Lunar landing hoax, facts that prove we haven't left the earths atmosphere.

Dang , all I see is a bunch of folks that stayed in the 16th Century
"Superstition ain't the way" - Stevie Wonder.
Science is.

Where does the International Space Station keep their power plant?

originally posted by: neutronflux
en.m.wikipedia.org...

"The International Space Station orbits the Earth within the middle of the thermosphere, between 330 and 435 kilometres (205 and 270 mi)."

It doesn't melt either.

originally posted by: OneArmedBandit
a reply to: maxzen2004
Your folly, as Neutronflux pointed out, is that heat and temperature are not interchangeable terms.

It's understandable that people who haven't left the atmospheric pressure near Earth's surface don't understand the difference between heat and temperature in lower pressures they've never experienced, but if OP works with engineers and PhDs I would hope they would understand the difference and be able to explain it to him. This is NASA's explanation for why the Parker solar probe won't melt even though it will be exposed to temperatures far higher than the melting temperatures of its components.

Traveling to the Sun: Why Won’t Parker Solar Probe Melt?

The Science Behind Why It Won’t Melt

One key to understanding what keeps the spacecraft and its instruments safe, is understanding the concept of heat versus temperature. Counterintuitively, high temperatures do not always translate to actually heating another object.

In space, the temperature can be thousands of degrees without providing significant heat to a given object or feeling hot. Why? Temperature measures how fast particles are moving, whereas heat measures the total amount of energy that they transfer. Particles may be moving fast (high temperature), but if there are very few of them, they won’t transfer much energy (low heat). Since space is mostly empty, there are very few particles that can transfer energy to the spacecraft.

The corona through which Parker Solar Probe flies, for example, has an extremely high temperature but very low density. Think of the difference between putting your hand in a hot oven versus putting it in a pot of boiling water (don’t try this at home!) — in the oven, your hand can withstand significantly hotter temperatures for longer than in the water where it has to interact with many more particles. Similarly, compared to the visible surface of the Sun, the corona is less dense, so the spacecraft interacts with fewer hot particles and doesn’t receive as much heat.

That means that while Parker Solar Probe will be traveling through a space with temperatures of several million degrees, the surface of the heat shield that faces the Sun will only get heated to about 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit (about 1,400 degrees Celsius).

a reply to: maxzen2004

Ok where to start i guess the first thing is to discuss temperature to science. Temperature is measured by the speed an object is in motion. In the exosphere, these particles are moving very fast that's why it says 1700 degrees Celsius. In a room, we measure the air temperature this isnt the same in the exosphere. At that altitude, particles are far apart and the atmosphere is very thin. So even though we have particles that are moving very fast and therefore have a high temperature if you were there you would freeze to death. How can it be so cold the particles don't transfer heat very well in a near vacuum and there just isn't enough to build up any significant amount of heat since it will lose heat through thermal radiation.

So though you might have a particle at 1700 degrees it doesnt transfer that energy very well and theres just not enough to build up enough heat to harm anything. You will lose far more in thermal radiation. Thats why the Apollo crafts main concern was maintaining heat in the craft. They actually had heaters to keep the craft warm if they malfuctioned the crew would have froze to death.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: maxzen2004

The one thing i don't understand is how the lunar module does not appear to have created any kind of significant blast creator or kicked up debris when it took off on its return journey to the command module in orbit of the Moon?

Don't misunderstand me through i believe we went to the Moon, and that the answer probably lies in lack of significant atmosphere/properties of the landing area.

Just would like to have it better explained.

There is no atmosphere, very little gravity. Think of it as you weighing what a Bee does on Earth, but on the Moon. Your thrust necessary for takeoff is not going to be anywhere near necessary like that of the Earth. They did not kick "Much" debris, because if they did, that would have in fact proved they were in the desert as sand would have gone everywhere from the power of the thruster, but they would not have moved an inch.

a reply to: maxzen2004

When you said that he confirmed your findings about "sending a signal from the moon"...what exactly IS on the moon that we are getting a signal from?

a reply to: maxzen2004

I agree but everything I said is easily verifiable, I'm ready.

Really? Then can you tell me who provided the moon landing footage? please feel free to google because I already know the answer.

a reply to: SR1TX

Yeah. Also, the descent stage was in between the ascent stage and the Lunar surface. Pretty good blast deflector.


Those who think the Lunar landings were hoaxed are often lacking in knowledge of a lot of the technical aspects involved.

Deny ignorance. Right?

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: maxzen2004

When you said that he confirmed your findings about "sending a signal from the moon"...what exactly IS on the moon that we are getting a signal from?

Instruments on the landing module, the late sci fi author Arthur C. Clarke came up with the idea of using satellites long before Sputnik while serving as a CO in WWII, so using triangulation from radio dishes nearly thirty years after wouldn't be a surprise to him.

In my opinion, the "we didn't land on the moon" theory is deliberate noise, created to hide more important parts regarding moon landing. Like having a strategic benefit in having a military base there, or doing the landing first before the live coverage, just to be sure that there can't be a major F-U on the main stage.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: firerescue

Yes the dust does seem to be an issue, then again its one of the reasons we will return, well the abundance of Helium-3 embedded in the upper layer of regolith anyway.

