The Ultimate Moonwalk Hoax Thread

[stourbridgefox]

I'm not claiming to be any kind of expert on this at all but the argument that fuel would be a limiting factor seems strange.

Surely once you have escaped the Earth's gravity (using all the fuel in the big, falling apart rocket) then the only fuel you would need would be to slow you down again. There is no drag so no need to burn fuel to keep going.

Once you got going from the moon again, the gravity from Earth would eventually pull you in again, so again not using much fuel.

Neither London nor Leeds exerts a gravitational pull*, therefore the argument is flawed?

* Other than how matter always attracts other matter before someone else says it.

[Houdini Logic]

I've never been to the moon, nor am I a physicist, so I'm going to move onto a thread I can at least attempt to have some useful input into...

[Zingari]

I really don’t know whether a man has ever walked on the moon or not.( there's no don't know option)

It really is impossible for mere individuals such as me to prove or disprove.

We usually wait for history to expose us as idiots for believing stuff that later generations see as obvious lies and deceit . But of course we’re usually long gone by then

But believing a man did walk on the moon merely because lots of other people believe it, or believing it because no one can disprove it, is just like believing in god, just a matter of faith. It really is nothing more.

Just ask yourself, “what real evidence have you got personally that a man has walked on the moon ? , and what are you just accepting or believing as a matter of faith in a larger power not to deceive you ?”

How many people were considered as lunatics for merely questioning the existence of god, when all around the only proofs were there in the same guise of mass belief?

Do so many of you really not question if the masses cannot be deceived on a grand scale whether it be by religious leaders or their new scientific counterparts?”

[MooseBreath]

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight"

[Zingari]

“He who knows which battle he should engage in and which he should avoid, will win.”

That statement seems to relegate the truth as a battle to be won or lost for the raising or lowering of one's own vanity ?

that's not a dig at you mr moose

[Vacamion]

Does that mean that they sort of floated there? And that they wouldn't have needed much fuel for the take off from the Moon?

What about the impossible docking back onto the mothership, which was travelling around 4000kph 80 miles up. They had to safely dock (in that flimsy aerodynamic module) to the mothership.

And why can nobody reproduce a craft that can safely land on another planet, and then sometime later, safely launch back off said planet? Is it because NASA lost the original plans for the modules? I'd love to know what kind of technology they used, but I've heard that modern science has no way of checking the facts, because of the missing 700 boxes of data.

Indeed, "Sort of floating", but based on mathematical calculations, the application of Newton's laws and the knowledge that the escape velocity decreases as the altitude increases, having the benefit of the hard work and input of thousands of workers in the space programme over a number of years, verified by pretty much the entire scientific community.

Obviously, that it has taken until now to "reveal" the hoax is due to a sinister cover up, rather than there being no hoax.

In terms of the physics - whilst I couldn't be arsed looking up a better source, Wiki will suffice:

Escape velocity is sometimes misunderstood to be the speed a powered vehicle, such as a rocket, must reach to leave orbit and travel through outer space. The quoted escape velocity is commonly the escape velocity at a planet's surface, but it actually decreases with altitude. It is the speed above which an object will depart on a ballistic trajectory, i.e. in free-fall, and never fall back to the surface nor assume a closed orbit. Such an object is said to "escape" the gravity of the planet.

A vehicle with a propulsion system can continue to gain energy and travel away from the planet, in any direction, at a speed lower than escape velocity so long as it is under propulsion. If the vehicle's speed is below its current escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, the vehicle will assume a closed orbit or fall back to the surface. If its speed is at or above the escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, it has enough kinetic energy to "escape" and will neither orbit nor fall back to the surface.

With regard to landing and taking off from another planet, the "flimsy" module etc, I think that the fact that lunar gravity is 1/6 of earth's probably makes a difference.

Pages and pages of moon hoax refutation can be found here:

https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Stephen.Farrell/ipn/background/Braeunig/hoax.htm

Whilst it would probably be more exciting if they had faked the moon landings, I must conclude that the conspiracy theories are baseless horseshit, clung to by those who would see an evil USA based conspiracy behing every major event over the last 50 years (it is never the Norwegians plotting, it's always the Yanks, eh?)...

