Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?

reply to post by Consequence

In much of the imagery analysis, there isn’t really an opportunity to “lie” as you claim.

They simply show official images and discuss how or why the images are flawed. At that point it would be up to the audience to agree or disagree with the premise being advanced based on the logic being presented…

A lot of what Ive seen was not very “scientific” or “sciencey”. Obviously some of it was. Say for example when they used the convex angle of the astronaut’s visor to determine the size and position of the light source/s being reflected. Those types of calculations got a little involved in my opinion.

But much of the footage being reviewed seemed relatively straight forward.

I would disagree that a child in elementary school would know the physics behind rockets in “mid flight” (not sure which schools or children these would be). But I would argue that even a child knows that considerably more energy/fuel is required to travel 500,000 miles versus 250 (the orbiting distance for the space shuttle).

I don’t believe that the US space program made incredible technological gains within two years from utter failure to extraordinary success. The astronauts themselves (the ones who perished) had grave (literally) reservations.

And what does any of this have to do with “conspiracy theories”? There are some people who have made the case as to why the official story cannot be true based on their expertise…

I’m really intrigued by this idea that there can be no other plausible, logical or reasonable explanation other than the official story. That everything else is a “lie” or a “conspiracy theory” or [enter some other dismissive language here].

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
Really, well lets consider just one point. What would be the safer option an orbiting station or a land base?

Wait, you started talking about how more useful it might be but switch to how much safer it might be in the second sentence of the argument? Telling.

And just how "safe" trips to the Moon can be... Just ask Apollo-13 crew.

I know the distance involved is much greater, but the chance of space debris alone damaging the orbiting station must be taken into account.

Sure, it must. By the way, if you never leave your house, your chances of getting into a car accident are significantly lowered. Does it mean that staying locked up is more "useful" than getting out? As the statistics go, quite a few spacecraft (sometimes with the crew) were lost to gear malfunction and virtually none to collisions with space debris, which means this argument is moot... Very much so.

And then of course imagine an astronaut would need medical attention and maybe even surgery. Getting down from the orbit is trivial, while a whole return mission from the Moon is darn expensive.

A land base would be a much more stable environment for long term usage and missions.

What usage and what missions? You are being so generic in trying to muster argument that it becomes useless. If it's a mission to study Lunar soil, then yes, a lunar base is vastly more useful than an orbiting station, which would be useless. If it's a science experiment studying growth of crystals in zero-G, lunar base would be useless while the orbital station priceless. And speaking of safety and stability, if anything malfunctions in low orbit, it's a lot easier to send a repair/rescue mission there than to the Moon, and "a lot" is an understatement.

The ISS is a floating derelict, without the shuttle it's basically game over for that outdated hunk of unsafe space junk.

By the time a Moon station is built, large parts of it will be obsolete, that's the time scale. And ISS is there and kicking, and there are a few replacements for the shuttle are in the pipeline, including private business ventures.

Again and again, your argument is totally without merit. A pattern there?

The investment of a land base makes more sense. Is it easier to repair something in orbit or would it be easier to repair something land based?

It's not "land based", it's "moon based" and no, for Christ's sake, getting a spare part to the Moon is a daunting task, while getting same part to Earth orbit is very doable.

You need to think past your first asinine thought to realize what could have been if real visionaries were involved in our exploration of space.

You can call it "asinine" you want but at least I practice critical thinking, as opposed to baseless tripe.

reply to post by Bilk22

Just curious why NASA wouldn't photograph the Moon's sky.

They did, using an ultraviolet telescope:



They also took photos of stars from lunar orbit. They were attempting to photograph the zodiacal light, which is caused by dust:



Sorry I can't provide a link to the source for these photos. They've been in my ATS Images folder for ages. The top photo is from Apollo 16. You can google "Apollo 16 UV telescope" for more information. The second photo can be found by googling "Apollo zodiacal light photography."

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Consequence
In much of the imagery analysis, there isn’t really an opportunity to “lie” as you claim.

Of course there is. They are either not knowing what they are talking about, or intentionally lying. Why is there not such an opportunity, do you mean?

They simply show official images and discuss how or why the images are flawed. At that point it would be up to the audience to agree or disagree with the premise being advanced based on the logic being presented…

Of course it is up to the audience to agree or disagree, but since they are spreading untrue information, people with lesser or equal knowledge to them will agree, as they think it makes sense. That doesn't make the conclusion true.

