The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked

darksidZz said:
Honestly I'm not sure what to believe, but I find it highly unusual the US wouldn't go back and start developing moon bases and other forms of technology to colonize the moon, I see no real sense to not doing this.
Click to expand...
it could provide a number of advantages, a jumping off point to mars for example.
we could launch a far greater payload from the moon than from earth.
. . . also just the gains for astronomy would be worth it, . . .
Click to expand...
one of the limiting factors for earth based telescopes is weight.
not only would the seeing be almost perfect we could build bigger telescopes.
yes, a moonscope would be fantastic.
I'd just have thought we'd build a mission to colonize by now, and you say it's expensive but really they spent tons on war and it got us nowhere, they've wasted more money on wars than it would've cost to go back and build moon bases so wtf, sounds fishy to me.
Click to expand...
in any "colonizing" period there's going to be accidents, some of them will result in deaths to the crew.
NASA decides to anticipate the bad rap and forgoes the "moonbase" scenario.
 
There are plenty of reasons for not establishing permanent infrastructure on the moon. For starters, the Apollo missions were extemely expensive and dangerous. We still do not have a full understanding of the long-term effects on the human body from living in alternate gravity levels etc.

Also, before we look to space, we should be mending the cracks down here on Earth. To say that the moon-landing was faked to distract the public from the Vietnam war is utterly laughable. If such a distraction was desired, an assassination, political scandal, or some other similar event would be much less expensive and easier to orchestrate. Why would they go to such great lengths?

Moon-landing conspiracy theorists have a bad name, because they generally ignore scientific fact and would rather engage in pseudo-scientific discourse. Also, they tend to ignore sufficient debunking of certain theories and repeat them, regardless of their being proved ignorable. (i.e. US flag flapping).

As others have mentioned, robots are just as capable of documenting and photographing as a moon-base, or whatever would be. Sure, the costs of the US' recent wars have been extravagant and down-right ridiculous, but NASA is under (as others have mentioned) extreme pressure to cut spending. They even suffered public scrutiny for their landing of gear on mars -- imagine public reaction to a proposed moon-base... Space travel is more expensive than you might think.
 
Last edited:
Nom-De-Plume said:
Space travel is more expensive than you might think.
Click to expand...
only because of the large delta Vs that are required.
it takes all of the tonnage of the fully loaded saturn 5 just to get 50 tons to the moon.
all of that goes into overcoming earths gravity and acceleration.
then, when you get to the moon you must decelerate to get to the surface.
the cost of going there once in earth orbit is very small.
 
leopold said:
NASA decides to anticipate the bad rap and forgoes the "moonbase" scenario.
Click to expand...

I don't think NASA's decision had much to do with it. When Apollo funding got cut, they had to try and salvage what they could from their next plan, and after negotiating with Congress they managed to save a piece of it. What was just a small component of a grander dream became the Space Shuttle program.
 
leopold said:
it could provide a number of advantages, a jumping off point to mars for example.
we could launch a far greater payload from the moon than from earth.
Click to expand...

There is no fuel on the Moon. Every ounce of fuel would have to be lifted from Earth - which makes launching from the Moon a far, far, far more expensive proposition.

one of the limiting factors for earth based telescopes is weight.
not only would the seeing be almost perfect we could build bigger telescopes.
Click to expand...

Except things still have weight on the moon. And the dust is just plain nasty. Orbital telescopes make a lot more sense.
 
Rhaedas said:
What was just a small component of a grander dream became the Space Shuttle program.
Click to expand...
correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the shuttle initially designed as a passenger liner?
billvon said:
There is no fuel on the Moon.
Click to expand...
correct, there is no LOX, liquid H2, or RP-1 on the moon.
not all rocket engine are liquid.
Orbital telescopes make a lot more sense.
Click to expand...
maybe.
i believe a solid foundation has some merit.
 
If the Apollo moon missions were faked then what caused all those cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) that formed in the Coral sea off the Queensland Coast during that period? Global warming?

I can remember one year when we had around 9 cyclones and 4 came down to the southern half of the state and after the Apollo missions finished we had hardly any cyclones form let alone come down to the southern part of the state. That was until the Space Shuttle blew up.

If you follow the path of the 'cyclone' we are currently experiencing you will note that last week it was a large swirling storm cell over the land (not normal) that went directly north for 1,000kms to the gulf of Carpentaria where it formed into a cyclone. It then went east for a couple of hundred kms, stopped being a cyclone and then went down the Queensland coast where it is sitting and currently dumping much rain all the way from north to south.

So, as the Apollo missions weren't faked, and we have wierdly behaving cyclones roaming around in Queensland, I expect that it is one or more of (1) the Chinese space lab on a wierd orbit, (2) the US spy satellite following (1), (3) a third stage assosciated with a tradional (Apollo style) space program or (4) some other space junk coming in.

I have excluded the NEO space rock expected to pass under the geostationary orbit in about 3 weeks time as it would have to be orbiting to cause this type of weather. That NEO would be expected to pull geostationary satellites out of their orbits so It's likely that (1) or (2) or both are trying to minimise its impact.

meteorology
— n the study of the earth's atmosphere, esp of weather-forming processes and weather forecasting
[C17: from Greek meteorolōgia, from meteōron something aloft + -logia -logy . See meteor ]
 
LaurieAG said:
If the Apollo moon missions were faked then what caused all those cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) that formed in the Coral sea off the Queensland Coast during that period? Global warming?
Click to expand...

Normal weather variation?

