EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Zucca on December 21, 2018, 03:49:16 pm
-
At 02:56 UTC July 21, 1969.
After watching First Man:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213641/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213641/)
I was disappointed to see some lack of enginnering details and a lot romance in it. I was expectiong something like the Martian with much more "realistic" technical discussions.
Anyway I started to think about the technical problems they needed to solve/manage, and the more I think the more I got pushed in the "never happened" bucket.
When an Italian like me, with spanish money, discovered America we returned to that land more and more. Do they never went back to the moon? Not even once?
In my heart I believe a man was walking on the moon, but my brain is still not 100% convinced. It seems technically impossible. Please help.
PS: Am I becoming like a flat earth guy? :scared:
PPS: Any good book I can read on this topic?
This pictures still just fascinate me:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/43/1280x759/gallery-1509129338-1280px-aldrin-apollo-11-crop.jpg)
-
Groan!
-
Perhaps you are very stupid? It's possible. The amount of things people did over the years that you believe happened include:
World War II. I'm supposed to believe we started a war in 1939 with propeller airplanes and telegrams and ended it with missiles, drones, jet fighters, digital voice encryption, and nuclear weapons? WWII was a nuclear war, after all. And we fought WWI with horses.
You believe that.
People built an airplane that could fly 3 times the speed of sound within 15 years after the end of WWII?
Worse, they built a *bomber* that could fly at Mach 3 while you wear a short-sleeve shirt piloting it.
Then they came up with the "Concorde", an airplane they claim could carry passengers at Mach 2 over the ocean?
I never saw one. And now they tell me it doesn't exist anymore?
Very suspicious.
"When an Italian like me, with spanish money, discovered America we returned to that land more and more."
Because you could FLOAT there with a boat made from trees with 15th century technology, breathe the air on the way and find food in the water.
Plus you had land to steal, people to kill, spices to sell.
The Moon is a dead rock. The USA went there as a promotional stunt to sell capitalism.
Which is very odd because NASA is a socialist non-profit organization that beat the Soviet "design bureaus" that all competed against each other like corporations.
-
If it was faked, how has the secret been kept for nearly 50 years? Thousands of people would have been involved in the conspiracy including the media and we know they can't keep a secret. Somebody would have written a book just before they died!
The first landing was the greatest technological achievement of all time. Here it is, nearly 50 years later, and no country has come close to recreating it.
We made 6 landings and 12 astronauts have walked on the surface.
-
Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.
-
Perhaps you are very stupid?
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
-
Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.
You don't see this said often enough. Its an absolute killer for any ideas of a conspiracy..... unless the Soviet Union's military industrial complex was colluding with the American one to keep military spending flowing. :)
-
Perhaps you are very stupid?
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
Hmm. So you CAN learn? So all is not lost!
I think Antarctica is fake. How can it be cold there if the sun shines during the day? It's warm here at the same time!
-
Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.
unless the Soviet Union's military industrial complex was colluding with the American one to keep military spending flowing. :)
If that's the case, you'd better question what you had for breakfast this morning and whether the sun did, in fact, rise.
-
Hmm. So you CAN learn? So all is not lost!
I think Antarctica is fake. How can it be cold there if the sun shines during the day? It's warm here at the same time!
I always try to be polite and respectful, it gives a good feeling...
-
In all seriousness, if you find yourself frequently having thoughts of this nature, you might want to check with your healthcare provider. I had an uncle who started having "strange thoughts" (he recognized this himself). He went to a doctor and it was discovered that he was having micro-strokes. They were able to treat him and prevent worse.
-
PS: Am I becoming like a flat earth guy? :scared:
No, you are just experiencing burnout :) Just half an hour before the holidays (and snowboarding like there's no tomorrow)
-
No, you are just experiencing burnout
Could be, I was 5 months on business trip (today last day) this year.
-
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
It was only the most recent one, I'm afraid. :P
-
When an Italian like me, with spanish money, discovered America we returned to that land more and more.
And returned with boats filled with gold and silver. They returned with dust and rocks.
Do they never went back to the moon? Not even once?
They returned several times, there were several Appolo missions after the first landing?
Perhaps you are very stupid? It's possible.
Totally uncalled for. Asking questions is never the stupid thing to do.
-
It was only the most recent one, I'm afraid. :P
:D ;)
-
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
It was only the most recent one, I'm afraid. :P
change last with latest :D
-
Perhaps you are very stupid? It's possible. The amount of things people did over the years that you believe happened include:
Not any more stupid than the guy I constantly get moderation reports about! YOU!
The best thing was to just report this tread as off topic (we don't do conspiracies), but you were not that clever and had to start with an insult.
-
I was disappointed to see some lack of enginnering details and a lot romance in it. I was expectiong something like the Martian with much more "realistic" technical discussions.
Anyway I started to think about the technical problems they needed to solve/manage, and the more I think the more I got pushed in the "never happened" bucket.
When an Italian like me, with spanish money, discovered America we returned to that land more and more. Do they never went back to the moon? Not even once?
The US went to the moon on military spending during the cold war. Beating the Russians was a strong motivator to spend the money necessary - about $200 billion USD equivalent in today's money. The methods used were also not designed to be replicated in a long-term way - that is, the goal was to prove we could go to the moon, not build the infrastructure and technology necessary to go to the moon on an ongoing basis. Once the goal was met, the US congress didn't see much reason to continue to spend money to go to the moon (been there, done that), and the funding was cut.
One should note that we landed on the moon not once, but six times. Apollo 11 through 17, not counting Apollo 13. Apollo Missions 18-20 were planned but cut due to budgets.
All of the space work we've been doing ever since (Shuttle, various launch platforms, etc), have been to build that infrastructure to put us back in space on a permanent, affordable, basis. For instance, we have an international space station which has been continuously occupied since 2000 which shows how much we've learned about actually living in space, as opposed to a week long visit to the moon.
In my heart I believe a man was walking on the moon, but my brain is still not 100% convinced. It seems technically impossible. Please help.
PPS: Any good book I can read on this topic?
If you can get a copy of the miniseries 'From the Earth to the Moon', that would be a good set to watch video-wise.
There are lots of good books out there documenting various parts of the entire US space program. I guess it really depends on what parts you are interested in.
-
Not any more stupid than the guy I constantly get moderation reports about! YOU!
Look at it this way: job security for you!
Happy holidays BTW
-
The best thing was to just report this tread as off topic (we don't do conspiracies), but you were not that clever and had to start with an insult.
Sorry Simon, my mistake. You can lock it, yesterday with my colleagues was a nice technical discussion at dinner. I thought it could happen the same here. Oh well...
-
I can't belive you can take some beach sand, melt it, shine some light on it and then use it to post messages that I can read on my phone. Therefore this thread does not exist.
-
i think the main problem that results in this line of thinking is that most people don't see people cooperating in the same way that people did for the space program because it was such an awesome thing and there was all this patriotism, national spirit, pride, military stuff involved, and the sci-fi leading up to the lunar landings post ww2 was just outragous so people cooperated in a way that most of us never saw possible (compared to some kinda company where no one really gives a fuck and its a grind)... so the amount of progress made in a short period of time seems unlikely.
you can try building or buying stuff that was used and testing it to convince yourself? and talk to people that worked on the effort (like machinists that mailed in home made parts to aerospace companies).
i don't think you can look at how much money was thrown at the problem only, you need to see how highly motivated the people working on it were. there was a serious golden bullet mentality that really motivated people but unfortunately other then communications systems and hard to explain physics verifications its not as fruitful as we thought with finding an alien civilization in 1970, building a extra solar base by the year 2000, etc.
I think there is a groupthink from a management prospective now to avoid this kind of zealous behavior in general when it comes to big projects. because we got people on the moon but places don't have good roads, so like people are wary about overworking themselves and putting personal time into projects and over budgeting stuff.
they say scifi never gets it right, but what scifi does show is a measure of cultural emphasis on the importance of an issue (to a degree).
-
Perhaps you are very stupid?
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
Hmm. So you CAN learn? So all is not lost!
I think Antarctica is fake. How can it be cold there if the sun shines during the day? It's warm here at the same time!
Actually most of Antarctica is in darkness for 24 hours per day, when it's warm in Canada.
-
Perhaps you are very stupid?
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
Hmm. So you CAN learn? So all is not lost!
I think Antarctica is fake. How can it be cold there if the sun shines during the day? It's warm here at the same time!
Actually most of Antarctica is in darkness for 24 hours per day, when it's warm in Canada.
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
-
Perhaps you are very stupid?
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
Hmm. So you CAN learn? So all is not lost!
I think Antarctica is fake. How can it be cold there if the sun shines during the day? It's warm here at the same time!
Actually most of Antarctica is in darkness for 24 hours per day, when it's warm in Canada.
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
Groan. Good grief, now this thread really does need to be locked.
-
Before it gets locked, I am sorry.
Merrx Xmas everybody.
-
Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.
Let's suppose the Soviets claimed to have gotten there first. How would Americans prove it fake?
-
..i don't think you can look at how much money was thrown at the problem only, you need to see how highly motivated the people working on it were. there was a serious golden bullet mentality that really motivated people..
Born a little too late to know that era, but that is the sense that I get from watching lots of documentaries on the subject. It was a time when 400,000 people working on something became more than the sum of their parts because of a common goal. The ironic thing about it all (to me) is all the public monies spent on this project in order to prove that capitalism is better than communism.
-
In my heart I believe a man was walking on the moon, but my brain is still not 100% convinced. It seems technically impossible. Please help.
PS: Am I becoming like a flat earth guy? :scared:
PPS: Any good book I can read on this topic?
Start here and work your way up to the moon landing -
Cogito Ergo Sum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum)
-
Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.
Let's suppose the Soviets claimed to have gotten there first. How would Americans prove it fake?
The simplest way would to be to demonstrate that the video signals (apparently emanating from the moon) were actually being transmitted from the earth. The signals sent from the moon by the US missions were freely available for reception by any other government and private citizens (hams). Even if some sort of automated re-transmitter were landed on the moon, it would be easy to detect the actual source of the transmissions, unless you want to imagine that the whole thing was recorded and sent (canned) to the moon.
-
The ironic thing about it all (to me) is all the public monies spent on this project in order to prove that capitalism is better than communism.
Glad you see it too. Even funnier are the mental gymnastics required to deny it.
-
And now it is time to discover the terrifying truth:
(https://i.imgur.com/2CFIwlel.jpg) (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Vdk5CADVpIE/SkxJv6jwz2I/AAAAAAAAB9o/6hCaO5Y06HA/s1600-h/mf_200907_com_Luna_sm.jpg)
:-DD :popcorn:
-
Looks interesting (2001 a Space Odyssey is one of my favorite movies), but I'm afraid I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to human languages (I barely manage English). Translation please?
-
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
I hear that penguins taste like crap, too oily. Probably gives the polar bears the craps.
-
This 'documentary' seems to show Mexico was on the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uLhJJMi7D0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uLhJJMi7D0)
-
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
I hear that penguins taste like crap, too oily. Probably gives the polar bears the craps.
Tim Hunkin (The Secret Life of Machines) claims that they make great candles for the same reason.
-
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
I hear that penguins taste like crap, too oily. Probably gives the polar bears the craps.
Tim Hunkin (The Secret Life of Machines) claims that they make great candles for the same reason.
You have to get past the smell, though.
-
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
I hear that penguins taste like crap, too oily. Probably gives the polar bears the craps.
Absolutely unlikely.
Work out the reason for yourself.