A lot of what Ive seen was not very “scientific” or “sciencey”. Obviously some of it was. Say for example when they used the convex angle of the astronaut’s visor to determine the size and position of the light source/s being reflected. Those types of calculations got a little involved in my opinion.

Fair enough. In any case they seem to be convincing as people buy what they say. And I think they buy what they say because of the psychological fact the tellers are the 'experts' and the listener is not.

But much of the footage being reviewed seemed relatively straight forward.

Then obviously what they say seem even more convincing.

Actually, let me elaborate on that.
Atleast on university-level, during an oral exam, sometimes the teacher tries to mislead you by, after you have answered a question, making a statement in greater depth as to further clear your point, to which you tend to answer "exactly" as the teacher knows what he's talking about (more than yourself). This is a trick, of course.
This is a way to see whether or not you really understand the content, or if you've tried to learn the answers.
I remember that I have a few times went "yes, exact....nononononono! Wait!". In other words, it's easy to accept an explanation if you are in the "wrong" mindset and forget to think for yourself. Things can sound very convincing.

I would disagree that a child in elementary school would know the physics behind rockets in “mid flight” (not sure which schools or children these would be).

I think I said, or at least what I wanted to say, was that you are taught in elementary school that objects in space that are not hindered by gravity will go on forever (i.e. why planets orbit the sun, why satellites orbit planets and what happens when the planet or sun isn't there), that it should be common knowledge for adults who are discussing space-travel what it means to have rockets in space. It could be deduced from the simple facts learnt at early age, or it could be learnt merely through the small interest in space and the knowledge you inevitably gain by becoming older.

But I would argue that even a child knows that considerably more energy/fuel is required to travel 500,000 miles versus 250 (the orbiting distance for the space shuttle).

Of course it does, you will need more velocity when launching. And a child might even think that you will need a thousand times more, like you suggested.

I don’t believe that the US space program made incredible technological gains within two years from utter failure to extraordinary success. The astronauts themselves (the ones who perished) had grave (literally) reservations.

Yes, clearly you do not. Even though it is evident that they did. I am not going to argue this bizarre fact.
However, I want to point out to you that in space flight, there isn't really anything between utter failure and success. If you fail, you crash and burn. If you make it, you...make it. I hope you will think about that.
I agree, it looks like a giant leap, but it's the smallest details that make or break (literally) everything.

And what does any of this have to do with “conspiracy theories”? There are some people who have made the case as to why the official story cannot be true based on their expertise…

The whole world (the general view anyway, apart from a handful) looks at the landing as a fact.
Now people are claiming that this is a lie, a conspiracy (conspiracy - "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot).
And, since claim has not been proven, it is a theory. Thus, a conspiracy theory.

I’m really intrigued by this idea that there can be no other plausible, logical or reasonable explanation other than the official story. That everything else is a “lie” or a “conspiracy theory” or [enter some other dismissive language here].

Hypothetically, there can, of course. We could all live in the matrix. Or I personally am in a coma and I'm currently dreaming an alternate world history. Unfortunately, the actual landing cannot be dismissed in itself, because there is no evidence that say otherwise.
There are suggestions, but they fall under scrutiny. Not to mention that thinking of all the people who work at NASA, it'd be impossible to keep a secret. People seem even unable to hide things they want to hide nowadays.
So yes, I think the whole idea is ridiculous, but I still do not mind discussing any "evidence" you have, and try explaining why it's not true.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by laughingdog

 

Based on the little research Ive done, it would seem that the US never went to the moon.

The footage is just one aspect: the shadows, the crosses on the lens, the differences between photos and movies of the exact same images etc. Its funny because when you hear the experts analyze the movies and photos, theyre almost laughing at the absurdity of the images.

The technology required to travel back and forth to the moon, just the fuel for example. The Space Shuttle travels just 250 miles above the Earth. The moon is 1,000 times further, one way...

edit on 28-8-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

Care to give some examples about the footage ,shadows etc also the comment about the difference between photos and movies of the exact same iamge?

Also your comment re fuel do you know Newtons Laws of Motion (that's a hint) look them up read the First Law.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
But I would argue that even a child knows that considerably more energy/fuel is required to travel 500,000 miles versus 250 (the orbiting distance for the space shuttle).

...and then your level of development is that of a child.

It's not like driving a car, at 30MPG and calculating the ratio of 500k miles to 250. You missed the point even there, because once the shuttle enters the orbit, it keeps running up it's space odometer, and for example the Russians stayed in orbit for like a year, you can calculate what distance they covered while in flight. How do you explain that they hadn't have to stop for gas once a week?

