Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amb1)
    Yeah, other missions have been (supposedly!) but no ones actually got out of their rocket and walked on the moon though
    One or two more moon landings took place. Once they'd gone a couple of times there wasn't much point in going again. It was very expensive and risky, and the more often people went, the less interesting it was. It was done as a prestige mission rather than for any particular scientific purpose.
    The other reason is the improvement in computerised equipment and machinery. Apollo had very basic, very expensive and very limited computers. For all their vulnerability and the need to supply a liveable habitat, humans were probably lighter, cheaper and more reliable than machines. Now it is the other way round. There is much less need to use humans in space.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, we went to the moon.

    It seems to me as years go by how other nations don't send men into space but I guess for most there is really no point.

    I think a base on the moon would be cool though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What evidence? I have heard no credible evidence to suggest that it was faked at all. Methinks you guys just love conspiracy too much.

    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

    If you can come up with any other CREDIBLE evidence that is not covered here then I'll eat my cat's goldfish's hat.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DivideByZero)
    What evidence? I have heard no credible evidence to suggest that it was faked at all. Methinks you guys just love conspiracy too much.

    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

    If you can come up with any other CREDIBLE evidence that is not covered here then I'll eat my cat's goldfish's hat.
    Finally someone with sense. Yes I agree
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    What's the answer to the 'who was holding the camera/how did they set the camera up to film Armstrong taking his first step?' question again?
    A video camera was rigged up to a swinging-out/in axel attached to the lander that Armstrong could deploy whilst climbing down the ladder. The simple answer is that the video camera was attached to the lander itself; nobody had to hold it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No it was the flag- the flag was moving in the video but there was no atmosphere on the moon, so how could the flag move?
    Also, there was some evidence that if they had gone to the moon then the spacesuits would not be enough to protect them against the radiation (which was much stronger due to the atmospherelessness, much stronger even than chernoyble), so it's a bit strange that non of the astronauts died of radiation, or is at least dying of cancer (OK, sounds a bit weird, I know)

    I just think it's kinda of unbelievable that at a time when America was lagging way behind in the space race, that they were suddenly able to make that giant leap and go to the moon(evidence suggest that their technology was no where near sophisticated enough), just when JFK said they would a decade ago.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude)
    The Illiminati do.
    I am confused about this "group"... please expalin lol sounds interesting
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pearly)
    No it was the flag- the flag was moving in the video but there was no atmosphere on the moon, so how could the flag move?
    they had a motor in the flag-pole to give a flapping motion. Tasteless, i agree, but that's showbiz.
    Also, there was some evidence that if they had gone to the moon then the spacesuits would not be enough to protect them against the radiation (which was much stronger due to the atmospherelessness, much stronger even than chernoyble), so it's a bit strange that non of the astronauts died of radiation, or is at least dying of cancer (OK, sounds a bit weird, I know)
    Not weird. Preposterous. solar radiation can be stopped by a sheet of tinfoil. The particles emitted at Chernobyl were very different. The chances that the astronauts might acquire radiation induced cancer was increased, but it wasn't high to begin with.

    I just think it's kinda of unbelievable that at a time when America was lagging way behind in the space race, that they were suddenly able to make that giant leap and go to the moon(evidence suggest that their technology was no where near sophisticated enough), just when JFK said they would a decade ago.
    The USA had been lagging behind in 1958 (Sputnik) and 1961 (Gagarin).They weren't behind in everything: the first radio satellite, Telstar, was US. The US spent a lot more money over ten years aiming at the specific purpose of landing a man on the moon. They succeeded. No giant leap, but incremental improvement in design. What's unbelievable? Where is all this wvidence you keep citing? Is it just someone saying "Well I think..."?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KizzieB)
    we have satalites that are far out in space and they can examine a blade of grass from all that way ,amazing aint it ,and look at the moon ,it aint too far away and we have wicked photos that can be zoomed in on, but why dont they show us the very flag and the footprints and all the **** they had to leave behind
    Think again. A prime example of presumption before fact.

    Size of Lunar Lander:
    10m^2 approx.

    Distance from Hubble to the moon:
    350,000 km approx.

    This means, the visual angle is somewhere in the region of:
    (10m)/(3.5 x 10^8m) * (180/PI)
    = 1.6 x 10^-6 degrees
    = 6 milliarcseconds.