-
The signals sent from the moon by the US missions were freely available for reception by any other government and private citizens (hams). Even if some sort of automated re-transmitter were landed on the moon, it would be easy to detect the actual source of the transmissions, unless you want to imagine that the whole thing was recorded and sent (canned) to the moon.
Let's suppose now that that is exactly what the American government did (I'm not saying they did). How would you expose the whole sham?
-
Looks interesting (2001 a Space Odyssey is one of my favorite movies), but I'm afraid I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to human languages (I barely manage English). Translation please?
TL&DR: mocks those "moon landing filmed by Stanley Kubrick" accusations. A brief translation:
NASA: We are lagging behind the Russians and offer you to make a film, so that everyone thinks that we are the first.
Kubrick: OK. Here is the bill
NASA: But for that kind of money you can fly to the Moon!
Kubrick: Then fly.
Kubrick: No no no. Do not forget about lesser gravity on the Moon! And put on a helmet, the Moon don't have atmosphere.
Actor: I don't need an Oscar posthumously!
Kubrick: Everything are unnatural, plywood, fake. Where to get good exteriors? (looking at moon)
Actor: That's one small step for man, one giant leap for cinema!
Kubrick: CUT! That is another thing! Perfect location!
-
The signals sent from the moon by the US missions were freely available for reception by any other government and private citizens (hams). Even if some sort of automated re-transmitter were landed on the moon, it would be easy to detect the actual source of the transmissions, unless you want to imagine that the whole thing was recorded and sent (canned) to the moon.
Let's suppose now that that is exactly what the American government did (I'm not saying they did). How would you expose the whole sham?
Re-transmitter? Override the US signal and have Kosygin address the earth from the moon. Canned? Try to disrupt things so that the canned transmissions go off/out of schedule. Either case, photograph the astronauts on the earth with evidence of date and location, disproving that they are on the moon.
-
If it was faked, how has the secret been kept for nearly 50 years? Thousands of people would have been involved in the conspiracy including the media and we know they can't keep a secret. Somebody would have written a book just before they died!
The first landing was the greatest technological achievement of all time. Here it is, nearly 50 years later, and no country has come close to recreating it.
We made 6 landings and 12 astronauts have walked on the surface.
That's the funny thing, if it was faked, it was the most flawlessly executed plan in the history of the nation, involving tens of thousands of people and foreign superpowers that would have absolutely loved to prove it was fake. Faking the whole thing so flawlessly would have been a far greater challenge than just going to the moon.
-
i think the space race just got people interested. keep in mind how ww2 made many solders travel the world and see everything (i.e. the same troops and highly intelligent officers got to see europe, africa and asia in in period of 4 years and spend time in the sea).
I think this made the world alot smaller too, especially with how everything started to be televised. Space became the new unknown frontier that was appealing because the world really did begin to feel crowded at that point, travel became much less mysterious then say 50 years prior because of increased documentation and know how... so people try to find the next most mysterious romantic thing.
i think people were crazy about it regardless and the politics is akin to boxing being a sport when you are talking about sports viewing. I always think about The Martian Chronicles as people saw it as a romantic frontieer that you might be able to expand to in order to get out of dead end jobs and become rich.
Now, with all the research being done, you need to do psychological profiles on people to see if they can even handle being up there for a few months (let alone it being some kind of romantic mass migration movement). It's alot harder to get excited about it now for most people.. i find thinking about life on mars depressing rather then interesting based on what we learned so far. Notice how dystopic space became in media since the public learned how it really is? It's hard to imagine it being awesome anymore.
Even star-trek turned into some kind of cyber punk corporate crime stuff.. I think by the time Alien was released people kinda figured out its gonna end up sucking, maybe because of corporate culture. You have endless congressional meetings about NASA budgets, space privatization, disasters because of cheap O-rings and all sorts of ghetto bullshit getting in the way. That cyberpunk view got common for a reason. How can you have the same zeal when you end up thinking its gonna end up thinking like Weyland Yutani?
-
Let's suppose now that that is exactly what the American government did (I'm not saying they did). How would you expose the whole sham?
Either case, photograph the astronauts on the earth with evidence of date and location, disproving that they are on the moon.
Yeah. Those Russian paparazzi were really incompetent.
-
Also I\it has literally become cool and 'an intelligent stance' to say that space exploration and stuff like the space station is useless.
Now if you say space exploration and experimentation is stupid its basically some kind of statement in which you are saying 'i am smart with my decision making and money'. It can actually get you credit with some people (usually cheap rich fucks). This was just not the case back then. It makes me feel very unenthused when people are literally complaining about it in droves now. This is just why you don't see the same level of engineering progress in such a short time. You can say its the semiconductor field but I think they are more about cost savings in performance then cutting edge stuff. There was no ROI guarantee on successful space exploration, people just did not know what the fuck is going on at all. IMO something like a 2nm semiconductor process has (the unimaginative appearance of) way more of a guarantee then putting a colony on mars. It just shows corporate and financial ingression in our lives and how we are less likely to make risky investments now. One could argue its the rich trying to stay rich.
My opinion is that something like a martian colony really gonna suck ass unless you put alot of money, excitement and time into it. Asking mom for 5$ so you can 'try it out' is just not gonna be get the appeal going. I think you would need plans for a real Mars city that has some kind of use rather then what can be considered a psychological experiment to get people excited. Your just gonna need to go with all the bells and whistles and stuff to get people on board. It's gotta be sick not some clausterphobic camp where you can't go outside where you experiment with growing potatoes in feces, in doors no less.
I am not sure if I would even want to work in that industry considering how its progressing. How am I gonna get excited about building low cost tents used in a camp ground where you can't go outside?? Maybe if they decided 'hey we are gonna build a spectacular mega structure' I would be interested. This is just weird low budget shit atm.
-
Let's suppose now that that is exactly what the American government did (I'm not saying they did). How would you expose the whole sham?
Either case, photograph the astronauts on the earth with evidence of date and location, disproving that they are on the moon.
Yeah. Those Russian paparazzi were really incompetent.
Please, let's keep it clear, I absolutely believe that the the US space program landed men on the moon in 1969. You were the one that wanted to "what if" about proving a hoax. Your trimming and replies are starting to make it look like I'm a conspiracy nut.
-
Perhaps you are very stupid?
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
Hmm. So you CAN learn? So all is not lost!
I think Antarctica is fake. How can it be cold there if the sun shines during the day? It's warm here at the same time!
Actually most of Antarctica is in darkness for 24 hours per day, when it's warm in Canada.
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
Groan. Good grief, now this thread really does need to be locked.
I'm just glad he's moved his shtick here instead of the IRC chat.
Tim
-
Please, let's keep it clear, I absolutely believe that the the US space program landed men on the moon in 1969.
I didn't have to believe. I saw it with my own eyes. My whole family and I, gathered around a B&W vacuum tube TV on that very day.
-
you people don't consider the space program anemic now in terms of goals? How do you get excited about this?
all i see is payload costs and serious financial wizardry to keep it going. it's not even cool anymore. more popular but way less cool.
its like the distinction between science fiction and science fact seems way more clear (mostly because of budgets and interest) then it used to be. Everything is considered outlandish now unless its some wig-wam populated by some geologists. You get a cold shut down with anything else when you talk to people.. no one is enthusiastic, creative or grandiose anymore. It's considered stupid. People had like mars city in their heads and now at best you can expect some kinda shanty where nothing is anything more then just a bare bones engineering structure. It's devoid of any kind of culture with a ultra survivalist mentality thats solely perpetrated by cost. If you wanna build an oil rig to get peoples interest you need to make money off of it. They want to make oil rigs that don't make money. Who likes this?????? why ?? its not appealing. You need the romance.
You think spanish mission in the new world but you get a hippy shanty (that will probably be littered with hooka (air) hoses). Its like van life extreme. You can't even film a good TV show about it. Elon musks vision looks like a indian slum.
and dear god I weep if they end up building some kinda city and it ends up looking like a 80's macdonalds (like total recall with arnold).
it's also gotta be kinda loose academically, you can't just do things that make sense doing on mars because your on mars because your gonna end up with a weird bunch of people and a weird martian culture. This will make absolutely no sense to the bean counters. you need to mix it up a little. Or you will end up with a real weird bunch of people. You can't call it a colony if you do that, more like a specific remote research center for the study of this and that. But people want a colony. Not a remote siberian research center.
I know this thread is not about mars but the only hip thing about space right now (kinda) is mars. It will dictate alot of things about space IMO.
-
There are a lot of reasons to believe that people really walked on the moon *IF* you make an effort to verify it. There are NONE to bother thoughtful people with your self absorbed musings. This is an engineering blog. It's not an aimless musing blog.
-
Here are some links documenting some independent Apollo observations.
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/UoFSTS/UoFSTSx.htm (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/UoFSTS/UoFSTSx.htm)
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11 (http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11)
and my favourite link, which shows Doppler calculations during Apollo 17:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm)
-
i think we have established that man did land on the moon :) As for locking the thread it's too hilarious.. at the moment.
-
At 02:56 UTC July 21, 1969.
After watching First Man:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213641/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213641/)
I was disappointed to see some lack of enginnering details and a lot romance in it. I was expectiong something like the Martian with much more "realistic" technical discussions.
Anyway I started to think about the technical problems they needed to solve/manage, and the more I think the more I got pushed in the "never happened" bucket.
Lots of people got out of that movie with that impression. Even those not involved with engineering at all. Since technology is pervasive these days, everyone can quickly assess how improbable, though not impossible, that endeavor would be back then. So you're not alone.
When an Italian like me, with spanish money, discovered America we returned to that land more and more.
And now we have a pizzeria on every corner of the continent. Grazie tante.
-
Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.
I have some distant relatives (met some of them today at a funeral).
The kid's grandmother worked with Putin, and apparently the mother and grandmother continue to believe the moon landings are only US propaganda.
-
hard to believe the russian space program is real, sputnik looks like something out of a distillery that got into orbit through industrial accident
-
Yes, they did and they collected a hell of a lot of information while they were there, much of which people haven't even sifted through yet. (Literally)
(People could probably help with that if they really want to, BTW.)
(Nobody) could possibly have made it all up.
-
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
I hear that penguins taste like crap, too oily. Probably gives the polar bears the craps.
Absolutely unlikely.
Work out the reason for yourself.
On the first part of the statement, I read that somewhere about their flesh being very oily.
A particularly unflattering description of penguin meat composed by a Belgian seaman in 1898 suggests that it won’t be replacing chicken anytime soon: “If it’s possible to imagine a piece of beef, odiferous cod fish, and a canvas-backed duck roasted together in a pot, with blood and cod-liver oil for sauce, the illustration would be complete.”
On the second statement, I was being facetious. If a joke needs to be explained, obviously it was either too obscure or not funny. Mea culpa. :palm:
-
Here it is, nearly 50 years later, and no country has come close to recreating it.
Since no country, not even the US, came close to recreating it, conspiracy theorists are partying.
And if the US manages to do it again, people will say that they planted the evidence.
The fact is that conquering the outer space is difficult, dangerous and expensive.
-
The fact is that conquering the outer space is difficult, dangerous and expensive.
The Cold War provided us with the 'will' to land on the moon. Kennedy did the speech, Congress provided the money and some of the smartest people in the world made it happen.
It's nice when the country pulls together toward a common goal.
-
Hmm. So you CAN learn? So all is not lost!
I think Antarctica is fake. How can it be cold there if the sun shines during the day? It's warm here at the same time!
I always try to be polite and respectful, it gives a good feeling...
