Did We Really Go To The Moon

Why would there be? NASA doesn't WANT evidence that we went to the moon.

oops a `freudian slip' perhaps from the conspiracy mob??

from
http://batesmotel.8m.com/


why would nasa not want evidence we went to the moon
i thought they would WANT evidence we went to the moon




LORL

(laugh out REALLY loud
 
Welcome to sciforums, boppa.

why would nasa not want evidence we went to the moon
i thought they would WANT evidence we went to the moon
Click to expand...

Yeah, they wouldn't want evidence around, like around 800# of moon rocks and pictures. Guess they hired Fox Network to work up a story to discredit them so they wouldn't have to produce evidence so often. :D
 
to the moon

Yes we did, of course it was not attended for science at first but miltary reasons.

But it was very difficult to send people, easier to send machines as we have been doing
 
How could any free thinking person believe???

All this talk about faked pictures and conspiracies are all a load of
crap. I'm a firm believer (kaotically of course) that these anomalies had nothing to do with whether man landed on the moon or not. There are two very important reasons for this:-
1. Humankind has never been able to predict and erradicate floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, twisters etc, yet is good enough to compromise everything that IS natural by breaking out of earths life giving coccoon.
2. If we were ever meant to get air into spce, surely there would be air in space.
My main simple point is that how can humans ever expect to fly through nothing. Being that space is a vacuum and of infinite high density, how could low density air move through it. Not even the strongest magnets or lasers in the world can hold "vaccuum space" on earth, so how did a rocket fly through it????
I'm also intrigued with the "can't or won't go back to the moon" argument. I saw a particular one stating that it was too dangerous and expensive to go back, yet 6 or 7 rockets landed safely between 1969 and 1972. Amazing!!!!
Is the real reason why a rocket won't be launched because the U.S. have been beaten by their own technology - GPS would certainly track any rocket "leaving" our atmosphere, and because this cannot happen, would be "shown up".
Come on people, think for a change!!! We cannot beat nature, only try to understand it...
 
Welcome to sciforums, dontbelieve.

Where to start...

Is the real reason why a rocket won't be launched because the U.S. have been beaten by their own technology - GPS would certainly track any rocket "leaving" our atmosphere, and because this cannot happen, would be "shown up".
Click to expand...

GPS does not track anything. It is not radar. They are satellites emitting a signal that can be picked up by the right equipment. By catching the signal from several of them your position can be triangulated.

However radar did exist then and does still now. The moonlander was where it was supposed to be. Not being able to be tracked by the world would have been a sure give away that we didn't go. Because it was where it should have been there was no issue.

My main simple point is that how can humans ever expect to fly through nothing.
Click to expand...

How can we send probes to distant planets to take pictures that we can not make otherwise? They have to travel the through the same enviroment.

If we were ever meant to get air into spce, surely there would be air in space.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? With sort of thinking we should never have used an automobile, sail boat, or airplane. After all man was never meant to go that fast or we would have had wings...

My main simple point is that how can humans ever expect to fly through nothing.
Click to expand...
Somehow the ISS manages to stay up. Maybe we should ask our seers and warlocks how it is done?

I think you need to brush up on some science as your arguments are so full of holes I can't answer them with a straight face.

Welcome to sciforums, ciscokid. I believe that you are entirely correct.
 
If we were ever meant to get air into space, surely there would be air in space.
Click to expand...
Humans are meant to do anything we can imagine. Hopefully we mostly do the good things.
 
Cmon wet1

Quote : Are you serious? With sort of thinking we should never have used an automobile, sail boat, or airplane. After all man was never meant to go that fast or we would have had wings...

Wet1 - I'm surprised at the total lack of insight in your answer here. How could you possibly relate flying and driving in OUR atmosphere with flying in vacuum space. It is a totally different concept - quantum scientists should understand this. Pushing atomic air into subatomic substance is a mathematical divide by zero, a infinite answer.
Plus, are you telling me that everything that a human can think is therefore humanly possible. We can mathematically do whatever we want but the practicality is somewhat daunting and to my judgement impossible. I think humankind are a little naive on this one.

I have several other interesting points.
1. Giant monoliths such as comets, moons, planets, stars and galaxies have elliptical orbits around a central mass. How then has NASA usurped this by sending a rocket in a virtual straight line BETWEEN to significant masses - surely contravening our natural universe.
2. Why didn't NASA send rockets up at invervals of more than just a few months. Surely it would have been more feasable the send them up every few years for more specific scientific purposes, rather than for collecting a few rocks. Is this possibly because NASA wanted to desensitize the general public into becoming bored with the idea so they wouldn't have the "go back" in more recent times.
 
dontbelieve,

I am not sure if it is the nomenclature used or maybe it is just lack of the same language tags for items. I see you did not find the example I used as humorus as I found yours. (Call it an example for an example).