Reminds me of an interesting older thread Monsanto The HE3 Connection - Mounds Lab and the implications, which would put an end to these types of threads. If true, of course.

a reply to: maxzen2004

What you think happened

After asking the PhD astrophysicist about the aluminum aloy and sending a signal from the moon, he sadly confirmed my findings

What happened in reality.
PhD person’s thoughts.....
Oh dear, here comes maxzen2004. The last time trying to explain to this persons why it is false people’s heads will explode in zero gravity set my work load behind two hours, and made me late for my significant other’s meatloaf. Remember, it not worth the time to explain science. Just smile, shake your head yes, don’t make direct eye contact. Most importantly, keep momentum going for the room’s exit.... lord, help me....

originally posted by: maxzen2004
..The exosphere is about 300 miles above the earth and goes out about 6000 miles, temperature of the exosphere ranges 0-1700 degrees Celsius. They would have melted, the space station is 30 miles below the exosphere.

True, but the hot molecules in the exosphere are so sparse that there is not enough of them to heat a spacecraft up.

One hot molecule here, one there, with virtually nothing in between? No problem.

the Van Allen Radiation belts were impossible obstacle.

There are parts of the Van Allen Belts where the belts are thinner and radiation density is reletively low. Dr. Van Allen himself had confirmed this is true.

The Apollo spacecraft even took a very circuitous (and fuel-consuming) route to go through one of these less dense areas, and did so very quickly. You'd think that if they were faking it, they wouldn't have bothered wasting all that fuel with the circuitous route.

a reply to: andy06shake

Firstly, the engine is not firing directly at the moon, it is firing at the descent stage that effectively acts as its launch platform.

Secondly, if you watch the footage from both inside and outside the LM you can see quite a bit of debris being kicked up and sent off the the horizon.

a reply to: maxzen2004

Does Google not work where you are? Have a look in these magazines:

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

And you can add to that the many images of Earth captured in cislunar space, and on 16mm film, and broadcast on live TV, all of which can be matched up with the weather satellite images taken the same day.

Speaking of TV broadcasts, here is a press image from a live TV broadcast from Apollo 11:



It contains Hurricane Bernice. Bernice appeared in that formation only on the day it was broadcast. That image is dated the day of that broadcast and appeared on several newspaper front pages. You can't get an image of the entire Earth from Earth orbit. Would the OP care to explain how the image was obtained?

a reply to: maxzen2004

It is strange that Michael Collins told Neil Armstrong that he did not see any stars from the surface of the moon.

Michael Collins corrected Neil Armstrong...............Michael Collins was known to have not walked on the moon.
The body language of these three tell you all you need to know.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
the cost

ZIPMATT
Leave this part out of the narrative you are creating for yourselves because it stinks of rat

I'm not sure what you mean, but the costs were certainly real.

400,000 engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers working for private (non-government) companies did a heck of a lot of work and spent many man-hours designing, building, and testing the Apollo hardware.

I mean, it's not like NASA kept the money that congress gave them; the vast majority of that money went to the private contractors and the everyday private citizens who worked for those companies.

Companies like:

Douglas Aircraft -- Designed, built, and tested the 3rd stage of the Saturn V
North American Avaiation Company -- Designed, built, and tested the 2nd stage and the Comman Module
Grumman --Designed and built the LM
Boeing -- Designed, manufactured, and tested the Saturn V 1st stage
ILC Dover -- Designed and sewed together the space suits
Hamilton Standard Corporation -- Designed and manufactured the PLSS (spacesuit backpack).
IBM -- Built the guidance computer
MIT University -- Wrote the guidance software.
General Motors -- Designed the Lunar Rover
Westinghouse -- Designed the TV cameras mounted on the LM and LR.

Those main contractors plus the hundreds of subcontractors (regular companies employing regular people, all over the country) all got paid the bulk of the money that was budgeted for the Apollo program. Subcontractors included companies like Whirlpool (the maker of household appliances) who designed and built the air conditioning systems for the spacecraft.


My favorite example of a contractor (but by no means the only example) is that the spacesuits were made by the same parent company (ILC, or "International Latex Corporation") who owned Playtex, the maker of bras and girdles. ILC had great experience in making garments that gave the wearer maneuverability and flexibilty, because that's the kind of stuff ILC had been doing for decades. Most other companies that lost the bid to make the spacesuits failed because their designs did not allow the flexibility that ILC's design did.

And those flexible spacesuits they all had to be sewn by hand, which also was a strentgh of ILC, because they already had many experienced seamtresses working for them. Those expert seamstresses who had a tremdous amount of previous experience sewing togenther bras and girdles spent many hours fabricating the space suits.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: maxzen2004

When you said that he confirmed your findings about "sending a signal from the moon"...what exactly IS on the moon that we are getting a signal from?

Instruments on the landing module, the late sci fi author Arthur C. Clarke came up with the idea of using satellites long before Sputnik while serving as a CO in WWII, so using triangulation from radio dishes nearly thirty years after wouldn't be a surprise to him.

That's great, but the OP says that we never made it to the moon, so if a reflector is not there to triangulate a signal from...then what are people triangulating from the moon?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Yes I'm aware, lack of atmosphere, reduced thrust, nevermind position of the return module seem to be what inhibited any significant crater. As to the debris, i saw it on the Apollo 16 footage.

A few people have answered my query through, including myself i suppose by way of lack of atmosphere. The problem being, that things just don't look the same or respond in the same manner in low gravity and near vacuum.

Now when you are used to seeing how things operate back here down on Earth it kind of makes you think "That does not look right, there is something not right there", but its because they are on the Moon.

The astronauts in the interview look almost depressed. They should be bounding with Wow I just went on the best sideshow ride conceived.
Forge the science look at the human aspects and you see something is amidst.