The Moon Landings Were A Hoax!!:

agree with tommy on this one... I'm pretty sure there's loads of stuff the government alters or covers up... But this is a little extreme.

how about doing a little research: this site pretty much puts any rediculous claims to rest: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

here are what seem to be fair answers to your claims:

This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.
The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth's magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts.
For more information, please see The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon and Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission.
Intense radiation from solar flares would have killed the Apollo astronauts in route to the Moon and back.
Solar flares were a NASA concern as well, but the radiation doses claimed by the hoax advocates are again greatly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. Although low-intensity solar flares are common, they posed no real threat to the astronauts. High-intensity solar flares could have endangered the astronauts' health, but these large eruptions are infrequent. Furthermore, there are statistical methods for determining the likelihood of a major flare during a given time interval. If NASA found an unacceptably high probability for a solar flare event during a scheduled flight, the mission would have been postponed. No large solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions and typical radiation doses received by the astronauts was very low.
For more information, please see Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission

The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.
Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

There's an easy explanation for this phenomenon. An object in free flight will follow a ballistic trajectory in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. The only force acting on the object is gravity, which on Earth has an acceleration of 32.2 ft/s2. On the Moon gravity is much less, 5.33 ft/s2. If the ballistic flight of an object on the Moon is sped up by a factor of 2.46 it will mimic exactly ballistic motion on Earth, and vice versa. The 2X speed the hoax advocates claim is close to this 2.46 ratio, hence free flight motion looks "normal" because it is what our eyes and brains are accustomed to seeing. Other motion however, such as the movements of the astronauts' arms, looks very unnatural when speeded up. The hoax advocates deceivingly apply this explanation very selectively. If the Apollo footage is viewed in its entirety it becomes clear the 2X speed explanation cannot account for the observed motion.
The Apollo video is exactly what it appears to be, that is, man on the Moon. The convincing evidence is in the dust, which is particularly apparent in the video of the Lunar Rover. If this video were shot on Earth there would be clouds of dust thrown into the atmosphere by the Rover's wheels, however there is no evidence of this. The dust falls immediately back to the surface as it would in an airless environment.

This I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect.
I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags were attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless.

 

Here's another site that debunks the theory:

http://www.def-logic.com/articles/lunarlanding.html

I especially like the last part of it labeled as "COMMON SENSE"

here it is:

Imagine the difficulty in fabricating the Lunar missions of the 1960's and then trying to keep the truth a secret. There were thousands of people involved in the missions and millions watched the events live on television. How could so many people be taken in? How could NASA ensure the silence of all those involved? Surely someone would have leaked the secret. It would only take one disgruntled NASA employee to go to the press and the whole thing would have been exposed. And given the amount of planning involved, such a leak could have happened months or years before the missions were supposed to take place. Yet there were no leaks and the missions were carried out as planned. The U.S.S.R (who watched everything in the U.S.) did not cry "FRAUD"--and they would most certainly have said something if they thought the missions were faked. It seems difficult to believe that the entire Lunar program was produced in the studio.

There are many different types of conspiracy theories, ranging from the Lunar hoax theory to the government cover up of UFO's. Such theories offer evidence that looks, on the surface, to be reasonable. However, a little digging can usually reveal holes in the theory and inadequacies in the evidence. It is quite revealing that conspiracy theorists never take an unbiased approach in presenting their theories. They never consider alternatives or entertain objections to their claims. They speak in an authoritative fashion and present their views as accepted scientific research. But as rational human beings, we should not let ourselves be convinced so easily. We should always look for alternative explanations and then weigh the probabilities. If the conspiracy claim is supported well by the evidence, then we have reason to take it seriously. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be more likely that the conspiracy claim is false, we can enjoy strengthened confidence in our current view.

 

The problem with the Conspiratards(tm) is that facts and science always get in their way.

Here's another fact to get in their way:

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

 

there are a series of 5 vids on youtube that prove NASA faked the moon landing.
There called NASA faked moon landing

 

(sarcasm mode on)

LOL! Well then it MUST be true! ROTFLMAO!

(sarcasm mode off)


Idiots.....

 

=)

 

hey im not sayin that all youtube vids are true but these ones are pretty convincing

 

There's also a series of videos that people prove the Titanic was sunk for insurance reasons, but you take any point made from those videos of the moon ones and I'll show you why it ignores logic and isn't true and then laugh at you for believing the moon landings were actually faked.

