Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1

 

And how is landing on an asteroid so different from landing on the moon? Or Mars? Please, explain how radically different that is. You are putting a capsule down on a hard planetary surface on all three. Tell me how come you couldn't have one capsule to do all three? Oh wait, I forgot we don't have planes that can perform more than one mission at a time (which is BS considering the multimission aircraft we have), so that means nothing else can do more than one thing.

So the moon, Mars, asteroids are much the same sort of missions? Sure, let's add Planet X and Vulcan, shall we?

Live long and prosper!

Mars is far, far away. What would be the propulsion system for it? Do you know if we have a beta model developed yet? I don't, so fill me in.

How does one land on the asteroids? Same way as one lands on Mars, right? Tell me more...

A Saturn V isn't good enough anymore.

And landing man on the moon is a cinch now.

We've progressed to images of the moon, with some little dots and fuzzy blobs, to prove we landed there!!

You can prove to yourself that we landed on the moon.

reply to post by turbonium1


They get $17B a year in budget. The total cost of the SLS and Orion crew vehicle is $16B if nothing runs over. These things always run over. So they'd have to do nothing else for an entire year to have the money to develop both to have the money. The reason they said they didn't know how much it would cost is because they didn't know at the time how much it would be total for both programs. They were still in the early design stages.

reply to post by turbonium1


You don't have to have three different capsules to do all three missions. The capsule itself is exactly the same. The propulsion system attached to the capsule is what changes. The Orion would have a service module attached to it, just like they did with Apollo that would have different engines, although, just like going to the moon, once you were heading that direction, you'd only have to do correction burns.

reply to post by HauntWok

Busting the Mythbusters with their own quotes.

EXACT QUOTES FROM MYTHBUSTERS segment on Apollo retroflectors:

The guy in the hat says:

"So, what you're saying is
we get a really big laser
and point it at the reflector on the moon
and if we get a signal back
that means we were, in fact, there."

The guy in the glasses says:
"So, if there was a retroreflector on the moon
and we knew it's exact location
and we had a powerful enough laser
we could detect the reflection
and PROVE there is man-made equipment on the moon."

Glasses guy says:
"Well, it seems there are some people who do not believe
that man has actually been to the moon."

Guest scientist Russett Mcmillan says:
"I've met some of them."

Hat guy explains that they will be using a 1 Gigawatt laser because
"..that's what you got to have to make it to the moon and back."

Glasses guy says:
"In fact the specific one [the LRRR] that we are shining on
was left there by the Apollo 15 crew.
Now, we're firing on the order of 200 quadrillion photons per laser pulse
at that reflector
and we're getting between 1 and 3 photons back per pulse if we're lucky.
When we get that photon back we'll see a spike like that on the screen."

Narrator says:
"Not just thrilling but conclusive."

Glasses guys says:
"We shined that laser on the moon on the second test and we got a clear spike back.
Photons came back to our receptor.
And the only way that that could happen is
if there was a piece of man-made equipment
up on the moon
to reflect them back."

Hat guy says:
"So get over it. There's no conspiracy here."

Glasses guy says:
"We've been there. We've done that."

- - - - - - my comments about the Mythbuster segement - - - - - - -
The only thing Mythbusters pretended to prove here is the Apollo 15 landing site, so that is it.
Notice that they did not ever say the name of the Apollo 15 crewman who placed the retroreflector.
Nor did they examine the possibility that the LRRR was placed by a robotic landing craft.

They only pinged 1 laser reflector when there are several other units alleged to be there
and they did not even mention the Russian reflector which was placed robotically.
I wonder why they avoided mentioning the Russian reflector?
- - - - - - -
tl;dr
Mythbusters did not prove that an Apollo 15 astronaut placed the LRRR. The only thing Mythbusters proved was that there was "a piece of man-made equipment" at that location.

Come on guys, lets give the OP some credit. I mean it's not just coincidence that NASA named the simulator:

Lunar Orbit and Let-Down Approach Simulator (LOLA),

Get it? let down....l..e...t d...o...w, ah forget it.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I have read somewhere that a reflector isn't even necessary that the regolith has sufficient refraction that it can reflect a lazer back. Quick search returns my favorite human moon landing detractor, Jarrah.

MOONFAKER FAQ

The recent Mythbusters show claimed that the only way retro-reflectors could have got there is by astronauts. This was said while on a visit of the APOLLO laser ranging facility which uses the Lunokhod 2 mirror.

Some propagandists claimed that if there was no reflector on the lunar surface, we’d never get the laser signal back because the moon would not reflect it. This false claim even found its way onto Mythbusters. When it was pointed out that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)16 and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory17 were able to bounce lasers off the moon and back to earth without the aid of any retro-reflector.

reply to post by Panic2k11


You don't need a reflector, but you can tell the difference between a reflector and the moon's surface. The reflector is much more accurate, and gives much better readings. They know exactly where on the moon they're hitting and getting the pulse back from, so they can get much more accurate readings.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Panic2k11

 

You don't need a reflector, but you can tell the difference between a reflector and the moon's surface. The reflector is much more accurate, and gives much better readings. They know exactly where on the moon they're hitting and getting the pulse back from, so they can get much more accurate readings.