How then has NASA usurped this by sending a rocket in a virtual straight line BETWEEN to significant masses
Click to expand...

Here is a primer on interplanetary trajectories, you may read for yourself how it is done: Here There are no such animals as straight line trajectories between planetary bodies.

Pushing atomic air into subatomic substance is a mathematical divide by zero, a infinite answer.
Click to expand...

Your example seriously lacks in it's assumptions.

Here is a link to the Deep Space 1 mission which was launched to test the Ion Engine Propulsion concept. This is not theory but a completed mission test in space. Here

As for second guessing NASA's missions and dates, go to NASA to check. These missions don't just spring from the drawing board to the launch pad in a day or two. Usually they are a long drawn out process taking years to complete. I am sure NASA would dearly love to have the money to fund constant launches. However their funds are limited and so they must choose the best return for the buck. Nothing would make NASA happier that to find something that inspired the public and government officials to funnel more money into space development.

You will notice that it is customary to provide links to sources. I have done so and so have many others. I would like to see the links for your suppositions that I might more fully understand how you are deriving at your points and understandings...
 
No links yet

Sorry again about any lack of links but I prefer to follow better judgement over the preachings of others. I thought this forum was a portal for any type of thinking rather than something a university lecturer would grade.
Just a note to say that in my first posting, I said HUMANS in space not machines. It's a simple assertion to see how comets move and relate it to how any solid object would move through space. Put air into the object and this is where the problem lies.
 
Maybe I have misunderstood your postition. Please restate. I think the problem I am having is the understanding how air relates to this discussion.

If I have sounded like some teacher, then I will back up and listen to what you have to say first. As stated at the first it is the concept you present and how that I am having problems understanding.

Sometimes what our judgements say and what is fact are not always in parallel to each other. This is the reason I give links. That you yourself may make decisions based upon reality. The astronomy section is pretty close to hard core science.

I easily understand that there is indeed a difference in sending humans into space as opposed to robotic probes and could probably give you many examples of why. The only air is either pesent in the atmosphere through the launch process or contained within so as not to be lost and be usable. How does this affect trajectories?

Not even the strongest magnets or lasers in the world can hold "vaccuum space" on earth
Click to expand...

On your point of holding vaccuum on earth, we normally do this in the storage of antimatter at particle accelerators. Also here is another link that will show yet another use that needs a high vaccuum.

The particle beams travel around the magnet ring within a beam pipe - 27km of aluminium tube, which has to be held at a very high vacuum so that collisions with stray molecules do not knock the beam particles off course. The large ring is necessary to keep the particles on a gently curving path.
Click to expand...
This is done for several hours during a firing.
source
 
Still not clear

I'm just wondering - I know that if the air inside a rocket also has air surrounding it (on the launch pad) then there is no pressure variance on the rocket. However, as the rocket moves toward outer space in its orbit, surely the pressure differential becomes an important factor as the air outside gets thinner until vacuum space arrives. What force could possibly stop the air from escaping (violently)? It surely doesn't just stay in the rocket allowing the astronauts to breathe as they would on earth. This does need some clearing up.
 
What force could possibly stop the air from escaping (violently)? It surely doesn't just stay in the rocket allowing the astronauts to breathe as they would on earth.
Click to expand...

The inhabital portion of the space capsule becomes pressurized as the surrounding pressure drops outside. The capsule is designed to hold in the pressure of the air within. Much the same as commercial aircraft fly at higher altitudes than we can safely breathe. The commercial aircraft pressurize the breathing area that the passengers reside in.

A micrometeorite holing a craft will allow leakage of the pressured atmosphere inside to leak out, presenting a risk to those inside.
 
funny

I'm sorry but I haven't read all posts here. I was shocked last night with someone telling me there are accusations flying about that we did not put a man on the moon. I thought we had put hundreds of men on the moon, only to be told, no there was only actually ever on landing. This alone makes me not only suspicious but bewildered. If we had put man on the moon, why haven't we done it loads of times. You cannot tell me any reason why we wouldn't have. I'd like to think we have, but come on, the government could tell us tomorrow that aliens are on earth and show us carefully edited pictures, and we WOULD beleive them, wouldn't we. Why wouldn't we, they are the government. If it was to win a race? Hang on, lets go back in time here. What was the single most important race ever at that time and between which two Countries, The moon landing race and between US and RUSSIA, let me say that again, THE US and RUSSIA. The US would have made a whole film, putting ELVIS on the moon if they though they could beat RUSSIA, don't lose sight of that. if there is a race on between RUSSIA and US, neither side will want to lose. Both side will want to win. The US just happen to be a bit craftier, have better actors and thought of the idea first, to stage it, perhaps. At the end of the day, I don't know if we did it, you don't know if we did it. Some of us would like to think we did, some not. All I know is this and if you open your minds and just look at this one piece of info, I'm afraid there is no alternative.
If we did it, why havent we done it again.?
 
