how did we get back from the moon?

..I never belive that they walk on moon anyway...it was more/less political thing and moral injection for masses during cold war...I mean..camera showing on clip how armstrong leaving lander, but who installed camera outside with proper angle before he did that anyway, as well as many other quite werid things, including suddenly dissapearing whole video documentation about that 'landing' and 'walking'...

Gravity is more complex than that it wouldn't be a directly proportional linear math problem. Gravity is equal to the inverse square of the distance from the center of mass. The overall amount of force applied over time that the Moon would impose upon the space craft would be much much less than the Earth would. It's 1/6 right at the surface which exponentially decreases as the ship gets further away. The density of each body would also have an affect. Also, the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere so air resistance wouldn't be such a factor. Going through the atmosphere is probably where all the energy is used up.

Why don't we all write a community simulation?

camera showing on clip how armstrong leaving lander, but who installed camera outside with proper angle before he did that anyway

The camera was connected to the lander.

camera was few meters away from lander on video shot..its clearly showing half of lander and armstrong going down from stairs..

This picture shows it was very close to the lander. If you're saying this is showing half the lander, how are you going to get more than 2 people in it?

LarsG

#10

they say that Armstrong mounted the camera an an arm attached to the lander, and setup the shot, before he actually took the first step... which, depending on your view, might be plausible..

PGF

#11

Setting aside the conspiracy theories...

The answer to the original question is that each stage must lift / accelerate itself and all of the upper stages. Plus of course the first and second stages had to do so against the Earth's gravity.

Start with the minimum returning payload and add stages that necessarily get exponentially larger. The energy potential of the fuel is the most important factor in how quickly the assemblage increases.

For the return journey - The ascent module just had to get itself, including 2 astronauts and rock samples etc off the surface of the Moon to rendezvous with the command module. The ascent module was discarded. The command module then just had to get out of lunar orbit and 'over the hump' to where the Earth's gravity was greater than the Moon's.

From there the command module accelerates under gravity back towards the Earth. It was on the return leg of the Apollo 10 mission that the human speed record was set and it still has not been surpassed.

Rather than carry extra fuel to decelerate at Earth, they used the atmosphere. This required thermal protection and extremely careful positioning but saved enormously on the required mass.

The whole plan, the engineering and the execution thereof were incredible feats. If nothing else, consider the process of taking accurate enough position and velocity readings in order to calculate the correct orientation and burn duration for each manoeuvre. There were opportunities for minor corrections here and there but the tolerances were extremely tight. Get something wrong by small fractions or omit a step and you're beyond recovery.

Truly magnificent.

IPete2

#12

Azathoth,

How many people can you get in a mini? or any small car?

That picture only shows one of four legs and the very edge of the lunar lander, look up an image of the lunar module, its bigger than a small car in terms of internal space.

IPete2.

...anyway - anyone who says we didn't go to the Moon is messing with my childhood and I take great exception to that.

#13

How many people can you get in a mini? or any small car?

Are they wearing space suits?

That picture only shows one of four legs and the very edge of the lunar lander, look up an image of the lunar module, its bigger than a small car in terms of internal space.

And thats why I said *if* the picture was showing half the lander as Naughty Alien said, the lander would be smaller.

#14

..nono..there is another shoot also, wich was shown on discovery channel, where some physicists, doint ther assumptions also based on sand acceleration down to moon surface, picked up by astronaut foot..it was obvious that astronaut body 'bouncing' is not accurate at all in comparison with dust from 'moon' surface what was falling much more faster down to surface, even it has thousands times less mass than astronaut body..etc..so, I have no idea are they really land moon or not..but it is reality that some of the things they use to show 'stinks'...and dissapearance of video footages was really interesting addition..NASA said they dont know where they are..funny..

degac

#15

A conspiration? Again?
Apollo1 crew died in the pre-launch test...yes only a 'fake' - they now live with Elvis Presley somewhere under false identities.
And all the other Apollo missions? from 12 to 17 what they made? A television soap opera?