That makes sense - given that the reflectors would be designed for that specific purpose, and they'd already know their exact location.

The real problem I have is with the slimeball tactics used by some Apollo supporters - like the Mythbusters' laser 'expert'.

The 'expert' would know that lasers can be bounced off the lunar surface itself, without the need for any reflectors. While the readings may be less accurate/weaker than with lasers, they are still genuine readings.

And, as Sayanora noted, there were already reflectors on the moon, which were placed by Russian probes. The expert would know this fact as well.

The 'expert' didn't mention these two very relevant facts, however.

No. Instead, the 'expert' said the laser only returned some 'background light' from the lunar surface (when pointed at the highland region). To wit, the 'expert' has demonstrated that a laser cannot get a genuine signal/readings from the lunar surface itself

Then, the laser was pointed at a reflector (supposedly placed by the Apollo crew) and it returned a genuine signal!

Of course, the Mythbusters crew were jumping for joy about that, which is fair enough. As Apollo supporters, the 'expert' had confirmed the landings were genuine. In that, they can't really be blamed for accepting the word of an 'expert'.

I think this 'expert' is a complete joke. She was deliberately misleading, at best. She didn't actually say it's impossible to get a genuine signal from the lunar surface. The 'demonstraion' did that for her.


Experts would be honest and forthright about a genuine landing. They wouldn't have to deliberately mislead us, or blatantly lie about it, because they'd have nothing to hide, or be afraid of exposing.

The problem there is that every time someone speaks up to say that we did, indeed, go to the Moon, they can be just as honest, forthright, and factually accurate as it's humanly possible to be, and it does no good whatsoever. No matter how many physics books (or physicists) and doctors you cite, the Apollo's radiation shielding isn't good enough. No matter how many professional photographers you cite, or how many hands-on experiments you suggest or demonstrate, the shadows will always be wrong, and the stars really should be there. No matter how many engineers you consult, the LEM's ascent engine just isn't big enough.

If you produce photographs, they aren't sufficiently high-resolution, and they aren't video. If you present film, it was obviously fake. If you interview one of the astronauts, well, they're being paid to lie.

Also, never forget the two Great Commandments of the Apollo Denial cult:
1) Any reputable engineer, scientist, or specialist who suggests that man went to the Moon is trumped by anyone with a website, book, or DVD who says we didn't, despite any relevant credentials.

2) Any photograph or film from an Official Source is trumped by a grainy, badly-compressed, over-zoomed image on the Internet, or by a YouTube video.

After a while, the combination of willful ignorance, moving goalposts, straw-man arguments and bad logic gets really depressing.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


The point is, there is man made equipment on the moon, therefore we have been to the moon. The moon landings were not a hoax.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

The point is, there is man made equipment on the moon, therefore we have been to the moon. The moon landings were not a hoax.

Oh looks like we have someone who is defending the Mythbusters segment. I know you watched the segment and probably committed it to memory but my memory serves me clearly and ONLY APOLLO 15 LRRR was tested.

Pay close attention to what Mythbusters said:

Photons came back to our receptor.
And the only way that that could happen is
if there was a piece of man-made equipment
up on the moon
to reflect them back."

All this means is there is a "piece of man-made equipment" at the Apollo 15 landing site. That's it.

You can take your piece of cake now. It's the one sitting next to the ashtray.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by HauntWok

 

Busting the Mythbusters with their own quotes.

EXACT QUOTES FROM MYTHBUSTERS segment on Apollo retroflectors:

The guy in the hat says:

"So, what you're saying is
we get a really big laser
and point it at the reflector on the moon
and if we get a signal back
that means we were, in fact, there."

The guy in the glasses says:
"So, if there was a retroreflector on the moon
and we knew it's exact location
and we had a powerful enough laser
we could detect the reflection
and PROVE there is man-made equipment on the moon."

Glasses guy says:
"Well, it seems there are some people who do not believe
that man has actually been to the moon."

Guest scientist Russett Mcmillan says:
"I've met some of them."

Hat guy explains that they will be using a 1 Gigawatt laser because
"..that's what you got to have to make it to the moon and back."

Glasses guy says:
"In fact the specific one [the LRRR] that we are shining on
was left there by the Apollo 15 crew.
Now, we're firing on the order of 200 quadrillion photons per laser pulse
at that reflector
and we're getting between 1 and 3 photons back per pulse if we're lucky.
When we get that photon back we'll see a spike like that on the screen."

Narrator says:
"Not just thrilling but conclusive."

Glasses guys says:
"We shined that laser on the moon on the second test and we got a clear spike back.
Photons came back to our receptor.
And the only way that that could happen is
if there was a piece of man-made equipment
up on the moon
to reflect them back."