 

First off, Titanic sunk because of an ancient curse.

The '69 Moon Landings were no hoax, my friends. I've read through the material many times, and yep, they did indeed make it there. Ask China, they have studied our samples with the hopes of launching their own space program which they will do very very soon.

And this is coming from lifeman88 who is an avid conspiracy theorist. Hell I ain't got a cell phone anymore. Who else can say that these days?!

 

..

 

The only questions I ever had were:

1.How could lunar module Eagle leave the Moon to reach the orbit after landing there ?
I mean where did it store enough fuel to fire off its' engines and reach the base with Michael Collins on the orbit?
Lunar module appears to be too small and clumsy on the pics. How did it achieve a purpose, even if there is no atmospheric resistance on take off and weaker gravity on the Moon (requiring less fuel than similar feat on Earth).
Keep in mind that absence of atmosphere, at the same time, would also require constant and heavy use of rockets during landing.

2. How could the rocket on the Moons' Orbit have enough energy/fuel to fire, in turn, its' own engines to accelerate it back to the Earth?
I mean how could required amount of fuel be carried all the way out there? How large the combined size and weight of departing the Earth rocket would have to be?

Even if Moons' gravity is 6 times less than Earths', still one would need to have considerable amount of fuel/energy to accelerate any rocket to velocity high enough to bring it back to Earth, accross 200.000+ miles in Space.
This is aside from lunar module shown on all pics which, as I questioned above, visibly appears to be too small to carry so much fuel as presumably it must have had to fire its' engines and accelerate it to the Lunar orbital base.

Now, I am not a rocket scientist , literally, and perhaps someone with greater knowledge of physics may have a plausible explanation. I just never came accross nor did I hear anyone asking this very same question before.

I don't know. Literally.
Could any of you explain?

All the best

 

reply

1. The moons gravity is ALOT lower, so this has 2 effect
a. the inital force to over come is substaintly weaker
b. the point where moons gravity is incosequential is far closer to the moon than the eqivilent point from earth. SO, it has a weaker force to overcome for a shorter distance (bear in mind the force is inversely proportional to the distance from the moon

F=(Gm1m2)/r^2

2.

fortunately in space, there is relatively NO forces to over come, once you reach a velocity, you tend to stick to it without further force applied (by the rockets). you only need force to steer the object.

 

mass of Earth = 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms
mass of the Moon = 7.36 × 10^22 kilograms

so the earth is roughly 100x heavier than the moon.

 

Just looking up the lunar module, it seperated once it ascended from the earths surface,

so while the touch down weight was 14,000kg. the launch weight was 4,000 kg

 

i've always thought that it is real.but i've always been pretty gullible.both sides have convincing arguments.i've just recently read up on it some so i'm less sure about it.the controversy is of interest in of itself.

 

Yes. I mentioned the same (without the formula).

I know.

The questions I asked were:

a) Assuming the base had enough fuel to reach such velocity just how much fuel would it have to have, in terms of weight and dimensions (taking into account the gravity of the Moon)?

b) If you add what had to be used by Lunar module to reach orbit to what had to be used by orbital rocket to accelerate it to a velocity high enough to return it to Earth, what the combined weight of the fuel used by both would have to be?

c) If you add up the total weight used to return to Earth to what was used to depart Earth (with weight of former progressively increasing the weight of latter to deliver it to Moon) , how large & heavy the total dimension and weight of departing the Earth rocket would have to be?

d) Finally, just looking at pics of Module with astronauts next to it, doesn't Lunar module itself look too small to land and then reach the orbit of Moon after landing, all the differences in gravity taken into account?

It had two stages, and we see both on pics.
The one that departed the Moon appears really small to reach orbit.
Descending stage likewise looks too small to achieve the soft landing in absence of the aerodynamic resistance of the atmosphere.

However, this is mere impression I get from looking at pictures.
I don't possess required knowledge in physics to have any serious discourse without making myself appear too silly.

From what I remember the gravity of Moon is 6 times less than on Earth

That's correct.

And as I repeatedly said, I am far from being a rocket scientist.
It would be too naive to argue such thing without thorough and profound knowledge of physics to back ones' arguments.
Who could say with certainty "I am sure this didn't happen , only because it doesn't give me an impression it could"?