The Eagle was litteraly a can of alluminium: none today will be so stupid to make a journey with that thing! With 1/6 of gravity of the Earth, no atmosphere and so lightweight the Eagle (or anything else) can take off from the lunar surface.
And consider that the space into the Columbia (Apollo CSM) was very tightened for three people. The rest was only engine, life support, fuel - there are few 'computers' on board - they were on the Earth - all the calculations were made by humans (and the Apollo's crew with handy calculator like HP...) then checked by the (on Earth) computers.
So it was possible the journey...

Please - anyone can have a personal opinion of the facts of course - but there are more proofs of the landing and walking on the moon that the rest.
The moon race was - surely - a political fact: today - that we have best technology - we (all the world I mean) have no interest into do again it (see to the Internation Space Station...)

Rob Farley

#16

To get off the moon is a lot simpler due to the lack of atmosphere. If you have a little bit of boost off the moon you'll quite easily leave it's gravitational pull and enter the Earths gravitational pull and start accelerating towards our little blue planet.

http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

SoggyP

#17

Hello.

Moonbeans and farting.

Goodbye.

Cygnus

#18

Moonbeans and farting.

Better tie yourself down before you do that....

Dabz

#19

Someone email the MythBusters! ;)

Dabz

Floyd

#20

The moon's gravitational field is far smaller than the earth's. It is 1/6 of earth's when measured at the surface because the of moon's smaller radius. But the moon has only about 1/80 the mass of the earth. So it's gravity is 1/80 of earth's, when both are measured at the same distance from the center.

The difference is even more dramatic than this. Most of the mass at liftoff from the earth is fuel. The fuel used early in the launch must lift all the other fuel that will be used later.

#21

We went to the moon
Some and maybe all the photos are fake, it would have been untenable to go to the moon, and not return with photographic evidence. As it was an unknown if the Photos taken on the moon would be developable, NASA made sure that photos and vidio would be available by the simple action of filming them before they went.

To get there we needed to carry the wieght of the rocket to get to earth orbit, and the fuel to do that, and the fuel to get to the Moon, and the stuff to land, and the stuff to come back. When they were on the moon, they only needed to carry the stuff to come back.

Oh and they didnt hold there breath, comressed o2, go blue and die without it.

hahahahahahahahahah, as we are taking off from the surface, I think we should take the meaurement from there, as apposed to 2000miles above its surface

@Floyd, Obviously what you said was factualy correct.

MrTAToad

#22

You should go to the Bad Astonomy web site to debunk all the conspiracy theories about whether we landed on the moon "or not"

big10p

#23

Not this old chestnut, again.

Beside, aren't NASA going back to the moon soon? Will that be another 'fake'?

Tom

#24

China intend to put a man on the moon right? Now NASA needs to get there before them to plant a flag, drop off a load of junk, and a new rover with spacesuit boots on it to make some footprints :P

IPete2

#25

Just get a blummin big telescope and look for "Kilroy wuz 'ere" which Aldrin dragged out in the moon surface, that, the golf balls, the American flag and the landing craft bases which are still there gathering dust.

IPete2.

Garion

#26

Scientists have been using the Laser reflectors placed on the moon by the Apollo astronaughts.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

Cheers

Garion

#27

@Mrtoad, Big, Tom, Ipete and Garion.
I think we went to the moon as well, I just dont think that all the photos claimed to have been taken on the Moon, were.

It would have been a disaster on a par with crash and burning, for The US to have landed on the Moon, and NOT have any photos of it, so to ensure that Photos and video were going to be available, they filmed and photoed it before hand. This didnt mean they didnt go to the moon, cos they did. It just means that the reason people claim that some of the photos were not taken on the moon, is because they werent.

Imagine it, you are the director of Nasa, and you Know you can land on the Moon, but you are not 100% sure that putting TinFoil round the Negatives will protect the film from over exposure. What do you do? You make damd sure that you have some photos.

If you notice hardly any of the "We didnt go to the Moon" evidence is about photos on the subsequent missions. (A few, but nowhere near as many)

Czar Flavius

#28

The amount of money and manpower that was spent by NASA... wouldn't it just have been easier to go to the Moon?