Pfffffffff

[acooling08]

I don't understand the need to try to disprove mass public opinion that man has walked on the moon. Is there any harm in living in blissful ignorance thinking that it was done? I mean, I think that billions of people in the world believing in the biggest hoax of all time (religion & 'God') to be quite depressing really, but I don't give it any thought. I just let them believe it and maintain my own personal opinions.

[Zingari]

OK , 40+ years later , why has no-one gone back ?

Where is the precedent for something so easily achievable 40 years ago , not being done much more easily and cheaply now?

We have had massive improvements in technology since 69 , it really should be a piece of piss now .

[Bobcat]

Does that mean that they sort of floated there? And that they wouldn't have needed much fuel for the take off from the Moon?

What about the impossible docking back onto the mothership, which was travelling around 4000kph 80 miles up. They had to safely dock (in that flimsy aerodynamic module) to the mothership.

And why can nobody reproduce a craft that can safely land on another planet, and then sometime later, safely launch back off said planet? Is it because NASA lost the original plans for the modules? I'd love to know what kind of technology they used, but I've heard that modern science has no way of checking the facts, because of the missing 700 boxes of data.

Did I really just read this?

Just floated to the moon? That's pretty much exactly it. Once you've built up enough momentum to break free of earth's gravity you keep going because in space, what's to stop you?

4000 kph = 2 485.48477 mph (google)

And as for docking at 4000kph, well I'm pretty sure NASA scientists can do better than passing a sandwich from one car to another at 70mph on a motorway driving in the same direction, so why not 2500?

As for taking off from the moon, well jumping got them pretty high, i'm pretty sure simple thrusters would get them further and then momentum takes them the rest of the way.

If you think about it, it's pretty simple (well not "simple" but you get what I mean) to get there, and with the technology available then.

[AdamN]

Here's a list of Soviet firsts :

May 15, 1957 – The Soviet Union tests the R-7 Semyorka, the world’s first intercontinental ballistic missile.

....

August 22, 1972 – Mars 2 becomes the first probe to reach the surface of Mars

The first to do it all.

So why do you believe all that stuff but not the moon landings?

[MooseBreath]

OK , 40+ years later , why has no-one gone back ?

Where is the precedent for something so easily achievable 40 years ago , not being done much more easily and cheaply now?

We have had massive improvements in technology since 69 , it really should be a piece of piss now .

Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17

We haven't sent any more since the six successful missions because there is no point. It's a lot of risk for no further reward.

[BoneDog]

Why would anyone want to?

Millions of reasons.

Definitely nt clear cut. What gets me is that people who say no are always very well informed, whereas people who say yes generally just make sweeping uninformed statements. (I don't mean in this instance, just generally)

Fascinating read though as is the Laurel Canyon stuff. Insane.

Aye, that Laurel Canyon stuff is one of the best and most thought provoking things I've ever read on the internet!

I'm sorry - what?

Not at all, the further we progress, the more we find natural causes and reasons for things - marginalising god. Advancement of science starts to fill in the gaps that were once used as an argument for God.

Advancement of science will not prove there is no god - such a thing would be impossible, but it'll pretty much leave him meaningless.

Ok then, but I've read works by many scientists who say the opposite to the ones you are reading. As you say though, it's impossible to prove or disprove such a thing.

Except of course, they didn't put a man on the moon first - the entire point of the race.

Correct, but nobody did.

I'm not claiming to be any kind of expert on this at all but the argument that fuel would be a limiting factor seems strange.

Surely once you have escaped the Earth's gravity (using all the fuel in the big, falling apart rocket) then the only fuel you would need would be to slow you down again. There is no drag so no need to burn fuel to keep going.

Once you got going from the moon again, the gravity from Earth would eventually pull you in again, so again not using much fuel.

If we go with the notion that we wouldn't need much fuel there is still far too much equipment we would need to take in the landing craft to keep the astronauts safe. It is impossible for them to have packed all of this equipment, or for them to have had the technology to do so.

Neither London nor Leeds exerts a gravitational pull*, therefore the argument is flawed?