There could be plausible explanation and precise answers to all the questions asked by me earlier.
I just never heard anyone asking these same questions and consequently never came accross answers to such.

So, the only thing I could say for sure is that I don't know.

 

a) Assuming the base had enough fuel to reach such velocity just how much fuel would it have to have, in terms of weight and dimensions (taking into account the gravity of the Moon)?

the maths isn't so hard as finding all the emperical data.

First you need the escape velocity, that gives you a rough estimate of the energy requirements

Then you need to calculate how much energy you can get out of the propellent you use. And break this down as a rate of reaction, then use it to determine how much mass you will loose to gain the required impulse or change in momentum.

dP=FdT

where P is the momentum (P=mv) F is the force you need to over come and T is the time interval

actually calculating this stuff is a pain because the mass is changing the entire time, as is the velocity




b) If you add what had to be used by Lunar module to reach orbit to what had to be used by orbital rocket to accelerate it to a velocity high enough to return it to Earth, what the combined weight of the fuel used by both would have to be?

again this is differential calculation,

c) If you add up the total weight used to return to Earth to what was used to depart Earth (with weight of former progressively increasing the weight of latter to deliver it to Moon) , how large & heavy the total dimension and weight of departing the Earth rocket would have to be?


d) Finally, just looking at pics of Module with astronauts next to it, doesn't Lunar module itself look too small to land and then reach the orbit of Moon after landing, all the differences in gravity taken into account?

considering the descending craft weighs 14,000 kg and a hummer H3 weighs 2223 kg. I think the observed size difference maybe a perception issue.


It had two stages, and we see both on pics.
The one that departed the Moon appears really small to reach orbit.
Descending stage likewise looks too small to achieve the soft landing in absence of the aerodynamic resistance of the atmosphere.

Thats why they have engines to compensate for the gravitational forces...its quoted as a very large engine

However, this is mere impression I get from looking at pictures.
I don't possess required knowledge in physics to have any serious discourse without making myself appear too silly.




From what I remember the gravity of Moon is 6 times less than on Earth

just saw it quoted at 16% so yes you are right, perhaps this relates to earth being many times larger in terms of radius. gravitatinal forces are calculated as point masses

That's correct.

And as I repeatedly said, I am far from being a rocket scientist.
It would be too naive to argue such thing without thorough and profound knowledge of physics to back ones' arguments.
Who could say with certainty "I am sure this didn't happen , only because it doesn't give me an impression it could"?

There could be plausible explanation and precise answers to all the questions asked by me earlier.
I just never heard anyone asking these same questions and consequently never came accross answers to such.

So, the only thing I could say for sure is that I don't know.

 

In this particular case one must use math first, in order to arrive to the empirical data about energy and fuel required.

One must calculate the mass and size of all required components that would inevitably be needed for the rocket to reach Moon and return back to Earth.

And yes, one must do this while keeping in mind that the mass would constantly be changing due to constant use of fuel and energy, thus progressively decreasing the amount of energy required to move rocket further as it was getting farther from the point of departure. And all the while not forgetting the lesser gravity of Moon ,to precisely calculate energy required to bring the crew back to Earth, and to calculate what was required to get it there in the first place.

Finally compare the final results of calculations to existing data about Apollo 11.

To do this kind of math one must literally be a rocket scientist.
Anything less of such math is an arbitrary judgement of perception (including my own).

 

well...rocket science is emperical in the sense that you have a design, you test it, you make measurements of performance then you can model it and test to see if your model predicts correctly.

while there is boundless amounts of equations to perform, you need an idea to model...first we need the idea.

to calculate the energy?

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

kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass (craft)x velocity^2

escape velocity = Gravitational constant x mass (craft) x mass (body) all divided by the starting radius (the moons radius)

theres many inefficiencies to find out, mostly in the amount of energy released from the rockets, although since they are impulse rockets this is not such a problem because the vehicles change in mass will be directly proportional to the change in momentum or thrust

 

Can you do the math and calculate how much of energy and fuel was required to:

1. Lift the Lunar module to Lunar orbit.

2. To accelerate the orbital station back to Earth.

3. To deliver the # 1 and # 2 [from Earth] to Lunar orbit.