Japan to mount such an attack. Since no secret memoranda have been forthcoming, our plucky theorist must prove that the Japanese lacked a sufficient number of aircraft with long enough range. They must prove that the Japanese did not manufacture enough munitions to supply the raid. They must prove that it would have been impossible for them to approach undetected, or if detected that the United States would certainly have mobilized quickly enough to turn the thrust of the attack.

In my debates with Moon Hoax proponents, they often claim that it is a question of applying the standards of scientific proof to "prove" that the landings actually happened. It is not; it is a matter of applying historical methodology. However, as in the above example, if the charge is that the entire historical record has been falsified, it becomes necessary to prove that the historical record cannot physically be true.

Originally posted by DJW001

Allow me to begin. The logistics of sending human beings to the Moon is straightforward. All that is required is an off the shelf spacecraft; a Soyuz would do nicely. 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. This can be provided by any number of extant upper stages. 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. Once outside the ERBs, the ambient radiation will be greater than in low Earth orbit, but studies show that the cumulative effects are negligible during the course of a few weeks. Our current solar observatory infrastructure guarantees that the astronauts would have ample warning to re-orient their craft in the event of a dangerous solar event. Although there are obviously risks involved, such a mission could easily be undertaken with existing technology. All that is required is money.

Now... does anyone care to disagree?

Once eliminating Apollo from history, we are faced with the fact that nobody has even come close
to trying to land even a monkey on the moon. So then historically, it seems pretty impossible.

Now, you kind of only focused on the first part of the problem, getting men there. You didnt explain how they would land, what they would land on, how they would be able to take off from the moon and get back to Earth, re-enter its atmosphere and land safely.

May I finally jump into all this and though I have restrained myself from quick strikes here, due to working, I hope one finds that in this page's colorful variety of subjects, my tangent post may not be so tangent, and at least timely.


Film tech is here today, with the real life footage from the Apollo missions, can very well recreate a fake. In 1969 no, in 1979 not really very well to put it mildly. In 1989 the Knoll brothers were well underway releasing the beta version of Photoshop they where engineering, which really opened a new basis for film applications. John, the older of the brothers took a 6-month leave from Industrial Light & Magic to work with his then student little brother, Tom's creation of Photoshop. Actually a couple years in the making, but I thought it would be neat to keep the dates in even decades. By 1989 I was using Photoshop for real jobs, before I knew how to turn a computer on. In 1989 I don't believe a fake could have been done, film tech was just beginning then, and Photoshop was quite archaic.

But how would they know how to fake it?

Of course without the real Apollo footage, things look goofy in films about space travel and nobody really knew how to depict it in films, or chose not to be realistic because real life is more boring than films where you see spacecraft bank a turn like they are in atmosphere, and hear the roar of the wind as they pass and engines, in space! At least Star Trek attempted to show how things move in space, Star Wars didn't care, it was a movie, planning to become a movie series, you have to grasp the fantasy inside of people, not show how boring it really is.

Could they do it in 1969, of course.
Could they have faked it in 1969, not a chance.

the irony is this is a site where alien visitation is considered routine and ho-hum. but men on the moon ? now you're talkin' crazy ! lol

I'm sure there was a time pyramids were considered impossible as well

I've got four words for you guys. Van Allen radiation belts. Nuff said. The whole argument that they can measure the distance and even the latest "images" that suppossedly show the landers, all done remotely with robots. The russians had been doing that for years before we faked our landing

Originally posted by reddwhite
No, I think you not only misunderstand my statement but the physics involved.

Oh really? Indulge me.

Cherenkov radiation is a form of high energy charged particle radiation

Cherenkov radiation in its most common form is light, hence it in itself is not high energy at all. Have you seen Cherenkov light, yourself? I have.

and it is hypothysized by the top nasa scientists on the matter that they not only interact with nerves

...and there are many papers that show that this is in fact Cherenkov light created in the vitreous body of the eye.