Your post was picking a fight! It was completely off the topic of this entire forum! You were not polite, you were not respectful. You were not thoughtful at all. You deserve the responses you have gotten. Now - do you have a single thought about electrical engineering? THAT IS WHAT THIS FORUM IS ABOUT - not your silly fight picking speculations. I think this entire thread should be deleted.
-
I used to chat with an electronics enthusiast about 45 years ago and he told me about the rush to get a 20MHz receiver put together so he could listen to Sputnik 1's beacon. Then there was Sputnik 2 that took the first dog, Laika, into orbit but she only survived a few hours because the cabin temperature reached 43C. Then Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1. Valentina Tereshkova first woman cosmanaut on Vostok 6. Luna 9 first soft landing on the moon three years before Apollo 11. Venera 7, first probe to land on Venus. Salyut 1, first manned space station. The Russian space program was way ahead of the US for a long time, however, they never put a cosmanaut on the moon because of the failed N1 rocket program, the 1st stage of the N1 is still the most powerful rocket stage ever built.
-
The Cold War provided us with the 'will' to land on the moon. Kennedy did the speech, Congress provided the money and some of the smartest people in the world made it happen.
The question is: did it happen? A speech, tons of money and the smartest people were enough to get people there? That's what the film First Man makes you ask.
It's nice when the country pulls together toward a common goal.
The Cold War is over.
-
The fact is that conquering the outer space is difficult, dangerous and expensive.
The Cold War provided us with the 'will' to land on the moon. Kennedy did the speech, Congress provided the money and some of the smartest people in the world made it happen.
It's nice when the country pulls together toward a common goal.
The Lunar Module landing gear (Lander Legs) were Made in Canada :)
;)
-
Did they land on the moon....2 words: Kaguya and LRO
Well not 2 words maybe 3 but 2 are acronyms that says it all
-
I've done my own independent research and found new evidence. You're welcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268)
-
If they didn't, from where did all the freely-available photo and video material from the several lunar missions came?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html)
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html?lang=la (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html?lang=la)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums (https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums)
You can see very interesting stuff, like videos of a hammer falling at the same speed than a plume, people going down ladders in "impossible" positions, the "moon car" throwing dust that falls down to the ground unsuspended by air. All sorts of crazy stuff.
They did "abandon" the moon afterwards, because manned missions to the moon are risky, very expensive, and there isn't much of interest there.
By the way: they left a mirror on the surface of the moon, that can be used to bounce a laser and measure the distance to the moon with great precision.
Why would the scientific community worldwide (including the russians) be a part of some crazy conspiracy to make us believe that the NASA landed on the moon, if it were false? The russians would had been very interested in uncovering such a scam.
-
They did "abandon" the moon afterwards, because manned missions to the moon are risky, very expensive, and there isn't much of interest there.
Yep, wasn't much left to learn at that point, and the political goals were achieved, only political downside was left (i.e. astronauts dying)
I'm surprised they maintained the funding to do as many trips as they did.
-
hard to believe the russian space program is real, sputnik looks like something out of a distillery that got into orbit through industrial accident
I've sat inside the cockpit of the Buran space shuttle, it's pretty "how ya'doing"
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs)
-
Perhaps you are very stupid?
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
Hmm. So you CAN learn? So all is not lost!
I think Antarctica is fake. How can it be cold there if the sun shines during the day? It's warm here at the same time!
Actually most of Antarctica is in darkness for 24 hours per day, when it's warm in Canada.
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
Nope, they can't afford the airfares!
-
I used to chat with an electronics enthusiast about 45 years ago and he told me about the rush to get a 20MHz receiver put together so he could listen to Sputnik 1's beacon. Then there was Sputnik 2 that took the first dog, Laika, into orbit but she only survived a few hours because the cabin temperature reached 43C. Then Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1. Valentina Tereshkova first woman cosmanaut on Vostok 6. Luna 9 first soft landing on the moon three years before Apollo 11. Venera 7, first probe to land on Venus. Salyut 1, first manned space station. The Russian space program was way ahead of the US for a long time, however, they never put a cosmanaut on the moon because of the failed N1 rocket program, the 1st stage of the N1 is still the most powerful rocket stage ever built.
yes cook a lovable dog in orbit while the whole world is watching. An example of how much the soviet union cares about the individual.
perhaps it was a pact, to land the probe in north korea after wards? Great explanation too, too fucking stupid to figure out a heat sink solution. Or to give it the benefit of the doubt of being habitable and recoverable, rather then deciding not to waste money in case the radiation is too strong.
I always saw the space animals as sad reflection of human nature, dignity and cost because no one bothered to try to make it survivable. Even theoretically it was like 'yea bitch your gonna die doing some cost evaluation for us in space'......
you can't blame engineers or physicists or anything like that, it was just a value decision...
-
Here it is, nearly 50 years later, and no country has come close to recreating it.
Since no country, not even the US, came close to recreating it, conspiracy theorists are partying.
And if the US manages to do it again, people will say that they planted the evidence.
The fact is that conquering the outer space is difficult, dangerous and expensive.
Is it worth billions of dollars to placate a handful of nut jobs who wouldn't be convinced if you physically took them to the moon? I don't think so, they'd come up with some new conspiracy. Let the conspiracy theorists party away, they're not really hurting anything. That sort of person will *always* latch onto a conspiracy theory about something. I suspect it's similar to a religious belief, you can't change the mind of a person who believes by using evidence and facts.
-
Here it is, nearly 50 years later, and no country has come close to recreating it.
Since no country, not even the US, came close to recreating it, conspiracy theorists are partying.
And if the US manages to do it again, people will say that they planted the evidence.
The fact is that conquering the outer space is difficult, dangerous and expensive.
Is it worth billions of dollars to placate a handful of nut jobs who wouldn't be convinced if you physically took them to the moon? I don't think so, they'd come up with some new conspiracy. Let the conspiracy theorists party away, they're not really hurting anything. That sort of person will *always* latch onto a conspiracy theory about something. I suspect it's similar to a religious belief, you can't change the mind of a person who believes by using evidence and facts.
i think space travel is pretty extreme so it brings to mind weird thoughts compared to other issues. i am not sure this is entirely fair.
-
I think zucca was looking for a bit more technical information than the movie First Man provided. I can highly recommend the semi-autobiography of the same name. Armstrong was a very impressive character.
I can also recommend the Haynes book (the car service manual guys) How to service your Apollo 11. Provides moderately technical background eg how did the spacesuits actually work.
-
I think it is impossible for us to find out if the USA put an astronout on the moon.
Me and my scientific friends here in Germany are about 50/50 on it.
And now it comes out, that even the Russians do NOT know.
About a month ago, the Russian space agency announced, it will look in to the facts.
Russia space agency promises to check whether US moon landings really happened
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/russia-space-agency-nasa-us-moon-landing-mission-a8650056.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/russia-space-agency-nasa-us-moon-landing-mission-a8650056.html)
-
I don't have doubts that astronauts landed on the moon.
I watched documentaries, read about it and actual witnessed one of the landings as a kid watching the live news.
But what amazes me amongst all other obstacles, is the precision of the trajectories. I studied at university and am familiar with math and physics. But I would never ever even know how to start calculating orbits, angles, etc.
How did they know the gravity on the surface of the moon with enough precision so that the lunar lander would have enough trust to get back in orbit? How did they calculate the correct moment for it, so that the lunar lander would meet the Apollo capsule and attach to it?
Not to mention the launch itself with so many spins around the Earth to then activate some trust that propells the capsule heading to the moon. I mean this is not some aproximate calculation where you just assume some constants and ignore some facts: it had to be precise!
How did they do it? How did they know how to calculate all of this? Did they make constant corrections on their way to the moon?
I know that there are many more challenges like materials, oxigen, water, waste disposal, radiation, communication, batteries/electricity, enough fuel, etc.
But calculating the orbits is to me the biggest mystery! Also, how did they manage to not "forget" anything? Like compensating for something that influences the math? How did they know which parameters to take into account?
Indeed, putting a man on the moon is without question man's biggest feat (close to nuclear fission/fusion and being able to f### up the whole planet in less than 100 years).
Was it of any particular use? I don't think so, apart from already mentioned marketing reasons.
I don't believe in space exploration: once we have completely wasted our planet, we're doomed. Or, else, when the sun burns down. Space is simply to big for any useful space exploration. And it is less challenging to do something to prevent destroying our planet than to colonize another one.
Even Mars is completely off to us: it does not feature an iron core and hence does not provide a shield against cosmic radiation.
Regards,
Vitor
-
@Vitor
About the calculus involved, watch the movie Hidden Figures about the ‘brains’ behind the trajectory paths.
-
@Vitor
About the calculus involved, watch the movie Hidden Figures about the ‘brains’ behind the trajectory paths.
I was just about to suggest the same film.
-
most of what you are wondering about is a consequence of hyper cost effective engineering where you don't have any wiggle room.
It's like forgetting you can adjust something with a potentiometer.
how much different do you think just logically the moon would be? its reasonable to think about it being within an order of magnitude of what we have on earth ,its pretty close etc. its not like its in a different dimension or something. smart people made alot of good guesses when it came to the specification because they were good engineers and had an idea of how things generally behave with some knowledge of edge cases.
the stuff now is probobly a bit cheaper and a bit more precisely engineered.
-
@Vitor
About the calculus involved, watch the movie Hidden Figures about the ‘brains’ behind the trajectory paths.
I was just about to suggest the same film.
Good watch eh ?
Only recently seen it and walked away thinking; who would’ve thought ! :o
-
and they did plenty of experiments with plenty of sensor data.
how did they get stuff like seismic data from lunar mortar charges?
if you believe the theoretical knowledge got more precise, then compare it to the sensor data they published and you might find a discrepancy if it is falsified. Maybe you can do a comparison between the lunar sounding seismic experiments and the recent lunar kinetic energy seismic study that was conducted with the rocket.
and what about all those people that got into the rocket? what did they do land some where in secret?
there is too many holes in this shit. it would be the most rupe goldberg thing ever. and what put this here, a robot?
https://www.space.com/16798-american-flags-moon-apollo-photos.html (https://www.space.com/16798-american-flags-moon-apollo-photos.html)
what did it do after, bury itself? fly off into the sun?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Never mind the stories of the 12 people who actually walked on the moon and the third crew on each mission who stayed in moon orbit but watched them land and return with moon samples. Also a cast of thousands who were personally involved in training, getting the Apollo missions off the ground and supporting them during the trip. Also thousands on aircraft carriers involved in recovering the crews and capsules after splashdown. Many of whom are still alive...all of this was less than 50 years ago.
-
They certainly went and it's certainly doable but very expensive and risky.
-
Do they never went back to the moon? Not even once?
They did, 5 times... Did you even look it up?
-
Never mind the stories of the 12 people who actually walked on the moon and the third crew on each mission who stayed in moon orbit but watched them land and return with moon samples.
About 15 years ago, I had the chance to met the first, second and last man on the moon at an event. Is it and the stories I heard that night a formal proof, no. Do we have plenty of hard fact that we put them on the moon, yes. Have all the claims fo it being faked busted, yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs)
-
A! The so-called 'manned' moon-landings is one of my favourite subject matters, dear zucca!
Please excuse the following repetition my myself:
So, we did actually "walk on the Moon"...
Well, it's a shame that there are people out there that cannot share that enthusiasm, since they cannot accept that notion above because of the following:
1. Part 1 (24/07/2009) (https://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=599544#599544): Heroes NEVER die | The "Shooting Stars" | Dimona reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center): The reason why (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/When-Ben-Gurion-said-no-to-JFK).