The answer, of course, is that the flight is ballistic in the free flight sense, and modulo the small correction burns here and there (and more recently gyroscopes use to correct orientation) you don't burn fuel continuously. Yes, even the space station needs to be refueled once in a while because of some small atmospheric drag, but I can assure you they get impressive MPG.

The mission to Moon does require a burn to get to escape velocity and then another to decelerate. However, the bulk of the flight is purely free flight, the vehicle flies under the influence of force of gravity only. So forget your 500k.

reply to post by laughingdog


Because of recent other post concerning not going to the moon, a certain question keeps coming up in my mind, and I did address the question in the original post.
Why would you fake the moon landing? I don't think money was the issue, could it have been the lack of technology? I don't see a gain from a faked moon landing... as I have said earlier in this post.
I think the whole "We did not got to the moon." conspiracy is a lie, concocted to draw attention away from other questions that the may be hard to answer.
I think they discovered something up there. And a "We never went." is the perfect tool for confusion.

I would disagree that a child in elementary school would know the physics behind rockets in “mid flight” (not sure which schools or children these would be). But I would argue that even a child knows that considerably more energy/fuel is required to travel 500,000 miles versus 250 (the orbiting distance for the space shuttle).

reply to post by gladtobehere



Are you saying that comets, meteors, etc, are powered by fuel?

This kind of struck me as odd, they to the moon six times..
Now, why six ?
They won the race, over and done with... It's almost like they had to go back several times for some bizarre reason
Your toughts are welkom...

Originally posted by drneville
This kind of struck me as odd, they to the moon six times..
Now, why six ?
They won the race, over and done with... It's almost like they had to go back several times for some bizarre reason

Your toughts are welkom...

Yours is an interesting position. People here usually say "why have we stopped going to the Moon?" For them, six times is too little.

They went to the Moon to do science, to explore the surface, and to test new technologies. They cut the program short (there were more missions lined up) because they wanted to start the Shuttle program.

Why haven't we been to the moon with a manned mission since the '70s?
I believe it boils down to "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt/coffee mug; have better things to spend my money on now."

In 1984 I went to Disneyland. I haven't been back since, even though I could get there faster, safer and in greater comfort with the technology I have available to me now. Why? "Been there, done that, got the coffee mug; have better things to spend my money on now."

Most politicians can barely see past the next election. Why spend effort on convincing your electorate that they should spend money doing something that is unlikely to get you re-elected when you can spend it in your district on something that will increase your re-election chances? Even if it is ultimately a bridge to nowhere.

You know there has been alot of "moon" threads recently on ATS,some i've posted in some i haven't,always a fascinating read.
Years ago i thought the moon landing were fake...end of...nothing to see here.

As times gone on i've learnt about many aspects of the landings that i didn't know before & slowly but surely i've some around to the idea we DID go but something still doesn't seem right with it though.

I wish i was alive to see it & hope to see it again some day.

These threads are always fun to read & i've learnt a great deal & i'm still learning.

EDIT:
Why haven't we been back since the 70's ?? i have no idea,money & the fact that after so many missions they figured there wasn't much else to be gained by keep going back

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by drneville
This kind of struck me as odd, they to the moon six times..
Now, why six ?
They won the race, over and done with... It's almost like they had to go back several times for some bizarre reason

Your toughts are welkom...

Yours is an interesting position. People here usually say "why have we stopped going to the Moon?" For them, six times is too little.

They went to the Moon to do science, to explore the surface, and to test new technologies. They cut the program short (there were more missions lined up) because they wanted to start the Shuttle program.

It seems to me a little dangerous, just to go back for those reasons
Just to put lives on the line for some experiments, yeah... let's go to the moon and drop a feather... yeah right
I just don't get it

Best regards

Originally posted by drneville



. let's go to the moon and drop a feather... yeah right

Of course that was the only reason they went to the Moon

It is tough and we barely were able to pull it off at the time with 400,000 people working on it. But it re-established the street cred of US high-tech and that had profound economic, diplomatic, and military fallout. Twenty years later, the Apollo triumph nailed the coffin shut for the USSR when they realized if we could land on the moon, we could [if we really tried] build a space missile shield to castrate their nuclear strike forces -- and they threw in the towel.

Such motives aren't nearly as powerful in today's multi-polar world.

China is following its own path to establish an equality with US and Euro and Russian tech, at a modest budget level. Nobody really sees any payoff for the tremendous cost and risk of a re-run, for now.