Also Garion makes a very good but often overlooked point. They left a mirror on the Moon which Observatories shoot a laser from Earth and time how long it takes to get back, in order to work out the distance to the Moon. Are you saying Aliens left the mirror convienently for us?

Siopses

#29

Someone from the U.S should use the FOIA to get documents on the subject.

#30

The amount of money and manpower that was spent by NASA... wouldn't it just have been easier to go to the Moon?

They did go to the Moon, they just faked some photos before hand, to make sure that they would have some, because they were not sure if wrpping the sides of the camera in tinfoil would stop the film being over exposed.

TaskMaster

#31

We all know the moon landing is fake.

And the idea that there is a giant station orbiting the earth, ha, right.

And the thought that there are little satellites moving around up there, sending signals to and from the earth. Right...

Sarcasm people, sarcasm...

The moon landing is not what impresses me. It is the fully automated missions like the little robot that they sent to mars. Imagine how perfect the calculations have to be to make that stuff work. The scientist do all that work, all that planning, all that building. Then they send the whole package into space on a mission that is going to take from months to years, all without a person there to "touch" things. Just WOW!!!

QuietBloke

#32

the mirror thing is a good point.

besides.. its was a race to get to the moon... Russia would have been monitoring all flights and all incoming data coming from anything the US sent up just as the US was doing to them.
Would Russia really have kept quiet if there was even the slightest hint that the lander did not go to the moon and the transmissions did not come from the moon ?

I do agree that the images may have been 'tweaked' for general consumption just so they look good.

I bet if a mission goes to the moon again and shows photographic evidence of all the junk left behind ( the rovers, flags etc ) the conspiracy theories would just get adjusted to say that the 'junk' isnt from the original flights but were placed there at a later date.

Winni

#33

Yes, and they still do all these things with much less computing power and storage capacity than an iPod Nano has these days. A Lego Mindstorms NXT with 256K memory is closer to what NASA is using up there.

And we need to mention the most important thing: They are not using Microsoft products... :-)

BlitzSupport

#34

What is it that turns otherwise rational people into conspiracy fantasists? Is it because it's more exciting to dream of shadowy cover-ups than accept comparatively mundane reality?

Wayne

#35

Chuck,

Escape velocity from earth to the moon is 25,000 mph, not 5,000 mph.

Picklesworth

#36

I'm sure if they set up a moon landing hoax, they did a far better job than you are giving them credit for.
Really, "the lander is too small"?! This is a huge team of highly qualified, expert engineers that can launch a rocket off of this planet. How can you possibly expect them to make a mistake like that in a trivial moon landing hoax? They are not going to do something that stupid unless it is what actually happened.
Yes, the lander was small. They aren't going to build a Hummer and launch it into space. Think of submarines; this stuff is not about luxury. (Though a private space yacht would be quite interesting).

Besides that, the reason why it is difficult to land stuff on Mars is because it is a very big planet (not a small moon) and the missions are being pumped out in much greater quantity. Mars has a much bigger gravitational pull and there is no landing pad, so they need a lot of really crazy mechanisms to slow it down. (The Phoenix lander and Mars Science Laboratory will do this quite smoothly).
That, and these are robots. Think about how annoying it can be to synchronize a wireless mouse. Now, consider a robot from another planet that is likely to frequently disappear due to all manner of problems (hardware failures and dust storms, for example). The failure rate is indeed a bit lower when there are humans on the other end, but it is also a lot more expensive to do that. (And nobody in their right mind is going to land humans on Mars for quite some time).

They've definitely come a long way, too. It looks like Spirit and Opportunity may actually live through this dust storm, and they have now outlasted the Viking 2 lander. Quite impressive :)

#37

WOW, that's a LOT of responses in twelve hours; talk about a loaded subject!

I personally believe, mainly through my own choosing, that we landed on the moon. Also that there IS a space station orbiting our planet. I could be completely wrong, but I'd like to think that we actually did achieve that. On another note though, I think we've got the whole concept of space travel & propulsion completely backwards. Burning huge amounts of fossil fuels... I mean, HONESTLY...