2. Part 2 (24/02/2011) (https://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=799912#799912): The "magic" air-conditioning unit, that was keeping the temperature at 25°C (either the ship temperature was at +125°C under the direct sunlight, or at -170°C under the Sun's shadow, when it was outside the Earth's protective atmosphere); and that this very specific technology monster (that "magic" air-conditioning unit) was able to be running on the ship's batteries for days! Yea, sure...! :)
3. Part 3 (26/08/2012) (https://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=987164#987164): The minimum required time of 2.50 seconds for a radio signal to cover the very specific distance of Earth-Moon-Earth!
4. Part 4 (28/08/2012) (https://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=987835#987835): A few facts regarding Neil Armstrong.
And, yes, that arthrographer under the screen name "Giorgos_K" is yours truly, having a very hard time swallowing such televised only "facts" coming from yet another PRIVATE CORPORATION under the corporate name of "NASA" that has No Legal Obligation to reveal their Owners & Shareholders (exactly just like the infamous "FED")!
P.S.: I quoted the above with the hyperlinks fixed, since the free-for-all to visit 'legacy.avrfreaks.net' domain seems to have been obliterated; so I redirected links to the current live domain of the AVRFreaks site (which restricts anonymous access to the Off-Topic section...).
I'm sorry for that. Yet, I could copy my posts to an html file, in order to keep the links information, and attach it over here.
Well, let's enjoy a screenshot of some footage that it is no longer available online (this mp4 video file attached below as *.mp4.mp3: please rename it to *.mp4 after downloading):
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/did-us-astronaut-land-on-the-moon-for-real/?action=dlattach;attach=602782)
Coffee break!
Now, regarding the mocumentary in memory of Stanley Kubrick called 'Dark side of the Moon (2002)', I think that the third line of the following screenshot of the end-titles explains perfectly whom where they mocking at:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/did-us-astronaut-land-on-the-moon-for-real/?action=dlattach;attach=602788)
End-titles screenshot
-George
-
Please, have another of those rare footages!
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/did-us-astronaut-land-on-the-moon-for-real/?action=dlattach;attach=602803)
An accident...
-George
-
...and, maybe, another couple of screenshots:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/did-us-astronaut-land-on-the-moon-for-real/?action=dlattach;attach=602824)
No wheel-prints for the Moon Rover (1)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/did-us-astronaut-land-on-the-moon-for-real/?action=dlattach;attach=602830)
No wheel-prints for the Moon Rover (2)
-Geirge
-
the astronaut is almost as heavy as the buggy and on two legs that walk while the buggy rolls on 4 tires and perhaps they drove it along side of them because its probably scary to experiment with motorcross in lunar gravity on a experimental vehicle?
its clearly leaving a mark too... just small
it also probably drove slow to avoid dust and dangerous rocks
-
I have a serious question please?
Why did they place a parabolic antenna on the moon rover?
-
I have a serious question please?
Why did they place a parabolic antenna on the moon rover?
How else would we have seen them live?
-
I think the rover was left behind and was used to film the take off when they returned. It also sent the transmission back to earth.
-
I think the rover was left behind and was used to film the take off when they returned. It also sent the transmission back to earth.
They showed the take off live just because they could, although they might have been interested in observing it for engineering reasons. The comms on the rover was basically put there for live comms with Earth. Their suit comms could not reach Earth, and the lander went well far out of sight. They relied on the relay on the rover.
-
As promised above (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/did-us-astronaut-land-on-the-moon-for-real/msg2060293/#msg2060293), here is a copy of my related posts in the AVRFreaks.net Off-Topic forum:
You can download the *.htm.txt file below (being built in notepad!), rename it to *.htm and enjoy my (substantiated or not!) rants on the subject matter!
For the bolder ones (who are not afraid of the Greek language!) here is even more on that, in much more (rational or documented) detail:
Part 1 (http://mavri-fatria.blogspot.com/2018/08/blog-post.html?showComment=1536085296042#c3083399380663600159) and Part 2 (http://mavri-fatria.blogspot.com/2018/08/blog-post.html?showComment=1536085299270#c3477898016016737811).
-George
-
I've done my own independent research and found new evidence. You're welcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268)
The problem with those proofs is that they prove that there are tracks on the moon, they prove that there is a landing module there, they prove that a mirror was left behind. They prove the photos match. But they do not prove that someone set foot on its surface 50 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that it would be difficult, as Kennedy said, but not impossible to get there and come back alive with the technology of the late sixties and early seventies.
However, the moon is like the Holy of Holies. A place where admittance is so restricted that one could say that God lives there. Even if you show a frozen turd dumped by Neil Armstrong on the moon, there will always be a margin for doubt.
Is it worth billions of dollars to placate a handful of nut jobs who wouldn't be convinced if you physically took them to the moon? I don't think so, they'd come up with some new conspiracy. Let the conspiracy theorists party away, they're not really hurting anything. That sort of person will *always* latch onto a conspiracy theory about something. I suspect it's similar to a religious belief, you can't change the mind of a person who believes by using evidence and facts.
We cannot prove they've been there. They didn't invite an independent observer. The only thing we could prove is the plausibility of the endeavor considering the technology of the era. But, alas, we do not have the plans, the blueprints, the calculations, to reconstruct the equipment and retry the mission. It's all classified.
Zucca is right. If we could not prove that Columbus crossed the Atlantic and found a new continent, at least we could, and we still can, repeat the feat countless times with the technology available in 1492.
So forever believers and skeptics, in the case of the landing of people on the moon 50 years ago, will deem each other naïve fools and attribute names and other predicates.
-
No wheel prints? Well, consider how much moon dust/dirt is being flipped up and without an atmosphere it pretty well drops right back down again - covering the 'tracks'. Walking is different since you are imprinting the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4)
Pretty clear just how the moon dust/dirt is just dropping right back down to cover the buggy's tracks. Only in the softest areas where the wheels have sunk down is there any more obvious imprints left.
cheers,
george.
-
Here is a serious debunking of the whole moon hoax thing. Apparently Steph Curry is also confused.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/12/12/heres-your-proof-that-we-landed-on-the-moon-steph-curry/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/12/12/heres-your-proof-that-we-landed-on-the-moon-steph-curry/amp/)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Now I'm starting to wonder if George Washington was really the first president of the United States. :(
-
I have a serious question please?
Why did they place a parabolic antenna on the moon rover?
How else would we have seen them live?
I thought the transmission originated from the lunar module and not the rover.
It does not make any sense to me that they would install a parabolic antenna on a moving vehicle.
Especially since the rover only had two batteries as a power supply that you would need manly to drive the 4 electric motors.
-
I thought the transmission originated from the lunar module and not the rover.
It does not make any sense to me that they would install a parabolic antenna on a moving vehicle.
Especially since the rover only had two batteries as a power supply that you would need manly to drive the 4 electric motors.
It doesn't have to make sense to you, they designed the rover the way they did and it's all well documented.
-
The problem with those proofs is that they prove that there are tracks on the moon, they prove that there is a landing module there, they prove that a mirror was left behind. They prove the photos match. But they do not prove that someone set foot on its surface 50 years ago.
If you are going to go so far as to plant all that stuff on the moon and leave tracks all over the place, why would anyone try to fake the manned landing when they've already accomplished 90% of the hard stuff just by getting a rover on the moon that can drive around and leave tracks? It's utterly ridiculous to think that it made sense to go through the monumental effort of getting tons of equipment all the way to the moon and then fake the part where some guys get out and walk around.
It seems to me that some people want so badly to believe it was faked that they will come up with the most impossibly convoluted theories into how that could have been done, simply ignoring the fact that faking those parts and keeping it covered up would be a far more impressive feat than sending people there.
-
For those thinking it was all too difficult getting to the Moon with 1960's technology, it was successful in hindsight. At the time, those involved realised it was very risky. There were several setbacks and near disasters, as well as actual disasters when 3 astronauts died in a ground fire. The Soviets also had problems, they just did no publicise them.
Armstrong thought he would probably return alive, but there was a 50/50 chance of actually landing on the Moon. The Apollo 11 lander nearly ran out of fuel during landing. Apollo 13 showed what could go wrong, it was amazing they got back alive.
The manned mission to the Moon was expected to be very difficult, that was the reason Kennedy chose it as something that could beat the Soviets while giving the US time to catch up.
Despite it being basically a political stunt, it is still a remarkable achievement. It's a great pity there are insufferable cretins who believe it was faked. Kinda shows that humans are just too stupid to bother with.
-
I have a serious question please?
Why did they place a parabolic antenna on the moon rover?
How else would we have seen them live?
I thought the transmission originated from the lunar module and not the rover.
It does not make any sense to me that they would install a parabolic antenna on a moving vehicle.
Especially since the rover only had two batteries as a power supply that you would need manly to drive the 4 electric motors.
How would the suit systems be able to directly communicate with the lunar module when its well out of sight? These things don't need to be thought out. The designs are well documented. Just read.
-
The manned mission to the Moon was expected to be very difficult, that was the reason Kennedy chose it as something that could beat the Soviets while giving the US time to catch up.
At the (more or less) same time he (Kennedy) suggested join cooperation with Soviets for a moon expedition
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4209/ch2-4.htm (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4209/ch2-4.htm)
-
But they do not prove that someone set foot on its surface 50 years ago.
Of course not! There were no footprints there 50 years ago! We're still about 7 months shy of the 50 year mark of the first manned landing. And 46 years since the last footprints we put on the moon. Which is certainly too long, I must admit. But there have been unmanned landings, one as recently as 5 years ago by China.
They didn't invite an independent observer.
There WAS an independent observer on that last trip. Harrison Schmitt was a trained scientist and civilian astronaut. He's also still alive to talk about it.
It's all classified.
I'm sure some things are, not even close to "all". The stuff you really need to know is available or not hard to duplicate! Particularly when you use updated technology to do it. What you don't have is the massive pile of resources required to pull it off, both in money and people. So large a pile that only the state level resources of major countries could manage it in the past. It's gotten cheaper, and I'm sure if you had enough billions to spend you could get SpaceX to duplicate the feat.
Speaking of which, the first part of that is already happening. SpaceX is planning a 2023 moon trip for a paying passenger: https://www.spacex.com/news/2018/10/09/first-passenger-lunar-bfr-mission (https://www.spacex.com/news/2018/10/09/first-passenger-lunar-bfr-mission)
-
No wheel prints? Well, consider how much moon dust/dirt is being flipped up and without an atmosphere it pretty well drops right back down again - covering the 'tracks'. Walking is different since you are imprinting the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4)
Pretty clear just how the moon dust/dirt is just dropping right back down to cover the buggy's tracks. Only in the softest areas where the wheels have sunk down is there any more obvious imprints left.
cheers,
george.
That was one of the videos i mentioned before. You can see how the dust falls to the ground without leaving a cloud behind, because there is no atmosphere for dust particles to remain suspended. Impossible to fake something like that with special effects of that time.
-
If you are going to go so far as to plant all that stuff on the moon and leave tracks all over the place, why would anyone try to fake the manned landing when they've already accomplished 90% of the hard stuff just by getting a rover on the moon that can drive around and leave tracks? It's utterly ridiculous to think that it made sense to go through the monumental effort of getting tons of equipment all the way to the moon and then fake the part where some guys get out and walk around.