    Hubble's resolution:
    800x800 pixels in a 35 arcseconds viewing field. The pixel scale is 46 milliarseconds.

    This boils down to a situation whereby the Lunar Lander would need to be 15x larger for it to show up as a single dot on a Hubble picture.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I for one do not believe we actually made it to the moon in the 60's. There was alot of pressure on the US concerning the race to the moon and when they realized they wouldn't be making it anytime soon, they decided to stage a false landing. Many things in the video of "the first moon landing" give reason to believe that it was all a hoax.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Umm, just check the statements around that time and see where the money went. If it went to Pinewood Studios or something then well...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to beleive that they did land on teh moon- I mean, I know the reasons for faking it (to beat the Ruskies etc) but it would be sad to learn they faked it... would that mean they faked them all? A fair few moon landings were made afterwards... I can tell you, if I was teh first astronaut to actually walk on the moon, I wouldn't keep schtum - but I guess hush money would be involved.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liberal Lady)
    I for one do not believe we actually made it to the moon in the 60's. There was alot of pressure on the US concerning the race to the moon and when they realized they wouldn't be making it anytime soon, they decided to stage a false landing. Many things in the video of "the first moon landing" give reason to believe that it was all a hoax.
    Then name something in the video that gives resaon to believe it was a hoax, rather than just saying there are some.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    Then name something in the video that gives resaon to believe it was a hoax, rather than just saying there are some.
    The shadows are all wrong, the flag waves one minute (there is no wind on the moon) and is stiff the next, Area 51 (or whatever it is) in the nervada desert has the worlds most security and funnily enough has a very very similar landscape to the moon.....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amb1)
    The shadows are all wrong, the flag waves one minute (there is no wind on the moon) and is stiff the next, Area 51 (or whatever it is) in the nervada desert has the worlds most security and funnily enough has a very very similar landscape to the moon.....
    The flag thing has already been explained on this forum, and was explained at the time by the American government.

    In what way are the shadows wrong? And how on earth does "Area 51" being in a desert imply any foulplay? It makes sense for secret places to be in an unpopulated place, and deserts are really the only places on earth that fulfil that requirement.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    It makes sense for secret places to be in an unpopulated place, and deserts are really the only places on earth that fulfil that requirement.
    What's the big secret though? It could just be that the moon landing was staged and they actually landed in the desert - where no-one is ever allowed to go (in case they realise).

    Btw - I don't necessarily believe that they didn't go to the moon or that they did, was just curious as to what other people think
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amb1)
    What's the big secret though? It could just be that the moon landing was staged and they actually landed in the desert - where no-one is ever allowed to go (in case they realise).

    Btw - I don't necessarily believe that they didn't go to the moon or that they did, was just curious as to what other people think
    Yes, but if they really wanted to fake it, presumbably they could do it anywhere and just bring in the materials from elsewhere. Which actually make more sense for that specific deception, as most people like you would point to it being carried out in a desert. Either way it wouldn't really be any trickier to carry it out somewhere else, in which case a place in the desert being guarded has no significance. Besides, the would it still being guarded now for that reason? Surely they would dismantle and destroy any evidence if they had done such a thing?

    Anyway, you have no other evidence that hasn't been disproved.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amb1)
    The shadows are all wrong, ... Area 51 (or whatever it is) in the nervada desert has the worlds most security and funnily enough has a very very similar landscape to the moon.....
    but very different gravity. If you can't even spell the place, how do you know about the landscape? What's wrong with the shadows? How come none of the astronomers observing with radio telescopes all over the world couldn't tell by triangulation that the signals came from the wrong direction?

    A proposal for the real paranoiacs out there:
    The US landed men on the moon in the late 1960s, but when they said they were stopping going to the moon they were lying, to conceal the massive bases they have put there. Prove/disprove that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    A proposal for the real paranoiacs out there:
    The US landed men on the moon in the late 1960s, but when they said they were stopping going to the moon they were lying, to conceal the massive bases they have put there. Prove/disprove that.
    Interesting idea. There were plans for moon bases by 2000. The technology exists, its getting it there and getting the funding, not to mention people to live there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can't believe this thread is still going.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.