* Other than how matter always attracts other matter before someone else says it.

I only mention the London to Leeds thing to show that we don't really send men into space, we just send them a little distance into low orbit. We all seem to think of astronauts as being in deep space in another world but they are only up the road. Deep space is one place man will never go.

I really don’t know whether a man has ever walked on the moon or not.( there's no don't know option)

I forgot to put that option in. Thought I had it all covered!

[Zingari]

Did I really just read this?

Just floated to the moon? That's pretty much exactly it. Once you've built up enough momentum to break free of earth's gravity you keep going because in space, what's to stop you?

4000 kph = 2 485.48477 mph (google)

And as for docking at 4000kph, well I'm pretty sure NASA scientists can do better than passing a sandwich from one car to another at 70mph on a motorway driving in the same direction, so why not 2500?

As for taking off from the moon, well jumping got them pretty high, i'm pretty sure simple thrusters would get them further and then momentum takes them the rest of the way.

If you think about it, it's pretty simple (well not "simple" but you get what I mean) to get there, and with the technology available then.

yes , simple 40+ years ago maybe , but not it seems now with all the improvements in technology and fuels .

Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17

We haven't sent any more since the six successful missions because there is no point. It's a lot of risk for no further reward.

So every moon mission occurred in a very short period of history roughly 40 years ago ( all in the term of one president) but for some reason it's too expensive and unnecessary now ?

i asked for a technological precedent , where is it it?

Where was the reward for anything but the first ?

People were bored and complaining that repeats of "i love lucy" was being uninterrupted by the apollo12 mission

[Jace]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mefEKqzq8cg

[BoneDog]

So why do you believe all that stuff but not the moon landings?

I don't know for sure if all of the Russian stuff is true or not. I've read other stuff where people question some of it. However, I'm pretty sure that we can fire off crafts into space so I tend to have no difficulty in believing all of the info about unmanned missions.

The only thing I'm questioning is man going past the Van Allen belt, and the moon missions are the only time this has allegedly happened. The last time being in 1972.

Out of all the space agencies around the world, not one has reproduced such a feat since 1972, even though they were in the dark ages technologically speaking back then.

*Good points from everyone else to catch up on but my Mrs has just said I've got to give her a game of Modern Warfare before bed so going to have to go for now to P90 someone up the butt (I always try to do that once in every game - you've got to really). And that is not a double entendre, I am actually going to play on the PS3, and not indulge in some sort of sordid love game.

[Zingari]

Yes. They spent millions on the missions then cock it up with schoolboy errors.

I'd just like to clear up the popular misconception of NASA making "schoolboy errors"

They are very unlikely to be schoolboy errors , but could possibly be be deliberate acts of "whistle-blowing"

[Bobcat]

The moon landings were never worth the money. There was a cold war, and similar to having a nuclear deterrence, the americans wanted to show the soviets they were a force to be reckoned with. When the cold war was over, there were better things to spend millions of, now they weren't at war. And that's why we've never been back. It's not worth the money.

[AdamN]

yes , simple 40+ years ago maybe , but not it seems now with all the improvements in technology and fuels .

So every moon mission occurred in a very short period of history roughly 40 years ago ( all in the term of one president) but for some reason it's too expensive and unnecessary now ?

i asked for a technological precedent , where is it it?

Where was the reward for anything but the first ?

People were bored and complaining that repeats of "i love lucy" was being uninterrupted by the apollo12 mission

Out of all the space agencies around the world, not one has reproduced such a feat since 1972, even though they were in the dark ages technologically speaking back then.

Look at Concorde.