What the skeptics say is that the problem is not related to the possibility of success, but to the risks of failure. If, for instance, a spacecraft fails to dock to the ISS, you can return down to earth and have a chance to save your astronauts. You do not have that kind of margin on the moon. There's no plan B. You can't wait there until the tow truck arrives.
So you create all the plausible technology, plant all the evidence, fake the descent, landing, walking around, ascent and return, to avoid the high risks. No one is there to prove it false. If later someone says it didn't happen, show them the planted evidence. Profit.
The risk now is to be debunked, which is much lower than to be forever accused of sending three good guys to a slaughter house.
That's why the movie First Man is so brilliant. Zucca complained, and I quote, "I was disappointed to see some lack of enginnering details and a lot romance in it."
But that's part of the argument. The film shows the astronauts were not olympic heros. They were people like you and me, with a wife, four kids, two dogs, and a horse. Their involvement in the space program was not the result of a unilateral decision on their part. Their families were also affected, involved, and had a say on their decision.
The film then asks, how do you send these normal people to certain death in front of the whole world with such a precarious technology that you had in the sixties? The answer: you don't.
It seems to me that some people want so badly to believe it was faked that they will come up with the most impossibly convoluted theories into how that could have been done,
Or they may just be playing the devil's advocate.
simply ignoring the fact that faking those parts and keeping it covered up would be a far more impressive feat than sending people there.
The movie "First Man" almost makes you praise them for faking the whole thing to save the lives of those poor buggers while being able to send their message to the Soviets.
-
There are guys who do all sorts of incredibly dangerous work for the thrill of it. Test piloting aircraft was particularly dangerous back before it was possible to test and simulate things on a computer. Lots of people died right here on earth, developing supersonic aircraft, diving in the ocean, climbing mountains. Space exploration was incredibly dangerous but even with all the safety hysteria today I bet if you announced something like the early moon missions you'd have thousands of people lined up willing to take a very big risk to achieve such a thing. You really think guys willing to climb into a capsule on top of a gigantic rocket capable of delivering a payload to the moon are going to wuss out and not land and walk around if they have the technical ability to do so, even at great risk?
-
There are guys who do all sorts of incredibly dangerous work for the thrill of it. Test piloting aircraft was particularly dangerous back before it was possible to test and simulate things on a computer. Lots of people died right here on earth, developing supersonic aircraft, diving in the ocean, climbing mountains. Space exploration was incredibly dangerous but even with all the safety hysteria today I bet if you announced something like the early moon missions you'd have thousands of people lined up willing to take a very big risk to achieve such a thing. You really think guys willing to climb into a capsule on top of a gigantic rocket capable of delivering a payload to the moon are going to wuss out and not land and walk around if they have the technical ability to do so, even at great risk?
There are quite a lot of people who given a good chance of walking on the moon, and a poor chance of getting home afterwards, will still line up to go.
-
There are guys who do all sorts of incredibly dangerous work for the thrill of it. Test piloting aircraft was particularly dangerous back before it was possible to test and simulate things on a computer. Lots of people died right here on earth, developing supersonic aircraft, diving in the ocean, climbing mountains. Space exploration was incredibly dangerous but even with all the safety hysteria today I bet if you announced something like the early moon missions you'd have thousands of people lined up willing to take a very big risk to achieve such a thing. You really think guys willing to climb into a capsule on top of a gigantic rocket capable of delivering a payload to the moon are going to wuss out and not land and walk around if they have the technical ability to do so, even at great risk?
That's not the point of the movie. The astronauts are not depicted as coward people.
However, sending someone to a deliberate suicide mission in front of everybody is another thing. In all certainty, the questions raised by the movie were discussed by those involved in the space program.
And if in fact it is proved fake, that'll be the smartest political move of the 20th century.
-
There are guys who do all sorts of incredibly dangerous work for the thrill of it.
When I was a kid I thought the Trieste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
was a submarine and that the big tank thing was where the people walked around, and that goofy-looking ball was a camera or something.
Only later did I find out the tank was the ballast and the ball is the submarine, or bathyscaphe.
Yeah, when you have to wiggle down that tube to end up in that tiny ball with a few inches of Lexan between you and ~16000 PSI ocean....
Suddenly space doesn't seem so bad.
-
There are guys who do all sorts of incredibly dangerous work for the thrill of it.
When I was a kid I thought the Trieste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
was a submarine and that the big tank thing was where the people walked around, and that goofy-looking ball was a camera or something.
Only later did I find out the tank was the ballast and the ball is the submarine, or bathyscaphe.
Yeah, when you have to wiggle down that tube to end up in that tiny ball with a few inches of Lexan between you and ~16000 PSI ocean....
Suddenly space doesn't seem so bad.
I imagine a lot of people give up that kind of work, because they can't stand the pressure.
-
I think the more appropriate question and answer is "How could they have possibly landed on the moon, it is mind-boggling"... with the answer being "lots of money, engineering, learning from mistakes but most of all balls...". These people did not let fear of the unknown stop them, and probably didn't know all the answers and may not have fully tested everything but they still went. We don't take enough credit for human achievement. When national will-power and collective cooperation by either some political or other ambition is mustered, many great (and also evil) things can be accomplished... just look at history.
-
I made the mistake once of posting replies to the comments on one of the many YouTube moon landing hoax videos - because not one thing in the video was valid science. Well, the ongoing ad-hominem attacks and disregarding of the most basic physics in order to justify their position that it was all fake... wow. And it never ends - it was MONTHS ago and I just got a reply tonight calling me a "juvenile yank". One person in the thread goes on and on about NASA sayign they "lost" the methods used to get to the moon. First, no one at NASA ever said they lost or forgot how they did it, and even lost it - well, it's kind of hard to 'lose' a Saturn V on display right outside your facility. Mentioning that was dismissed as not knowing what "lost" means. Seriously.
CuriousMarc on YouTube currently has a series going where he is helping a group restore a complete flight computer to operation. Fran and Dave have shown bits and pieces of it, the guys Marc is working with have the whole dang thing minus the DSKY and they have problems with the memory cores, but the logic, regulator, and watchdog units are all complete - last one I saw, they got as far as getting the right voltages out of the regulators and the watchdog alarms are all functioning as expected. That was a lot of effort to design and build probably the most amazing computer at the time, just to use it as a special effect to fake the whole thing.
-
I made the mistake once of posting replies to the comments on one of the many YouTube moon landing hoax videos - because not one thing in the video was valid science. Well, the ongoing ad-hominem attacks and disregarding of the most basic physics in order to justify their position that it was all fake... wow. And it never ends - it was MONTHS ago and I just got a reply tonight calling me a "juvenile yank". One person in the thread goes on and on about NASA sayign they "lost" the methods used to get to the moon. First, no one at NASA ever said they lost or forgot how they did it, and even lost it - well, it's kind of hard to 'lose' a Saturn V on display right outside your facility. Mentioning that was dismissed as not knowing what "lost" means. Seriously.
They are probably referring to the requirement in all Apollo contracts that all design data would be destroyed at the end of the project. This is apparently real, but sounds like it was there just to generate generations of conspiracy theories.
-
I think the more appropriate question and answer is "How could they have possibly landed on the moon, it is mind-boggling"... with the answer being "lots of money, engineering, learning from mistakes but most of all balls...". These people did not let fear of the unknown stop them, and probably didn't know all the answers and may not have fully tested everything but they still went. We don't take enough credit for human achievement. When national will-power and collective cooperation by either some political or other ambition is mustered, many great (and also evil) things can be accomplished... just look at history.
But think about the odds. What if something went wrong and they got stranded there, without any possibility of rescue? Do you think the US would risk turning the moon forever into a tomb? Into the place of a tragic historical event?
The moon, let me remind you, is not a distant land or a lost point in a starry night. It appears prominently in the sky and is visible around the whole world.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but we have to admit that those who question the feat have a point.
The movie (and the book) The Martian gives us a much more realistic approach. Before sending someone to land on another celestial body, like the moon, mars, whatever, send an unmanned service module with supplies, for the case they get stranded, until the arrival of a rescue mission. Then send an unmanned return spacecraft. Finally send a manned spacecraft. The risks are still high, but at least you have a backup plan.
Of course such an approach would be prohibitively expensive, but no doubt was considered by them.
-
Oh.
Em.
Gee.
You all better be trolling...
-
Of course they would dare, since they did dare! Disasters happen. You figure out what happened, then do it right the next time. A significant number of people have died in various space programs, yet we still press on. You would have to be pretty young not to remember any of them.
The most recent was in 2014 on a Virgin Galactic test flight.
How about the 2003 disintegration of the Space Shuttle Columbia?
If you've a few more years on you, the 1986 launch disaster of the Challenger? I was watching that one live on a big screen TV in a room full of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
-
There are guys who do all sorts of incredibly dangerous work for the thrill of it. Test piloting aircraft was particularly dangerous back before it was possible to test and simulate things on a computer. Lots of people died right here on earth, developing supersonic aircraft, diving in the ocean, climbing mountains. Space exploration was incredibly dangerous but even with all the safety hysteria today I bet if you announced something like the early moon missions you'd have thousands of people lined up willing to take a very big risk to achieve such a thing. You really think guys willing to climb into a capsule on top of a gigantic rocket capable of delivering a payload to the moon are going to wuss out and not land and walk around if they have the technical ability to do so, even at great risk?
That's not the point of the movie. The astronauts are not depicted as coward people.
However, sending someone to a deliberate suicide mission in front of everybody is another thing. In all certainty, the questions raised by the movie were discussed by those involved in the space program.
And if in fact it is proved fake, that'll be the smartest political move of the 20th century.
It would also be the foremost Engineering achievement, covering as it would, the landing of multiple unmanned vehicles on the Moon, robotics which are right up there with today's best to drive the lunar rover around, & even before that, some sort of device to make a lot of footprints without leaving any marks of its own & to plant a flag!
By the way, all those unmanned vehicles, after depositing the faked evidence, then had to lift off in their entirety, apart from leaving one descent stage for fake evidence.
Add to this, that it had to be repeated in different spots, over & over.
Remember, that NASA had no idea how advanced the USSR was, so the"fakes" would have to be perfect.
Imagine, if the Russkis had been able to land their own version of an LEM close enough to the Apollo 11 landing spot before it was supposed to happen.
Even a non-landing orbit would have "let the cat out of the bag" if the Cosmonauts had caught the very advanced robots planting evidence.
Another strike against the conspiracy---- in that alternate universe, what the hell was Apollo 13 about?
There would be no reason to include a failure in what would have been a successful series of deceptions.
Then we have the "faking" of communications & telemetry from the Apollo series.
There were large numbers of non Americans who were involved in this aspect.
Why would they want to keep such a hoax secret?
Also, the unmanned vehicles carrying all the "fake evidence" apparently didn't need any comms or telemetry to guide them to perfect landings at all times.
And where were they launched from?
Both the USA & the USSR kept a pretty close eye on each others rocket launching, as an unidentified one could be an ICBM sneak attack.
A series of unannounced launchings from somewhere else than Cape Kennedy (as it was then, before reverting to the old name), would set red lights flashing in the Kremlin.
The need for very advanced technology, precise navigation, a degree of security worldwide beyond anything then or now possible, plus the (secret) funding necessary to, in effect, set up a second "ghost NASA" to do the actual work, means that it would be easier to just send Astronauts to the Moon, which is precisely what happened!
-
I watched a film called pearl harbour that was full of romance and the actual pearl harbour bit was 10 minutes of crap CGI so I guess that never happened either and america just wanted an excuse to go to war with Japan......