#38

actually the question should be:

how did the 'eagle' escape the moons gravity to meet the command module.
The escape velocity of the moon is 5000mph.

Why do they use rocket fuel to escape the earths gravity
but on the moon they use gas propellants?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LEM-linedrawing.png

Wayne

#39

Rocket Scientist,

The problem with landing people on Mars is one of velocity and mass. Think about slowing down from orbital velocity, you fire the rockets, and keep firing them, oh oh you start to encounter the thin atmosphere if you continue to fire the rockets severe vibration and you break apart. You can't deploy chutes because they would be the size of the rose bowl and, you can't deploy a chute that large fast enough.

The only proposal that started to make sense was firing rockets, deploying a large inflatable donut shaped thing, and fire more rockets as you slowed down.

You can't do a moon style landing on Mars because the larger gravity would require huge amount of fuel, and you can't continue to fire the rockets with the thin atmosphere or the craft becomes unstable as the rocket exhaust, atmosphere and ship all interact and are unstable at reentry velocities, you can't aero brake because you'd have to get within 200 feet of the surface to be effective, you can't deply a chut the size of the rose bowl before you impact.

The reason you can do the robots is because of the low mass, but those entry systems are at there limits.

Landing on the moon was cake compared to Mars.

Sure could use a space elevator.
8)

Floyd

#40

as we are taking off from the surface, I think we should take the meaurement from there, as apposed to 2000miles above its surface

The discussion of escape velocity and surface gravity has distracted us from the original question which was about making the return journey from the moon to the earth. The "1/80 as strong" gravitational field applies to the entire trip. Gravity diminishes far more quickly when moving away from the moon.

#41

I think we have probably been to the moon, but the footage and photos everyone saw were very likely fabricated (for obv. politics). the reason being shadows (and other things) are totally odd and the camera specs have been looked over by experts who have said the radiation would have turned the film black.
However, other experts have said the mission took place in the lunar morning (or evening?) when the rad levels were low, within camera tollerances.
Other experts also have some wierd and wonderful theories about the non linear shadows and waving flag too.

Dunno what i believe really, but truth or fake would not surprise me at all either way.

I guess we will never know :/

#42

The quality of the video we all saw was crap though. The original video before it was changed for broadcasting purposes was much more crisp. Apparently, that video is lost in a warehouse somewhere though. There was an article in Wired about it. The video was a live broadcast though and the only thing we have left of it is what was actually broadcast, the original is missing.

#43

The escape velocity of the moon is 5000mph.

Escape velocity is to do with an impuse speed, doesnt mean that a rocket needs to go at that speed, just things on the lines of an arrow, or a cannon ball. A rocket just needs any positive speed, as long as it can maintian it.
Also, as I think Floyd was trying to point out, the escape velocity on the side facing the earth is less than the other side, and the earth gravity actualy helps you escape, (sort of like the tides, but with a spaceship instead of water)

Leadwerks

#44

I've never seen anything to make me doubt the moon landings were authentic.

Czar Flavius

#45

The shadows on the photos are explained by perspective! It would be even wierder if all the shadows were parallel. Apparantly the waving flag was due to the springy metal used to support the fabric of the flag, otherwise it would just drop down.

Zenith

#46

We did go to the moon, please stop this squibble of nonsense.
It's just plain pathetic. You might as well be saying little green men were there, high-fiving everyone and partying.

LineOf7s

#47

The most definitive explanation of it all:

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

#48

it doesnt hurt to talk about these things and for the most part the discussion was civil, so im happy.

I dont know why they would use 2 different types of fuel though...

#49

...soon or later I think we have to close a deal with Transformers to do things for us..its cheaper :)

MadMax

#50

Not only we never went to the moon, Columbus never went to America it's all a conspiracy. As we all well know the earth is flat and if you go far into the atlantic you fall of the side. America doesn't even exist it is all staged. Just look at "westerns" they were actualy filmed in Almeria(Spain). As for the Moon landing that was all filmed in "El Paisaje Lunar" in Tenerife. Another thing, you go to a distant continent no one has ever been to before and they speak English and Spanish!! Common! It's obviously a fake.