Developing human access to beyond-low-earth-orbit, to any number of destinations, is the current NASA direction [spacecraft and booster now being developed], and I think it's the prudent one. When the time comes to resume human and human-tended lunar surface operations, it won't be an 'Apollo-on-steroids', and will probably use other technoloies for lunar orbit to lunar surface [and back] transportation.

buddahsystem

And speaking of safety and stability, if anything malfunctions in low orbit, it's a lot easier to send a repair/rescue mission there than to the Moon, and "a lot" is an understatement.

And this applies from the Moon to Mars too. This is my argument for NOT going to Mars before we have explored the Moon and proven the space technology necessary for long range space travel.

====================
IF we have ever been to the Moon, then we must be still going there.

It takes 4 days to get there in a saturn 5 rocket, 4 days to get back, 1 day there, thats 9 days which leaves another week or so to mess around with things at the ISS. Ok, it takes 1.5 days to get up to ISS messing about with orbits etc.

There is no room in the ISS for another 3 people for 15 days. The space shuttle is not equipped for astronauts to stay onboard for 15 days plus. Thats 3 people over 2 weeks. It just does not make sense and neither does all the provisions taken each trip. What about the vast amounts of food and water they take up? OK, so to be safe you take up more than you need, but space is at a premium in the ISS, so you cannot store that much and the fresh food they have been transporting up there cannot be stored for long in a 'fridge in space. There is tons of it.

There were Russian cargo drones making drops every month or so, as well as some largely unpublicised shuttle launches.

Do you think this recent unmanned space shuttle which has been aloft for months just flies about doing flight tests? There are only so many tests you can do until you decide that everything is working well. The USA have hundreds of satellites in orbit spying on every square inch of Earth, do we really need a roving unmanned shuttle up there as well?

The other thing which we do not consider is that of other conspiracy theories which may have a bearing on this one.

IF we are in contact with aliens, then any technology could be multiplied many thousands of times since the aliens have probably been around this galaxy for many millions of years. We assume that our rate of learning has increased maybe 10-fold, since the 1960's but if we had other resources to call on, then far more is possible.

There are people talking in terms of how long would it take to get to the Moon. Normally 4 days, but with better technology, far far less. There are people talking about how much money would it cost. Aliens have no need of our money as it must be something else they work for.

Of course it all depends on the IFs and whether they are true or not.

Instead of delving into some super secret conspiracy why don't you look into all of NASAs missions since 1962.
Not just the manned ones but Ranger and Surveyor probes. You will find that it was a very methodical build up to the manned landings.

Did you know that a Surveyor landed and later lifted back off the surface for a few feet just so they could see just how deep the pads setteled into the dust?

Did you know that Apollo 12 landed next to Surveyor 3 just to see how accurately they could land and see the effects of time on surveyor on the sruface.

Look at the reason they landed where they did for each mission.

Apollo got the budget axe from the president. We had the hardware for another mission and plans for another two but not the money to execute them.

There is a lot of difference between unmanned missions and manned missions.

Unmanned missions you only have the spacecraft to lose. Time and money, yes, but not loss of life of more than one person(in these cases) and the associated bad press which goes along with that.

From what I read, the rate of spacecraft mission failure was pretty high back in those days.

Rather like an order coming down from the top and having to go into battle knowing that you were very likely to get killed, the Apollo moon missions were probably a similar thing. The government does not really care if one or two missions fail if it means that the country has won over the USSR and won the space race. It all comes down to expendable military personnel.

Originally posted by spaceg0at
the thing that bothers me is the lack of moon missions in MY lifetime.

If you would like us to go back to the Moon, sign this petition. We currently spend 17 billion on a space program that only goes to LEO. This is not about raising the NASA budget, more like giving the budget something more exciting to do than going up and coming down. I encourage everyone to go sign this petition if you would like another Moon landing and/or a Moonbase in the next 4-8 years. Don't forget to share it with your friends!

Originally posted by Scooter591

Originally posted by spaceg0at
the thing that bothers me is the lack of moon missions in MY lifetime.

If you would like us to go back to the Moon, sign this petition. We currently spend 17 billion on a space program that only goes to LEO. This is not about raising the NASA budget, more like giving the budget something more exciting to do than going up and coming down. I encourage everyone to go sign this petition if you would like another Moon landing and/or a Moonbase in the next 4-8 years. Don't forget to share it with your friends!

Great post Scooter591, as I watched the lunar landings I took for granted they would continue, until eventually they would build a moon base, but sadly this never took place.