-
I watched a film called pearl harbour that was full of romance and the actual pearl harbour bit was 10 minutes of crap CGI so I guess that never happened either and america just wanted an excuse to go to war with Japan......
Don't worry, there is sure to be a bunch of halfwits out there who think this already! :palm:
The best movie I saw about Pearl Harbour was the oldie "Tora! Tora! Tora!"
It was pretty well done-- no silly CGI in those days.
I did pick one thing, though.
When the Japanese planes flew over the hills in Hawaii, they flew over what was clearly a terrestrial
Microwave system repeater station.---Oops!
-
well it's OK the yanks thought they were a flock of birds. Yes Tora! Tora! Tora! was a well made film. I believe it was a made as two halves and edited together, they had a Japan unit and an America unit that worked on their own sections of the film and then it was brought together into one story.
-
But think about the odds. What if something went wrong and they got stranded there, without any possibility of rescue? Do you think the US would risk turning the moon forever into a tomb? Into the place of a tragic historical event?
Uh, well...
...Duh:
https://www.space.com/26604-apollo-11-failure-nixon-speech.html (https://www.space.com/26604-apollo-11-failure-nixon-speech.html)
It would've been one hell of a hard hit, but all the same, indicative of the risks taken to push so far. Probably the only consequence would've been fewer Apollos after then. Or maybe more to keep things going, who knows.
Only a PR problem, ultimately; nothing a suitable amount of commitment can't overcome, relative to the country's effective value of human life. Russians have historically lower value among themselves, so it's no surprise that their programs have also had a higher toll.
The astro/cosmonauts, in any case, would've been acutely aware of the risk they were taking. You're only 1cm away from certain death, in space. Whether that's an orbiter's hull, a space suit's lining, or an oxygen tank's wall. Also a few days, in terms of oxygen, or to a lesser extent, water, or food. That they did that, and lived to tell the tale, is fantastic, a testament to whoevers' engineering -- even including the riskier side's.
Tim
-
Everyone involved understood the risks and just accepted them.
-
Everyone involved understood the risks and just accepted them.
If they accepted the risks, it never happened.
It only happened if they ignored them.
-
I watched a film called pearl harbour that was full of romance and the actual pearl harbour bit was 10 minutes of crap CGI so I guess that never happened either and america just wanted an excuse to go to war with Japan......
I knew it!
-
Why would the scientific community worldwide (including the russians) be a part of some crazy conspiracy to make us believe that the NASA landed on the moon, if it were false? The russians would had been very interested in uncovering such a scam.
The moon landing deniers have an interesting explanation for that.
By the pace of the achievements, the US might have come to the conclusion that sooner or later the Soviets would be able to conquer the moon. Or that they had plans to do it.
When it became clear to the Soviets that it would be very difficult to send someone there, the US took the opportunity to prepare the hoax.
Now the Soviets could not disprove the US. If they tried to send a man to the moon for real, they knew that it would have an enormous pontential for disaster. If they said they tried and that they concluded not to be possible, they would give much more credence to the US who "proved" it possible.
The Soviets had no choice but to keep quiet and let the thing speak for itself, i.e., wait until someone started to notice inconsistencies about the claim.
Ironically the dissented voices came, and keep coming, exactly from the US.
Man, if that theory were true, I would like to congratulate the genius in the US government who thought that out.
-
The moon landing deniers have an interesting explanation for that.
Of course they do, and if they don't, they will quickly come up with an explanation.
They *believe* it was faked, so they will ignore any data that does not support their existing belief while latching onto anything that even remotely does support it, it's an extreme case of confirmation bias. There is no possible way to convince somebody to change their belief by using logic because it's not logical in the first place, it is effectively a religious belief, almost certainly using the same part of the brain. I'm quite confident that if you took 1,000 deniers to the moon in person and showed them the Apollo landing sites with their own eyes, 100% of them would spin up some new conspiracy and claim it was all planted, or they were drugged or hypnotized or that the whole visit was fake and they themselves weren't really taken to the moon but to some secret military base somewhere. You can't win against an irrational belief.
-
I have reasons to believe that the US really tried to send people to the moon, there was nothing fake about that. I think what the movie wants to convey is that, if somehow it becomes clear that the part about the landing was staged, it was done for a noble reason: not to expose the astronauts to an unnecessary martyrdom, not to expose such a significant celestial body to a tragic event, and to reassure to their allies that the West was on par with the Soviets regarding to technological power. Since the West won both the space race and the Cold War, whether the landing is fake or not is now irrelevant.
The movie "First Man" is brilliant because it puts you in the position of those who are going to decide to land them there or not. You, the viewer, are not the astronaut, you are the President, the congressperson, the director of the space agency, the high rank advisor.
Its a cerebral movie of the kind Aristotle would like to see: one that makes you entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.
-
I have reasons to believe the world really is flat.
The movie "Discworld" is brilliant because it shows you what happens at the edge of the world.
-
Monty python covered it perfectly too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_IuuQZ0IO8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_IuuQZ0IO8)
-
WTF, man!! Every one of the Astronauts, Cosmonauts, etc that entered a rocket are risking their lives, because they're using very complex equipment, using immense amounts of energy, to go to one of the most hostile environments to life. The only thing keeping them alive is good science/engineering. The bests minds, giving their best efforts. And still, things can go wrong, and people die. Do you remember that things have gone wrong and people has died, right?
Some years ago, the first woman in space, at age 76 said that she would gladly accept a one-way ticket to mars: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/mars-one-way-ticket (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/mars-one-way-ticket)
So yes, there are, and ever has been people that will gladly put their lives into risk to go where no one has gone before.
-
This whole thread reminds me of this (horrible) movie from my childhood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One
-
It does not really matter, if you believe this man-on-the-moon is true or not.
It is the tremendous spinn-off of the enormous effort making this either
reality or phantastically faking it which really matters. :horse:
-
If any of the astronaughts are operating a chain of cheese shops and or wholesale business on earth and raking in serious cash :clap:
there's your answer...just follow the money... :popcorn:
-
WTF, man!! Every one of the Astronauts, Cosmonauts, etc that entered a rocket are risking their lives, because they're using very complex equipment, using immense amounts of energy, to go to one of the most hostile environments to life. The only thing keeping them alive is good science/engineering. The bests minds, giving their best efforts. And still, things can go wrong, and people die. Do you remember that things have gone wrong and people has died, right?
Some years ago, the first woman in space, at age 76 said that she would gladly accept a one-way ticket to mars: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/mars-one-way-ticket (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/mars-one-way-ticket)
So yes, there are, and ever has been people that will gladly put their lives into risk to go where no one has gone before.
Try to change your perspective. Instead of looking at the space program with the eyes of an astronaut, engineer or scientist, try to look at it with the eyes of those in charge. You have to analyze the political risks involved.
If it is peremptorily proved that they set foot on the moon, fine. That will only confirm what we have believed for the last 50 years.
But if doubt remains, that won't be the end of the world. It wouldn't reduce the importance of the event, given the circumstances.
That's what the movie invites you to think.
-
Since the West won both the space race ....
:palm:
Never heard about Apollo-Soyuz? ::)
-
:palm:
Never heard about Apollo-Soyuz? ::)
Did you live in the West in 1969?
-
In case you haven't seen this yet. :-DD
https://youtu.be/SIR9SdlIbDE
-
:phew:
well it's OK the yanks thought they were a flock of birds. Yes Tora! Tora! Tora! was a well made film. I believe it was a made as two halves and edited together, they had a Japan unit and an America unit that worked on their own sections of the film and then it was brought together into one story.
I'm not sure you got my point, it was that Microwave comms networks didn't exist in 1941.
This happens quite often in movies, like contrails in the sky over a Roman epic, or the sillouhette of a combine harvester on a hilltop behind a Western movie.
Re the "flock of birds" --- the story I read was a bit more believable.
The RADAR guy's Boss said the echoes were that of a flight of B17s expected to arrive that morning.
They didn't really have much faith in RADAR, ---- It was newfangled, & it was invented by "Limeys"!
-
WTF, man!! Every one of the Astronauts, Cosmonauts, etc that entered a rocket are risking their lives, because they're using very complex equipment, using immense amounts of energy, to go to one of the most hostile environments to life. The only thing keeping them alive is good science/engineering. The bests minds, giving their best efforts. And still, things can go wrong, and people die. Do you remember that things have gone wrong and people has died, right?
Some years ago, the first woman in space, at age 76 said that she would gladly accept a one-way ticket to mars: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/mars-one-way-ticket (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/mars-one-way-ticket)
So yes, there are, and ever has been people that will gladly put their lives into risk to go where no one has gone before.
Try to change your perspective. Instead of looking at the space program with the eyes of an astronaut, engineer or scientist, try to look at it with the eyes of those in charge. You have to analyze the political risks involved.
If it is peremptorily proved that they set foot on the moon, fine. That will only confirm what we have believed for the last 50 years.
But if doubt remains, that won't be the end of the world. It wouldn't reduce the importance of the event, given the circumstances.
That's what the movie invites you to think.
This thread if filled with evidence. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem. The moon landing is a fact.
Tell me: how do you fake the videos of the hammer and the plume falling at the same time, or the moon's car throwing dust around that creates no cloud? And was is that hard for the russians to tell if the astronaut's transmissions were coming from the moon? No CGI at that time, you know? Even the landing computer had magnetic core RAM and hand-wired ROM. Ancient tech.
The ones in charge continued the moon program after the 3 crew members died burned inside the Apollo 1 capsule on a test on the ground.
And people continue to die in the space program. Do you remember the challenger? The columbia? Recently the soyuz failed when one of the 4 boosters failed to separate and hit the main rocket, and they had to abort the mission, initiating an emergency ballistic descent. Fortunately (and thanks to good emergency systems), they were rescued with no injuries.
Even going to the IIS means that you're exposed to increased radiation. Not the most healthy thing in the world, but they accept the risks.
Everyone knows that the manned space program involves a lot of risks. Everyone that goes to space accepts that risk. The public knows that. The politics know that.
Here, take a look at this list spaceflight-related accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents)
-
WTF, man!! Every one of the Astronauts, Cosmonauts, etc that entered a rocket are risking their lives, because they're using very complex equipment, using immense amounts of energy, to go to one of the most hostile environments to life. The only thing keeping them alive is good science/engineering. The bests minds, giving their best efforts. And still, things can go wrong, and people die. Do you remember that things have gone wrong and people has died, right?
Some years ago, the first woman in space, at age 76 said that she would gladly accept a one-way ticket to mars: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/mars-one-way-ticket (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/mars-one-way-ticket)
So yes, there are, and ever has been people that will gladly put their lives into risk to go where no one has gone before.
Try to change your perspective. Instead of looking at the space program with the eyes of an astronaut, engineer or scientist, try to look at it with the eyes of those in charge. You have to analyze the political risks involved.
If it is peremptorily proved that they set foot on the moon, fine. That will only confirm what we have believed for the last 50 years.
But if doubt remains, that won't be the end of the world. It wouldn't reduce the importance of the event, given the circumstances.
That's what the movie invites you to think.
If you watch "Superman", you will "believe a man can fly!"
-
If it was faked, how has the secret been kept for nearly 50 years? Thousands of people would have been involved in the conspiracy including the media and we know they can't keep a secret. Somebody would have written a book just before they died!
The first landing was the greatest technological achievement of all time. Here it is, nearly 50 years later, and no country has come close to recreating it.
We made 6 landings and 12 astronauts have walked on the surface.