#51

actually Columbus wasnt first one who touched america..it was Marco Polo and chinese sailors..

Regular K

#52

@Naughty Alien, what about Erik the Red? Around the year 1000. That would have been 200 years before Marco Polo was even born.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland

#53

yup..I forgot about Vikings..those guys had balls man..

Gnu

#54

You guys are forgetting the moon does not have an atmosphere, so there is no drag when attaining escape velocity. Also the lander's lower half (landing gear) was left on the surface. Now compare the mass of this tiny LEM with the mass of the entire Saturn V. Fuel economy looks good!

Gnu

Neuro

#55

Sunshine Dreamer

#56

E-L-L-I-O-T

#57

..exuse me, but I saw on Transformers movie that one of the small robots on Mars is kicked out by some bad Autobot :)

#58

actually Columbus wasnt first one who touched america..it was Marco Polo and chinese sailors..

Actually theres some limited evidence that the vikings could have possibly got to canada via iceland & greenland.

LarsG

#59

Norwegians were the first ones!! ;)

well.. if you don't count the actual natives who came over from Asia.. :p

#60

@Zenith - come on, you can't reject the whole thing with comments like that. Get involved and counter some of the faker's arguments if you feel they're talking rubbish. It's good sport.

Here's one... in the recordings from the lunar module as they are landing, why can't you hear a single whisper from those massive thrusters as they are fired?

Why when people 'act like they are on the moon', do they do everything in slow motion?

#61

I agree, with normen, it is in the 'nature of man' to question. You have got to admit there is plenty of 'funny buisiness' surrounding the moon landings.

why can't you hear a single whisper from those massive thrusters as they are fired

That one can be explained, you couldnt hear anything because you need gas, liquid or solid to allow the sound to travel. Theres no air on the moon and the audio could have been connected to the astronaughts audio channel (inside a pressurised helmet).

#62

>>Why when people 'act like they are on the moon', do they do everything in slow motion? <<

This is interesting..maybe their bouncing can be 'slow motionish' but hand movement should remain same, what is not case on 'authentic' videos..

#63

DAN - That's the spirit! I would think with a booster of that size, the sound conduction through the structure of the ship would be audible, but who knows.

Naughty - It is interesting, eh. Have you seen the moon videos sped up by a factor of 2? Looks indistinguishable from blokes jumping around on Earth.

Duckstab[o]

#64

? space would you be able to hear the thrusters if there is no local resistance of a magnitude then there is nothing to vibrate ie no sound

Duckstab[o]

#65

yep looked around looks like no sound unless it localised within the object ie shuttle

Takuan

#66

Maybe their hand movement is in slow motion because...they moved slow?
I would move slow if a damaged suit would kill me within seconds.

23..23..23...

#67

The reason the moved slowly is because of the nature of Gravity and inertia. They were specificly told not to do anything quickly, and to add as little acceleration as possible to any movment. For although things were 1/6 as easy to lift and move as on the earth, they were just as hard to change direction or stop.

-=Darkheart=-

#68

There are number of things many people seems to be missing here:

1) Although the WEIGHT of objects of the the earth would only be about 6 times greater it is not a simple liner calculation to work out how much fuel would be consumed. This is mostly because the Mass of the moon is a great deal less than that of the Earth and also because the further away from an object you are the more the gravitational force is reduced. You can work through the calculation for escape velocity yourself here.

2) When the rocket left the ground at the start it contained all the FUEL it would use for the journey against the Earth's gravity. So the time it was under the most force was at the very beginning and the combined weight of the fuel and the fuel containers would have been MASSIVELY more than the spaceship that blasted off from the moon as by then it had jettisoned the boosters and spent the fuel.

3) The earth has an atmosphere and air resistance acts as a STRONG retarding force on any moving object. On the moon there is no atmosphere so no air resistance. If you don't think air resistance is a strong force consider that it is air resistance that keeps a plane in the air or is capable of moving 100's of tonnes of cargo on ship.