The only thing I'm questioning is man going past the Van Allen belt, and the moon missions are the only time this has allegedly happened. The last time being in 1972.

http://imagine.gsfc....rs/980119b.html

"The hard radiation (particles and x/gamma rays) from the non-flaring Sun is small compared to the galactic cosmic ray exposure. These particles come from deep space more or less continuously. Small amounts of shielding can cut out the majority of this, but the remainder will give you a somewhat increased risk of cancer. Using very conservative rules of thumb, a week in space's cosmic ray environment will shorten your life expectancy by about a day (statistically--it is very unlikely to give you cancer, but if it does, it will shorten your life by more than a day). Since space is inherently dangerous at the present state of the art, cancer due to cosmic rays is relatively small additional risk."

http://lsda.jsc.nasa...pollo/S2ch3.htm

"The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years."

http://en.wikipedia....rom_cosmic_rays (cites http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._2007005310.pdf and http://icrc2005.tifr...1-sh35-oral.pdf)

"Exposures on the ISS average 150 mSv per year, although frequent crew rotations minimize individual risk. Astronauts on Apollo and Skylab missions received on average 1.2 mSv/day and 1.4 mSv/day respectively. Since the durations of the Apollo and Skylab missions were days and months, respectively, rather than years, the doses involved were smaller than would be expected on future long-term missions such as to a near-Earth asteroid or to Mars (unless far more shielding could be provided)."

"Estimates are that humans unshielded in interplanetary space would receive annually roughly 400 to 900 milliSieverts (mSv) (compared to 2.4 mSv on Earth) and that a Mars mission (12 months in flight and 18 months on Mars) might expose shielded astronauts to ~500 to 1000 mSv. These doses approach the 1 to 4 Sv career limits advised by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements for Low Earth orbit activities."

Going by those figures I can't see why a week-long venture beyond the Van Allen belt wouldn't be possible. Unless you're doubting it for more than just health reasons...

[Zingari]

The moon landings were never worth the money. There was a cold war, and similar to having a nuclear deterrence, the americans wanted to show the soviets they were a force to be reckoned with. When the cold war was over, there were better things to spend millions of, now they weren't at war. And that's why we've never been back. It's not worth the money.

You make it sound very easy to land a man the moon and bring him back alive .

It really isn't , and has not been attempted again for 40 years ,

Why when it was so easy in the late 60's early 70's ?

Surely the major cost of getting to the moon was the research and development of the technology and that has already been proven to be very simple , hasnt it ?

[Zingari]

To Adam

Look at Concorde.

Are you really suggesting that the feats of Concorde haven't been replicated and far surpassed in the intervening 40 years ?

[ozleicester]

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

Id much rather question the conspiracy of organised religion. I struggle to accept the opinion of anyone who states that there is "a god". For me, holding such a belief calls into question every opinion that person expresses.

[ithuriel]

One question i've never had answered is the radiation question, NASA have never answered this, so no, i do not think man has walked on the moon.

[AdamN]

To Adam

Look at Concorde.

Are you really suggesting that the feats of Concorde haven't been replicated and far surpassed in the intervening 40 years ?

Depends how you look at it. On face value, no. In terms of technological advancements, more than likely, yes.

On face value:

Concorde - first flew: 1969. Operational life: 1976-2003.

No current operational aircraft can do what Concorde could do - fly passengers around the world at speeds exceeding Mach 2.

Do we have aircraft that can get you (a civilian passenger) to New York? Yes. We did in 1969 too.

Do we have aircraft that can fly to New York at Mach 2+? Yes. Again, we did in 1969 too.

Do we have an aircraft that can do both? No. We did in 1969, though.

Could we technically make one? Yes.

Apollo - manned missions: 1969-1972.

No current spacecraft can do what the Apollo spacecraft could do - send a bunch of astronauts to the moon and return them safely.

Do we have spacecraft that can get astronauts into space? Yes. We did in 1969 too.

Do we have spacecraft that can land on the moon? Seeing as we can get them to land on Mars, I should think so! We did in 1969 too.

Do we have a spacecraft that can do both? No. We did in 1969, though.

Could we technically make one? Yes.

From a technological standpoint I'm sure both Concorde and the Apollo missions contributed greatly towards aeronautical design, research and space flight. Unfortunately I don't know the ins and outs of every aircraft and spacecraft that have ever been built, so I don't know what these contributions are, but I highly doubt aircraft designers glossed over Concorde and went back to making aircraft resembling Sopwith Camels!