And to top that all off you have a guy like Trump as a president. >:D In 50 years people will say that no country has come close to recreating it.
-
This is what we get for having governments that habitually lie to people. Even the most amazing and positive truths are being questioned.
Yes, mankind went to the moon. And a former co-worker's friend and running partner died in space.
-
This whole thread reminds me of this (horrible) movie from my childhood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One
"Capricorn One" was not about a Moon shot, though, it was about a much more ambitious thing-- A Mars Landing.
As we have discussed on another thread, Mars is one hell of a long way away, & the whole thrust of the story is of a Space Agency overreaching itself under political pressure.
At the time, in the wake of Watergate, making the "Guvment" or its agencies the "baddie" played well with audiences.
Funny thing, I never heard a thing about "moon hoaxes" until some years after that movie started appearing on TV, which was quite a few years later than when I saw it first.
It almost seems like some "Good old boy", sitting half asleep in front of his TV, suddenly sat up, kicked his hound dawg off his lap, & exclaimed "Dagnabit! That must be how those citified dipshits at NASA faked that there Moon landing!"
-
This thread if filled with evidence. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem. The moon landing is a fact.
I don't have a problem. We're not trying to prove whether it is a fact or not.
If the OP asked "please show me the evidence that those guys landed on the moon because I want to believe", those posts would count.
Instead, he said, and I quote, "In my heart I believe a man was walking on the moon, but my brain is still not 100% convinced. It seems technically impossible. Please help."
He started to question the evidence itself. Which is an absolutely healthy intellectual exercise.
So, posting "evidence" in this case is like preaching the gospel to a convert. That won't end the issue, even if he says he is now 100% convinced.
-
This is what we get for having governments that habitually lie to people. Even the most amazing and positive truths are being questioned.
An amazing and positive truth would be to find a government that does not habitually lie to people. But that would be highly questionable.
-
Most crazy beliefs are a symptom of psychiatric illness. People can believe whatever crap they want to, including man did not land on the moon or the earth is flat. But Illuminati belief can result in this... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-13/james-gargasoulas-found-guilty-of-murder/10491490 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-13/james-gargasoulas-found-guilty-of-murder/10491490).
I know two of Illuminati believers. One is convinced man did not land on the moon and it was all staged by the Illuminati, who is now out to kill 90% of the world's population. He fled to a remote few acres so he can survive when the Illuminati launches an all out attack on the city of Melbourne in 2019. He used to be an engineer, but now does menial work because he believes the engineering profession is controlled by the Illuminati. The other Illuminati believer is a drifter on the dole and told me all millionaires are bastards working for the Illuminati. The fact is neither of them are employable. Both need psychiatric care, but because they have not committed a crime, there is nothing anyone can do. Not surprisingly neither have many, if any, friends because of their incessant preaching about the Illuminati.
Anyone who preaches man did not walk on the moon or preaches the Illuminati (the two often go hand-in-hand), should do himself a favour and seek psychiatric help.
-
This thread if filled with evidence. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem. The moon landing is a fact.
I don't have a problem. We're not trying to prove whether it is a fact or not.
If the OP asked "please show me the evidence that those guys landed on the moon because I want to believe", those posts would count.
Instead, he said, and I quote, "In my heart I believe a man was walking on the moon, but my brain is still not 100% convinced. It seems technically impossible. Please help."
He started to question the evidence itself. Which is an absolutely healthy intellectual exercise.
So, posting "evidence" in this case is like preaching the gospel to a convert. That won't end the issue, even if he says he is now 100% convinced.
Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.
For instance, there is a creature lying on the floor in my bedroom eating a pigs ear.
All the evidence points to her being a dog---- crazy little waggy tail, cold snotty nose, silly lop ears, fur, feet she delights in putting places she shouldn't.
But maybe she isn't a dog, maybe a really funny looking cat?, or an alien creature masquerading as a dog?
The biggy, is I saw her born, & am pretty sure her parents are dogs, so that convinces me.
However, not being a biochemist, I can't look at her DNA to positively prove she is a dog.
Sometimes, though, you just have to accept the evidence, as it isn't as silly as the alternative explanation.
-
If she's a Pug, then she definitely is an alien masquerading as a dog. Didn't you see Men in Black?
My two Pugs are most definitely aliens, not dogs.
-
Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6f/d9/41/6fd9413f77e3aab3fbe7d7f997fabe0e.jpg)
https://scottishrite.org/scottish-rite-myths-and-facts/featured-artifact-scottish-rite-flag-went-moon/ (https://scottishrite.org/scottish-rite-myths-and-facts/featured-artifact-scottish-rite-flag-went-moon/)
(https://gnosticwarrior.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Buzz-Aldrin-2.png)
http://www.rizpahshriners.org/famousshriners.htm (http://www.rizpahshriners.org/famousshriners.htm)
(http://www.rizpahshriners.org/famousshriners/aldrin.gif)
The Shriners, or Shrine Masons, belong to Shriners international. The Shrine is an international fraternity of approximately one quarter of a million members who belong to Shrine Temples throughout the world. Founded in New York City in 1872, the organization is composed solely of Master Masons, 32nd degree Scottish Rite Masons or Knights Templar York Rite Masons.
-
Everyone involved understood the risks and just accepted them.
I know many would take the risk, so I started a poll on another thread and, so far, almost 45% say yes, they would do it.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-many-would-go-to-the-moon-today/msg2061427/#msg2061427 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-many-would-go-to-the-moon-today/msg2061427/#msg2061427)
-
To put another perspective on the risk, it is reported that there were multiple astronaut candidates who weren't deterred by the early lack of a technical solution for returning to the earth. They were willing to be sent up and wait for someone to figure out how to get them home.
We have become much more risk averse as a society over the last few decades. Take the more risk accepting public of the time and then add the normal distribution of risk acceptance within a population and it is easy to understand how they went.
-
This thread if filled with evidence. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem. The moon landing is a fact.
I don't have a problem. We're not trying to prove whether it is a fact or not.
If the OP asked "please show me the evidence that those guys landed on the moon because I want to believe", those posts would count.
Instead, he said, and I quote, "In my heart I believe a man was walking on the moon, but my brain is still not 100% convinced. It seems technically impossible. Please help."
He started to question the evidence itself. Which is an absolutely healthy intellectual exercise.
So, posting "evidence" in this case is like preaching the gospel to a convert. That won't end the issue, even if he says he is now 100% convinced.
Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.
For instance, there is a creature lying on the floor in my bedroom eating a pigs ear.
All the evidence points to her being a dog---- crazy little waggy tail, cold snotty nose, silly lop ears, fur, feet she delights in putting places she shouldn't.
But maybe she isn't a dog, maybe a really funny looking cat?, or an alien creature masquerading as a dog?
The biggy, is I saw her born, & am pretty sure her parents are dogs, so that convinces me.
However, not being a biochemist, I can't look at her DNA to positively prove she is a dog.
Sometimes, though, you just have to accept the evidence, as it isn't as silly as the alternative explanation.
Indeed, at some point, you must "draw the line". What's the evidence that supports that it is real? What's the possibility of this been faked with the technology of the time and kept secret by everyone involved, including the russians?
When there is a ton of evidence, and the possibilities of the second question are abysmal or just impossible, well, it's delusional to think it's false. If you think that way, you can pretty much doubt about everything, no matter how solid the evidence is. You cannot really believe in anything at all.
Most of the time, people doubt about something that they really don't know, like the flat earth issue. No matter that people in the nortern hemisphere can see constellations that we at the south can't, and vice versa. I cannot see Polaris, and people in the North can't see the Southern Cross. How that could be possible in a flat Earth? Just impossible.
-
Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.
I hope you never get accused one day based on false evidence. Because your lawyer will have a hard time with your defense.
Questioning the evidence is everyday practice in whatever investigation, be it legal, forensic, scientific, academic, journalistic, etc.
The landing on the moon is a fact like any other and is not above scrutiny.
I know many would take the risk, so I started a poll on another thread and, so far, almost 45% say yes, they would do it.
Yeah! What we're waiting for? Let's send them to die on the moon right away.
I can imagine the headlines the following day: ELECTRONICS FORUM KILLS HALF OF ITS MEMBERS IN SPACE JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT.
I love you, guys. Merry Xmas.
-
Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.
I hope you never get accused one day based on false evidence. Because your lawyer will have a hard time with your defense.
False evidence isn't really evidence. That's what the word "false" implies.
Do you think that the evidence on the moon landing is false? Why?
-
It's fine to scrutinize, and the moon landing has been scrutinized to death many times over. At some point it has to be accepted as absolutely zero of the "evidence" against it stands up to scrutiny.
Why would the headline accuse the forum of killing members? The forum does not own or command any of its members, if a group of people chooses to go on a suicide mission that is their personal choice, not the responsibility of the forum.
I distinctly remember my friend's dad saying he'd love to go into space, and that even if there was a 100% chance that he would die before returning he would still go in a heartbeat. Plenty of people do not mind the risk at all.
-
@bson. Thanks for the posting the missing Apollo 11 footage, absolutely brilliant :-+
I like the story about the Apollo 11 ascent engine arming breaker. Somehow Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin had managed to break the ascent enginge arming switch whilst clambering about in a full space suit with a life support back pack. Buzz Aldrin just jabbed a pen into the breaker and the problem was fixed. It definately takes the right stuff to remain calm and clear headed under those circumstances. https://www.cnbc.com/id/42592372 (https://www.cnbc.com/id/42592372)
There was also a small chance that the hypergolic ascent engine could misfire as they couldn't be test-fired prior to flight because the fuel was so corrosive. Fixed-thrust and nongimbaled so it's a timed burn with small trajectory adjustments from fixed thrusters. Nice overview of the LEM propulsion system here https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090016298.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090016298.pdf). WTF I wouldn't want to climb into that.
-
I can imagine the headlines the following day: ELECTRONICS FORUM KILLS HALF OF ITS MEMBERS IN SPACE JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT.
The forum has nothing to do with it.
But not everyone can blindly follow the proberbial, usually religious "life is a gift you should forever be grateful for and you should blindly accept everything it throws at you". And as this poll kinda confirms, for quite a few engineers and other people with enough time to think about it life here can actually be a bit underwhelming if not quite boring. So yes to some/many? spending a few months/hours/minutes? of something "out of this world" can be worth more than an eternity of "meh".
As for First Man I was a bit deceived about the lack of emphasis of Neil Armstrong's skills, almost nothing explained/showed WHY he was selected, just that he was, could have been out of luck or something, totally glossed over the crucial decisions he made. And the "problem" sequences were way overdramatized and technically incorrect (360° roll rate with the image doing 5 turns a second? yeah right).
But the Moon sequences were presented absolutely perfectly. I don't know of any other movie that can keep a packed theater absolutely quiet through 2 minutes of total silence... twice.
-
Theory: People who scream fake news like to ignore facts and evidence.
Theory: People who scream fake news want attention. Truth, even if they know it, is besides the point.
Theory: People who scream fake news are so gullible they believe other people screaming fake news.
Plenty more theories where those came from. Plenty of evidence too, but it'll just be ignored by people who scream fake news.
-
One other theory to go with yours. For the conspiracy types all evidence for the conventional understanding is suspect, no matter how strongly buttressed, while evidence against is unassailable.
-
Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.
I hope you never get accused one day based on false evidence. Because your lawyer will have a hard time with your defense.
If all my lawyer offers is "I don't believe he did it, & besides that, I don't think the technology he had access to would allow him to do it", I'll start getting used to the idea of wearing a stylish orange suit.