So, as the Apollo missions weren't faked, and we have wierdly behaving cyclones roaming around in Queensland, I expect that it is one or more of (1) the Chinese space lab on a wierd orbit, (2) the US spy satellite following (1), (3) a third stage assosciated with a tradional (Apollo style) space program or (4) some other space junk coming in.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have of any cyclone being caused by anything to do with any human space mission?
 
James R said:
What evidence do you have of any cyclone being caused by anything to do with any human space mission?
Click to expand...
James R, I have lived in the South East Queensland region for 50 years and the only time during that period when active cyclones or their 'remnants' came down as far as here were:-

(1) During the 60's and early to mid 70's
(2) After the space shuttle blew up on reentry, you kinda notice when you don't have one come down here for 15 years or so
(3) now, 2 weeks or so after the North Koreans launched a satellite

Number (3) is a real beauty because it started on the land around the QLD, NSW + NT borders, travelled directly north overland as a swirling storm that formed into cyclone Oswald in the Gulf of Carpentaria, it then turned east and headed inland until it started going down the inside of the Queensland coast, not over the ocean, wreaking havoc and dumping rain from Rockhampton all the way down to, it looks like Coffs Harbour, but it may keep going all the waydown to Tasmania. The rain is already down to the NSW and VIC Border.
 
LaurieAG said:
James R, I have lived in the South East Queensland region for 50 years and the only time during that period when active cyclones or their 'remnants' came down as far as here were:-

(1) During the 60's and early to mid 70's
(2) After the space shuttle blew up on reentry, you kinda notice when you don't have one come down here for 15 years or so
(3) now, 2 weeks or so after the North Koreans launched a satellite

Number (3) is a real beauty because it started on the land around the QLD, NSW + NT borders, travelled directly north overland as a swirling storm that formed into cyclone Oswald in the Gulf of Carpentaria, it then turned east and headed inland until it started going down the inside of the Queensland coast, not over the ocean, wreaking havoc and dumping rain from Rockhampton all the way down to, it looks like Coffs Harbour, but it may keep going all the waydown to Tasmania. The rain is already down to the NSW and VIC Border.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah - we all know that rocket launches cause cyclones in Oz. Yeah. Right.

But wait... what about ALL those launches that have put satellites in orbit in the past 20 years? You know, all the GPS satellites and the ones for TV broadcasts, etc. Evidently you've forgotten them all when you devised this kooky idea of yours.
 
the rocket launches do effect the environment, but not in a way LaurieAG is saying they do. Rockets majorly pollute the area where their stages land and part of the fuel tanks as well, propellant such nitrogen tetroxide, hydrazine, MMH, and UDMH. The actual physical effects of rocket launches is not significant enough to somehow effect global weather such as creation of cyclones. However frequent rocket launches do effect local weather patterns mainly by creation of rain and etc.
 
Here's what a meteorologist said in todays Courier Mail newspaper.

Australia is in desperate need of increased data collection points and more detailed high resolution modelling around our populated east coast.
That's not to say that Oswald would not have been correctly modelled but it was a unique system and these sorts of smaller systems (tropical lows and weak tropical cyclones) tend to get steered around more by small disturbances in the upper atmosphere. This makes them more unpredictable. Another factor that made Oswald unique was that it took an unprecedented path between Cairns and Sydney.
Click to expand...
It'll be off Tasmania tomorrow.

Rogue satellites, third stages doing multiple loops around the planet or anything else that is falling into the earth tend to cause disturbances in the upper atmosphere.

Fill a round mug with black coffee and add milk to just below the top. Take a paper clip and insert it into the coffee 1CM from the edge and 1CM deep. Rotate the paper clip in the liquid slowly around the inside edge of the mug maintaining its depth and distance from the edge and see how long it takes to get the contents of the mug spinning.
 
LaurieAG said:
Rogue satellites, third stages doing multiple loops around the planet or anything else that is falling into the earth tend to cause disturbances in the upper atmosphere.
Click to expand...

And the 15,000 tons of meteors that hit the Earth's upper atmosphere every year don't? (They hit going a lot faster, too.)

Fill a round mug with black coffee and add milk to just below the top. Take a paper clip and insert it into the coffee 1CM from the edge and 1CM deep. Rotate the paper clip in the liquid slowly around the inside edge of the mug maintaining its depth and distance from the edge and see how long it takes to get the contents of the mug spinning.
Click to expand...

Now do exactly the same experiment but use a paint stirrer, stick it in all the way and stir it as fast as you can. Is there more or less disturbance?
 
billvon said:
And the 15,000 tons of meteors that hit the Earth's upper atmosphere every year don't? (They hit going a lot faster, too.)
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't look at the PDF. The majority of the satellites etc that go rogue start with an elongated orbit then go into a reducing circular orbit as they come in. Read the bit on the diagram that says that these objects make many more circuits coming in than shown on the diagram.

Not much point discussing this with people who don't know the difference between the trajectories of things like man made objects jerked out of their parking orbits and those of space rocks as they come in.
 
LaurieAG said:
You obviously didn't look at the PDF. The majority of the satellites etc that go rogue start with an elongated orbit then go into a reducing circular orbit as they come in. Read the bit on the diagram that says that these objects make many more circuits coming in than shown on the diagram.
Click to expand...

Right. That's because they move a lot more slowly than meteors. Meteors = more mass hitting the planet going much faster = more disturbance in the atmosphere. Simple physics.
 
billvon said:
Right. That's because they move a lot more slowly than meteors. Meteors = more mass hitting the planet going much faster = more disturbance in the atmosphere. Simple physics.
Click to expand...
Considering that if a satellite is in orbit, it isn't really interacting with the atmosphere in any significant way....yeah, pretty simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top