Welcome to sciforums, mmmm.

If we were craftier, we would have won the first race to put something in orbit. As it was, the Russians did that. Was it there? Let me put it this way, the news said you could see it go by at such and such a time. I sure saw something go by up there. It wasn't a bird.

The Russians were also the first to put a live creature into orbit. Apearently we were not crafty enough there either.

But some how we have over 800# of rocks that didn't originate on earth. I guess that was just something that we fabricated. Prehaps you could ask Mr. G about that. I think you may find he is familar with it...
 
Thanks for that wet1. How many meteorite type things have landed in this country. More than a few I would imagine. Also if we never saw a bird, then someone told us that an elephant without tusks was a bird, what reason do we have to disbeleive that. You know how much we want to learn about other planets. Its in the news all the time. If this is the case and we have the technology, why isn't there a man in the moon right now. Its nothing to do with cost. cost is nothing compared to the amount of money to be made by television rights etc...

My whole argument is based on one point, why has it only happened once if it was such a wonderful thing?
 
I guess there are only so many times you can go to the moon before you run out of arguments that are profound and inspiring enough to convince people to give you enough money to do it again.

If the costs involved were a fraction of what they actually are, I guess we could find all sorts of reasons to go there again. I'm sure they'd set up a moonbase and conduct all kinds of interesting scientific studies. If you use your imagination, the possibilities are almost endless.

It IS money that it stopping us though. Most people already feel that we should be devoting more resources to dealing with the problems we have on this planet before we go rocketing into outer space to satisfy an insatiable appetite for knowledge that may or may not serve to make any of our lives any better. It certainly wont solve the really serious issues confronting us at this point in our history, unless it's a mission to Mars to examine the possible future migration of the human race from a planet we might end up completely wrecking to another planet we'll probably end up completely wrecking.

BUT, I can't wait for the day when I can go to a travel agent and book a recreational holiday to the moon! Will it happen in my lifetime? Maybe not, but I can dream :)
 
mmmm,

As is fairly obvious, I am a proponet that we actually went to the moon. You see, I grew up in Fla during the time all this was going on. I have an uncle that worked for NASA, both at the Cape and later at Houston (now retired). I have been in the Cape, the vehicle assembly building, and several other areas. I have seen the rockets go up, nicely matching what was on tv. I have seen the Echo satellite with my own eyes as it orbited the earth from the ground. I will tell you this, nothing we had at the time flew that fast. Yet it was really high up. Visible with the naked eye and could be followed from horizon to horizon.

The moon rocks have no evidence of heat from re-entry, such would be fairly obvious and easily detectable. Nor do they show signs of oxygen contamination. Oxygen is known for combining with materials to make oxides.

There was also an experiment left on the moon to test some of the Relativity theory. It was a mirror. You see we bounce a laser light off of it and time the return of the light to a precise factor. That mirror did not just grow there. We left it there. It is still there. Someone had to be present to put it in place and carefully align it. It is not an accident or a freak of nature.

As to costs...

No mission leaving NASA is an over night shot. Almost without exception it takes years of planning in design and fabrication. All probes and vehicles are unique and are built with the mission in mind. They are multimillion dollar projects. (Leaving out the ISS flights and like) NASA must get the best bang for the buck for their money is limited. So they go for the most value in knowledge they can get for the mission. Faster, better, cheaper, was a byline of the director of NASA to push for more bang for the buck. There are some glaring oops as a result of this theme. Probes that didn't make it, Martian explorers that didn't show, ect. Those that have preformed their missions have done so with big returns for the mission including several that have done things beyond the end of the mission, such as the landing on EROS. We do these other things at the cost of not returning to the moon. A place that is relatively close by and we have already been to. I would dearly love to see the return to the moon. I am afraid I may not get to do so within my lifetime.

Money has always been a deciding factor in what goes up and what gets bumped. The mission to Pluto is one such that will probably not get done. Many scientists have petitioned congress to restore funding for the project. Time is of essence in this mission as Pluto is now near us and leaving into the outer part of its orbit. In a few years Pluto will be far enough out that the atmosphere it contains will freeze solid. We will not be able to witness the contents of its atmosphere again for another 200+ years. Congress has agreed to a tempory stop gap funding but only for the next year. There is no funds to continue the mission beyond that unless something changes. This I hope shows you just how critical funding is to NASA and what it can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top