Hat guy says:
"So get over it. There's no conspiracy here."

Glasses guy says:
"We've been there. We've done that."

- - - - - - my comments about the Mythbuster segement - - - - - - -
The only thing Mythbusters pretended to prove here is the Apollo 15 landing site, so that is it.
Notice that they did not ever say the name of the Apollo 15 crewman who placed the retroreflector.
Nor did they examine the possibility that the LRRR was placed by a robotic landing craft.

They only pinged 1 laser reflector when there are several other units alleged to be there
and they did not even mention the Russian reflector which was placed robotically.
I wonder why they avoided mentioning the Russian reflector?
- - - - - - -
tl;dr
Mythbusters did not prove that an Apollo 15 astronaut placed the LRRR. The only thing Mythbusters proved was that there was "a piece of man-made equipment" at that location.

edit on 7/20/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: tl;dr

Wow you mean the russian laser reflector that was lost for 42 years and the only reason we know its there is LRO and aparently the reason it was lost is its incorrectly positioned.Do you mean that refractor? You do realize how limited there rover technology was back then.

And how do you explain this? www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by dragonridr


The Mythbusters segment doesn't prove what you think it does. Are you trying to fit every Apollo mission into that Mythbusters segment? That's a common problem with Apollo Defenders... making wild claims about science.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I have read somewhere that a reflector isn't even necessary that the regolith has sufficient refraction that it can reflect a lazer back. Quick search returns my favorite human moon landing detractor, Jarrah.

MOONFAKER FAQ

The recent Mythbusters show claimed that the only way retro-reflectors could have got there is by astronauts. This was said while on a visit of the APOLLO laser ranging facility which uses the Lunokhod 2 mirror.

Some propagandists claimed that if there was no reflector on the lunar surface, we’d never get the laser signal back because the moon would not reflect it. This false claim even found its way onto Mythbusters. When it was pointed out that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)16 and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory17 were able to bounce lasers off the moon and back to earth without the aid of any retro-reflector.

edit on 20-7-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Problem is bouncing a laser off the moon you will never get it to return back to its source. Its not if we can do it thats the issue its if we cwn see we did it the only way to do that is mirrors specifically designed to bounce a laser back. So to answer your question no we wouldnt get a laser back its got so many other directions it can go to.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The Mythbusters segment doesn't prove what you think it does. Are you trying to fit every Apollo mission into that Mythbusters segment? That's a common problem with Apollo Defenders... making wild claims about science.

Ah once again you ignore the relevant to rationalize your fantasies. Lets try ths again how do you explain this?

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The Mythbusters segment doesn't prove what you think it does. Are you trying to fit every Apollo mission into that Mythbusters segment? That's a common problem with Apollo Defenders... making wild claims about science.

Ah once again you ignore the relevant to rationalize your fantasies. Lets try ths again how do you explain this?

www.nasa.gov...

So the Mythbusters segment was about Apollo 15 and you gave a link to Apollo 11. That means you are trying to fit other Apollo missions into the Mythbusters segment, aren't you?

How many more Apollo missions will you try to fit into that Mythbusters segment?????

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The Mythbusters segment doesn't prove what you think it does. Are you trying to fit every Apollo mission into that Mythbusters segment? That's a common problem with Apollo Defenders... making wild claims about science.

Ah once again you ignore the relevant to rationalize your fantasies. Lets try ths again how do you explain this?

www.nasa.gov...

So the Mythbusters segment was about Apollo 15 and you gave a link to Apollo 11. That means you are trying to fit other Apollo missions into the Mythbusters segment, aren't you?

How many more Apollo missions will you try to fit into that Mythbusters segment?????

Ok prefer this one then as if it really matters.all you have left is to try to deflect the truth. So per your request here you go explain this?

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The Mythbusters segment doesn't prove what you think it does. Are you trying to fit every Apollo mission into that Mythbusters segment? That's a common problem with Apollo Defenders... making wild claims about science.

to have someone like you say something like this is quite funny.

what were your claims about radiation again?? it was too high?? turbonium couldnt show us any current figures that prove a 12day mission impossible, let alone prove his claim that 6days is impossible..

you are making wild claims about science that we cant get to the moon in less than 12 days because radiation is too high but you arent backing any of it up.

and then there is your super advanced transforming bi-pedal/rover hopping surveyor probes with arms.. thats really realistic scientific claims, as you suggest i wonder when someone can reproduce that, because there isnt anything like that in todays world let alone 40+ years ago..

and lets not forget that HB are inherently all suggesting that we had the technology to film many hours of faked moon landings footage..

what i dont get is that HB claims make NASA so technologically advanced even though they dont believe they were advanced enough to land on the moon.. they have super advanced technology to fake the filming of the landings, fake the landing sites with super advanced autonomous robots, build real rockets that can reach the moon for a fancy launch show, splash down and to send and receive signals to trick the world watching.. but they dont have the technology to get man there.