( nerves = electrical cables

No they are not. It's a lot more complex than that.

fact high energy charged particles do interfere with any and all electrical signals

As a person who used to build nuclear instruments for living, I attest that this statement is utter cr@p.

There is a huge difference between radiation experienced at any level of our atmosphere vs hard vacuum.

When you travel at 35,000 ft while flying overseas, the pressure is only 1/5 of normal, so your pronouncement of "any level" is obviously false. You have 4/5 of your shielding missing, sir.

It is not only a gross mistatment on your part but out right ignorance to compare leaving the earths magnetic field with high altitude flight.

Radiation belts would not exist w/o the magnetic field of the Earth. You were saying?

They aren't even comparable levels of radiation intensity. A solar flare aimed right at earth can and does knock out entire regional electric grids

But this is due only to interaction with the Earth's ionosphere, and not direct "radiation hit". Of course you didn't know that.

Originally posted by stagglyone
I've got four words for you guys. Van Allen radiation belts. Nuff said.

No, it's not "nuff". How do you know what exposure and where they cause?

reply to post by stagglyone


I've got TWO words for you:

The russians had been doing that for years before we faked our landing

Bull Spit!

reply to post by FoosM

Once eliminating Apollo from history, we are faced with the fact that nobody has even come close
to trying to land even a monkey on the moon. So then historically, it seems pretty impossible.

Not a valid line of reasoning. This would be like arguing, in 1491, that it is impossible to cross the ocean because no-one has ever done it historically.

Originally posted by FoosM
Now, you kind of only focused on the first part of the problem, getting men there. You didnt explain how they would land, what they would land on, how they would be able to take off from the moon and get back to Earth, re-enter its atmosphere and land safely.

Do you think the Soviets faked their robotic missions to the Moon and recovery of samples collected there? Which does entail taking off from the Moon and flying back to Moscow.

Our published, mainstream science says "no" to any messing about on the moon. At least 'til a few things are worked out. Like how to deal with electrically charged lunar dust, the type that will get into everything and cannot be easily brushed off. In fact I could almost use this to say we have never walked on the moon, let alone played golf or drove buggies around.

Saying that, I believe that this is the biggest hurdle in trying to do anything on the moon for more than a day, 'cos if you are still on the moon when night time hits...

Lunar Electric Fields: The surface of the Moon charges in response to currents incident on its surface, and is exposed to a variety of different charging environments during its orbit around the Earth, with charging currents spanning several orders of magnitude. On the sunlit hemisphere, photoelectron emission usually dominates, ensuring a small positive surface potential. On the night side, however, plasma currents dominate, and the lunar surface charges to a negative potential on the order of the electron temperature (typically ~50-100 V in the solar wind wake and magnetospheric tail lobes) PDF

The universe is an electrical force of nature, without it life would be lifeless and to understand it is to embrace our scientific progress fully - only then we can do moonwalks!

Lunar Dust Transport Still a Mystery

Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE)

Moondust in the Wind

The Moon's Electrical Craters

I completely agree with the OP. Travel to the moon and beyond is absolutely possible.

However, as I've already answered your question, the moon landings were faked 100%. 1960's were a looooong time ago technology-wise and computers were the size of rooms. Not to mention the videos of them 'walking around' and 'bouncing" are blatant fakes. I honestly thin someone has to be blatantly and purposefully retarded to believe the official story after viewing what's available today.

That all being said, I know why they were faked...to bankrupt the Russians and built unity within the American people at a time of war and fear mongering. Thats obvious.

Why people cling to old stories that are obviously not true, and why the government won't come out and say "you're right, we lied, let's move on" I don't understand. Societies collected nature would return within a decade.

No harm, no foul government.

I'll restate that the possibility exists that men have gone to the moon and we're probably still there and beyond to this day, however, I know we didn't go and walk around and bounce around etc, like they say we did. There's something more to the story that boring exploration and geology. There's got to be an element of ROI (return on investment).