4) Once they had achievied the velocity required to return home they did not need to expend further fuel to continue accelerating, as they got closer to the earth the earth's much stronger gravity would do this for them.

IMHO anyone who really believes the moon landings were faked (or any of these other silly stories) is a gullible fool and they might as well buy my magic beans now.

Darkheart

QuietBloke

#69

magic beans you say.... hmmm

#70

or any of these other silly stories is a gullible fool and they might as well buy my magic beans now

I dont see why Im a gullible fool just because I believe that NASA had the backup plan that if the cameras failed on the Moon, they would be OK because they had photoed some pre-staged ones, just in case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

#71

#72

Columbus never went to America it's all a conspiracy

I live IN America you twit! XD

*Wow, I am LOVIN' this thread!* ^_

#73

Columbus never went to America it's all a conspiracy

I live IN America you twit! XD

And are you Columbus? I think not.

#74

surely they'd have tested out taking photos in space on the previous Apollo missions and so would the Russians have?

#75

And are you Columbus? I think not.

Ha haaa, touché!!! I think that's the best zing I've ever had. Nice one, H&K!

BlitzSupport

#76

I have no proof that America exists. I've only ever seen it on TV and heard people claim that they've been there (my dad included) or that they come from there. Not a shred of actual evidence...

#77

Ah come on you scaredy cats... get involved with the real argument. Dismissing the other side as fools doesn't convince them.

James- I have been to the US. It's real, I promise you.

MadMax

#78

>>James- I have been to the US. It's real, I promise you. <<

Ever heard of "Total Recall".

TaskMaster

#79

I can comment on the slowness of movement.

Ever heard of Isaac Newton? His third law of motion states:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

So, on the moon, there is not as much gravity and no atmosphere with friction to oppose your movements. Moving quickly will just work against you. Right now, on earth, when you move forward, you have gravity and atmosphere for the equal and opposite reaction to counteract and give your movement leverage. On the moon, not so much. Moving strongly and quickly will just tire you out and not get you anywhere any faster.

#80

surely they'd have tested out taking photos in space on the previous Apollo missions and so would the Russians have?

In "space" as not in the Spaceship, or not protected. No. Some were taken, but most wasnt onto photgraphic film, which I dont beleive was used at all for high orbit/moon photos exteria to craft until the moon landings

It just didnt accur to NASA at all, that sort of stuff, a personal camera. Like the not putting a window in, until the Asrtos complained.
When they did wake up to it, the Bloke on the problem, just "phoned it in", and got an off-the-self camera, and wrapped it in tin foil.
NOw obviously this worked, but the only way to test it at that point, was to actualy go.

Well anyway, I think that just to be "safe", a couple of publicity shots were taken, and these were accedently realeased, thus causeing this belief that the US didnt go to the Moon.

Which Like they did, using tech form the roswell crash, they had arrainched to meet the Mother space ship there. Were in exchange for the Alien bodies they recieved the basic of Micro chips and starwar laser tech.
The ALiens double crossed the US though, and clinging to the underside of the eagles managed to get nearly 1000 alien Eggs into the earths oceans before they were rumbled. Anyway they could ..... etc

big10p

#81

o_O

#82

Ever heard of "Total Recall"

Yeah. Never did figure out if it was all real or he'd just gone Schizo.
This woman would have been ideal for the outdoor scene on mars.

@Task
I can see where you're coming from in terms of friction with the ground when you're trying to walk, which could account for a slower walk, but then they just jumped around anyway. Friction, air or ground, can't account for slow arm movements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&mode=related&search=

BlitzSupport

#83

James- I have been to the US. It's real, I promise you.

So you say. Armstrong says he went to the moon.

#84

@TAsk and Nomen, the lack friction was negligable (But yes has an effect), what makes the major differance is that inertia is the same as on earth, that is its 1/6 easier to make things go up and down, but its just has hard to make them turn, and they hurt just as hard when they hit you.