As for why we've never came up with a second generation Concorde or Apollo spacecraft, well that could be for any number of reasons:

Money:

By the end, Concorde was not making nearly enough money to sustain itself. It was a luxury that 95% of people couldn't afford, and when British Airways and Air France have 747s lined up that can carry 5x the amount of people, I doubt it made good business sense to keep Concorde going. Not only that but Concorde was fucking loud, meaning it was extremely restricted as to where it could go (no sonic booms over land, and no full afterburner take offs over cities) - which again limited its ability to make money. Then factor in the enormous cost of actually designing and building the thing and you can see why it's not an attractive proposition for anyone!

As for Apollo, well I can't imagine that it was the cheapest thing the human race has ever done, that's for sure. And especially these days, with national debt running so high in America, how would you justify spending billions on something which has been done before? What more do we have to gain from visiting the moon that is currently within our capabilities?

Politics:

Concorde was notoriously unpopular with the American government from the off. They themselves, along with the Soviet Union, were attempting to produce a supersonic airliner of their own, and unlike us, the French and the Russians, they failed. Now I don't know the mindset of every US politician of the 60's/70's, but at a time when the Cold War was fully underway, with such tension between the East and West, the nuclear arms race, the space race, etc, I can't imagine the Americans' failure to have done much for national pride, so I can only assume one of the main reasons weren't too fond of Concorde because of that. Obviously times have changed and things may be different these days, but who knows?

Apollo - see the bit about money and explaining that to the American people.

Motivation:

As said before, Concorde was a luxury. Why do we need a supersonic airliner that can only carry 120 passengers, when we have aircraft like the 747 that can carry over 500 (albeit slower)?

What more could further Apollo missions to the moon achieve? The Americans got their fix of national pride (if indeed that is what they wanted) and I'm sure over the course of 6 successful missions we gathered enough samples and scientific data while we were up there. Of course, the next logical steps are things like mining and permanent bases, but these things are currently beyond our reach.

tl;dr - just because we've done something before, doesn't mean we have to do it again (and apparently I like typing!). Over to you, buddy.

[Captain...]

Politics:

Concorde was notoriously unpopular with the American government from the off. They themselves, along with the Soviet Union, were attempting to produce a supersonic airliner of their own, and unlike us, the French and the Russians, they failed. Now I don't know the mindset of every US politician of the 60's/70's, but at a time when the Cold War was fully underway, with such tension between the East and West, the nuclear arms race, the space race, etc, I can't imagine the Americans' failure to have done much for national pride, so I can only assume one of the main reasons weren't too fond of Concorde because of that. Obviously times have changed and things may be different these days, but who knows?

Apollo - see the bit about money and explaining that to the American people.

tl;dr - just because we've done something before, doesn't mean we have to do it again (and apparently I like typing!). Over to you, buddy.

Interesting that they can put a man on the moon, but don't have the technology to replicate a plane like the concorde...

I do believe we got there, but this thread has made me question it.

For the conspiracy nuts, you seem to be focussing on the first successful attempt to land on the moon, do the arguments stack up against the 5 moon landings?

I had never really questioned it before but looking at the lunar module it really does look like a small flimsy piece of crap, and the argument about it not kicking up any moon dust on landing despite thrusters to bring it down also made me think.

If they were all faked though, there would be a lot of people in on it, and somebody somewhere would have come out with something more concrete than speculation and guesswork.

In summary I am undecided.

[marko]

I don't know for sure if all of the Russian stuff is true or not. I've read other stuff where people question some of it. However, I'm pretty sure that we can fire off crafts into space so I tend to have no difficulty in believing all of the info about unmanned missions.

The only thing I'm questioning is man going past the Van Allen belt, and the moon missions are the only time this has allegedly happened. The last time being in 1972.

Out of all the space agencies around the world, not one has reproduced such a feat since 1972, even though they were in the dark ages technologically speaking back then.

*Good points from everyone else to catch up on but my Mrs has just said I've got to give her a game of Modern Warfare before bed so going to have to go for now to P90 someone up the butt (I always try to do that once in every game - you've got to really). And that is not a double entendre, I am actually going to play on the PS3, and not indulge in some sort of sordid love game.

Really?! I think Apollo 13 passed through the Van Allen belt on their trip around the moon. Or is that a hoax as well???