All the inate reflexes that you have on the earth can get you killed, someone could lift a grand piano and throw it at you, and you instinct would be, "He threw it, so I can catch it", but you wouldnt be able to, because it would still have the same inertia as if it was on earth, it wouldnt crush you, but it would probably get you killed.

For this reason Astros do everything concisly, which has been taken as slowmotion, but it isnt, they are just more deliberate in their movements, including simple acts such as moveing their heads

MadMax

#85

I realy can't believe that anyone that is capable of coding can believe this poo-poo, I will not say another word, but next time you use your phone ask yourself how this is posible,

#86

H&K: Photo info interesting if true, other info = !!

#87

hey what about those wire glints in the youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&mode=related&search=

big10p

#88

Interesting - I have no idea how valid that is, though. That's the trouble with conspiracy theories: there's just too much noise out there to ever really find the truth. :)

I guess the question of whether man went to the moon or not, and if the moon landing videos/photos are faked, are two entirely separate questions.

Proving the videos/photos are faked, doesn't prove man never went to the moon!

#89

believe this poo-poo,

"POO-POO?!?!" o_____o

#90

@James - touch'e!.. but a fair point.

#91

I guess the question of whether man went to the moon or not, and if the moon landing videos/photos are faked, are two entirely separate questions.

I agree Big, and more importantly I think NASA would have been stupid not to ensure that there was Media evidance. The US was in the Middle of what could be concidered the first televised War, and to have come back from the Moon and then claim the Chemist had lost the Negatives would have been unpardonable.

Dirk Krause

#92

usually I don't feed conspiracy theories (if not my own) but I can't help:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/one-giant-blunder-for-mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html

"But just 37 years after Apollo 11, it is feared the magnetic tapes that recorded the first moon walk [...] have gone missing at NASA's Goddard Space Centre in Maryland."

[edit] seems in this case the guy who picked them up from the chemist lost them.

Picklesworth

#93

Darnit, you're sucking me in to these conspiracy theories. I've been staring at those particles of dirt, trying to see if they are sinking at the right rate. (They are the only things that could not possibly be attached to wires).

Gah! This thread is evil :(

Dirk Krause

#94

The real sad part to me is that I should be able to calculate the physical problem behind this thread ('how much thrust/fuel does it take to take off from the moon taking gravity and absence of atmosphere into account') and I can't without digging into my old text books (read: wikipedia).

John J.

#95

I've been staring at those particles of dirt, trying to see if they are sinking at the right rate.

The dirt looks fine to me:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wOLa6BOFu3A&mode=related&search=

Notice how it far the sand is kicked horizontally, and how it doesn't fall very fast or slow down due to air resistance.

But if you really believe we didn't go to the moon, this video will probably get you excited:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0&mode=related&search=

#96

the film could be slowed down, for the dust particles.
you have to look at the arc,
whenever something falls or is thrown it falls like earth gravity unless it is an astronaut attached to a wire

Kanati

#97

sigh... conspiracy theorists really need to get a life in regards to 99.9999% of all their theories.

#98

whenever something falls or is thrown it falls like earth gravity unless it is an astronaut attached to a wire

All the dust falls at the same rate, which although theorticly it would on earth, air resistance would make some of them float.
That is although they look like they are falling the same as on earth, on earth they would all be falling at different rates

#99

Its the aliens, they're behind it.

QuietBloke

#100

magic beans you say....

#101

ahem, what am I supposed to have done now?

John J.

#102

Its the aliens, they're behind it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs&mode=related&search=
Fast forward to about 3:39.

Also interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DjOAgs9kko

#103

crap, so that's where I parked it.

Dirk Krause

#104

@-=Darkheart=-: regarding your stash of magic beans - can you provide a link to your shop or something? I mean - just in case?

Zenith

#105

I was called out, forgot to check this thread and back my 'beef' up. :D
I believe Phil Plait says it best.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

Picklesworth

#106

Thanks for bumping this, Zenith. I almost missed a glowing opportunity to pimp my favourite simulator!

Here, you can see for yourself how it worked!
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html