Questioning the evidence is everyday practice in whatever investigation, be it legal, forensic, scientific, academic, journalistic, etc.
The landing on the moon is a fact like any other and is not above scrutiny.
OK, but the evidence for "faking it" must stand up to scrutiny as well.
As it universally consists of vague feelings based increasingly as time progresses on ignorance, it fails any serious scrutiny.
Going back to the OP, who didn't know there were multiple trips to the Moon, we see this lack of knowledge played out.
He then compounds it by saying "It seems technically impossible".
There seems to be a widespread belief amongst those born much more recently, that technology was "primitive & unreliable in the 1960s.
They state that, without one bit of supporting evidence, then build a magnificent edifice on that suspect foundation.
We have "Sending them to almost certain death" putting in an appearance, based upon that original supposition.
In fact, NASA was fairly confident that the Moon landing would be successful.
This is what I call the "Von Daniken" school of debate.
You make some way out suggestion, then say:-" Because of this, this happened, then that, then that, hopefully losing the reader in a huge pile of "evidence" which is nothing of the sort.
Do some research on the Internet on "Moon hoax", & you find yourself rapidly spiralling down the rabbit hole to "nutville".
We find such luminaries as the lady who supposedly saw a "coke bottle" in the coverage of the Apollo 11 moonwalk.
This same lady remembered this as happening at night, when she lived in Western Australia.
The problem is, the Moon walk took place in the mid morning WAST.
There are definitely people who may not really believe, but have a financial interest in maintaining the conspiracy theory, although they are pretty much swamped by the "true believers" who spread the BS free.
I know many would take the risk, so I started a poll on another thread and, so far, almost 45% say yes, they would do it.
Yeah! What we're waiting for? Let's send them to die on the moon right away.
I can imagine the headlines the following day: ELECTRONICS FORUM KILLS HALF OF ITS MEMBERS IN SPACE JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT.
I love you, guys. Merry Xmas.
-
Probably.
The evidence that I have seen means that it's almost certain that the guys walked on the moon, just as other evidence points towards evolution being the best explanation of how we all arrived here. However, please consider the following:
1. In December 1968 there was an urgent meeting called at the White House and all heads of the TV networks were ordered to attend. No minutes were ever taken and none of those present have ever revealed what took place in the meeting. Was this when the TV networks were told that NASA were unable to meet JFK's deadline?
2. The staff sitting in Mission Control had been trained using state of the art simulators that provided everything from pictures of the lunar surface to astronaut heartbeats, that way, when it came to the real thing, there would be no errors. In July 1969 it would have been impossible for someone in Mission Control to know if they were looking at real data on their screen or a simulation.
3. During preparations for the Apollo flights weight was such a critical issue that the number of plasters in the First Aid kit was reduced from five to two. Despite this later missions were able to carry a moon buggy attached to the side of the LEM. Where did the ability to carry extra weight come from?
4. As mentioned in other posts, the moon buggy had a dish antenna. Each time the vehicle moved that antenna would need to be re-aligned to point at either Earth or the LEM. Using the dish to communicate with the Command Module was not an option as there was no hardware to track an orbiting spacecraft.
5. The still cameras used were standard 500EL Hasselblad units painted silver in an effort to keep the temperature constant. On the lunar surface it gets to 127C in sunlight and -173C in shadow, a 300C temperature range, yet the film inside the camera never degraded. In addition to this the Hasselblad cameras used had a viewfinder at the top, and it is impossible to use this viewfinder when using a spacesuit with the camera clamped to the chest, yet all the pictures we see are perfectly framed.
6. As seen in the movie Apollo 13, by the third lunar mission interest in the USA had crashed and none of the TV networks were interested in the moonshots. Would NASA stage an accident in space just to get the American public interested in space again? Nah, that would be too crazy.
Then again, that experiment using the hammer and the feather would have been damn difficult to fake in a 1G environment, and that lunar reflector didn't get there on its own.
Discuss
-
The Hasselblad 500EL used on the moon surface did not have a viewfinder, did not have lubrication, was not painted silver (anodized) and used special film.
They also had more standard black Hasselblad for use on the inside.
Just because you don't understand X you can not make the conclusion that X was faked.
-
NASA documents describe a number of modifications made to the stock cameras.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs.htm (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs.htm)
The Hasselblad is basically a single-lens reflex camera. The
reflex mirror arrangements were removed, however, since they
could not be conveniently used in the spacecraft. They were
replaced by a straight eye-level finder with a suitable base length,
so that an astronaut could use it while wearing his spacesuit
helmet.
I'm not certain, but the extra weight capacity on later missions may be due to changes in the initial trajectory which no longer allowed for free return. There also could have been improvements in the vehicles since each was basically custom made.
-
Probably.
The evidence that I have seen means that it's almost certain that the guys walked on the moon, just as other evidence points towards evolution being the best explanation of how we all arrived here. However, please consider the following:
1. In December 1968 there was an urgent meeting called at the White House and all heads of the TV networks were ordered to attend. No minutes were ever taken and none of those present have ever revealed what took place in the meeting. Was this when the TV networks were told that NASA were unable to meet JFK's deadline?
2. The staff sitting in Mission Control had been trained using state of the art simulators that provided everything from pictures of the lunar surface to astronaut heartbeats, that way, when it came to the real thing, there would be no errors. In July 1969 it would have been impossible for someone in Mission Control to know if they were looking at real data on their screen or a simulation.
3. During preparations for the Apollo flights weight was such a critical issue that the number of plasters in the First Aid kit was reduced from five to two. Despite this later missions were able to carry a moon buggy attached to the side of the LEM. Where did the ability to carry extra weight come from?
4. As mentioned in other posts, the moon buggy had a dish antenna. Each time the vehicle moved that antenna would need to be re-aligned to point at either Earth or the LEM. Using the dish to communicate with the Command Module was not an option as there was no hardware to track an orbiting spacecraft.
5. The still cameras used were standard 500EL Hasselblad units painted silver in an effort to keep the temperature constant. On the lunar surface it gets to 127C in sunlight and -173C in shadow, a 300C temperature range, yet the film inside the camera never degraded. In addition to this the Hasselblad cameras used had a viewfinder at the top, and it is impossible to use this viewfinder when using a spacesuit with the camera clamped to the chest, yet all the pictures we see are perfectly framed.
6. As seen in the movie Apollo 13, by the third lunar mission interest in the USA had crashed and none of the TV networks were interested in the moonshots. Would NASA stage an accident in space just to get the American public interested in space again? Nah, that would be too crazy.
Then again, that experiment using the hammer and the feather would have been damn difficult to fake in a 1G environment, and that lunar reflector didn't get there on its own.
Discuss
Many of your answers are here:
https://www.sti.nasa.gov/ (https://www.sti.nasa.gov/)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp)
And it's your job to find them. Otherwise, you are approaching Gish Gallop territory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)
Which is particularly well suited for free-form formats such as internet-based discussion forums.
It's impossible to fully explore those archives. However, it is very interesting to start with a topic and see just how deep one can go.
-
False evidence isn't really evidence. That's what the word "false" implies.
And how do you determine it to be false?
Do you think that the evidence on the moon landing is false?
I don't know. What do you think?
It's fine to scrutinize, and the moon landing has been scrutinized to death many times over. At some point it has to be accepted as absolutely zero of the "evidence" against it stands up to scrutiny.
It doesn't seem to be the case. I mean, as time progresses more and more objections against the evidence appear. You see, I never gave any attention to claims of it being a hoax until I saw First Man. To me, the landing on the moon has always been a consummated fact. However, given the controversy started by the film, I decided to investigate.
In the past, whoever denied the landing was considered ignorant. Of course, information was not available as it is today. Now those who put the evidence in doubt are much more resourceful and can attack it from multiple sides.
Why would the headline accuse the forum of killing members? The forum does not own or command any of its members, if a group of people chooses to go on a suicide mission that is their personal choice, not the responsibility of the forum.
I distinctly remember my friend's dad saying he'd love to go into space, and that even if there was a 100% chance that he would die before returning he would still go in a heartbeat. Plenty of people do not mind the risk at all.
During the War, there were so many voluntaries for suicide missions in Japan that they were referred to as a swarm of bees. Big deal if there are people willing to die for fame and glory. The question is that if the astronauts died, with everybody knowing that their chance of survival was minimal, do you think that the government would be able to say "if a group of people chooses to go on a suicide mission, that is their personal choice, not the responsibility of the" government, and get away with it?
-
As for First Man I was a bit deceived about the lack of emphasis of Neil Armstrong's skills,
Because the movie is not about him. The title is a "click bait".
But the Moon sequences were presented absolutely perfectly. I don't know of any other movie that can keep a packed theater absolutely quiet through 2 minutes of total silence... twice.
Every movie is a dream. I think Akira Kurosawa said something along that line somewhere, but I may be wrong.
-
False evidence isn't really evidence. That's what the word "false" implies.
And how do you determine it to be false?
If you consider that evidence is the information that is already been checked, false evidence simply does not exist. If you consider that evidence is something that still hasn't been properly checked, then yes, you need evaluate the "evidence". However, you don't disregard solid evidence and accept any stupid hypothesis that violates well-stablished principles, just because that matches whatever ridiculous, impossible to hold conspiracy that you already decided that must be the truth. At the same time, that explains how is that moon-landing-deniers and flat-earthers came to be and the importance of following the scientific method for research.
Do you think that the evidence on the moon landing is false?
I don't know. What do you think?
I have no doubt that the moon landing happened. The evidence supporting it is very strong, it seems impossible to fool everyone, including the russians, and the "hypotesis" of the deniers are plagued with misconceptions. The deniers chosen to believe in a global conspiracy, and they're constantly seeking to demostrate that, but the only thing that they demostrated over and over again, is that a moon landing is way over their heads.
-
Our understanding of physics has changed dramatically since the moon landings. One would think that if the moon landings were to be faked, some of the science supposedly used to do that would be proven to be false later causing issues with the story told. As far as I'm aware, this isn't the case and our understanding of the physics has been refined but not been proven fundamentally incorrect.
-
I'm seeing a trend here, aside from some people talking without even doing the most basic of research on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotcha_journalism
I'm pretty sure a couple of you are more interested in trolling than the truth.
-
It doesn't seem to be the case. I mean, as time progresses more and more objections against the evidence appear. You see, I never gave any attention to claims of it being a hoax until I saw First Man. To me, the landing on the moon has always been a consummated fact. However, given the controversy started by the film, I decided to investigate.
So you did what many people do ... you typed "Fake Moon Landing" into Google, and you went down a rabbit's hole of horseshit.
The problem with such Internet "research" is that literally anyone can put something up on the WWW, no matter how outlandish, how unsupportable, how just plain idiotic, and the search engines will crawl it and index it and present it as a search result next to articles that are fully reported and vetted. So you relied on your gut instinct to inform you.
The problem is that your gut isn't telling you that the moon landing was faked. It's telling you that perhaps you shouldn't have had that hot sausage and peppers sandwich for lunch. I suggest Pepto-Bismol.
-
The problem with such Internet "research" is that literally anyone can put something up on the WWW, no matter how outlandish, how unsupportable, how just plain idiotic, and the search engines will crawl it and index it and present it as a search result next to articles that are fully reported and vetted. So you relied on your gut instinct to inform you.
What my research informed me is that there are lots of people questioning the claims that no one set foot on the moon. I'm just trying to understand why. What called my attention is that many of those who now question are not ignorant people like in the past.
Also, no independent observers were present at the event to confirm the claim of the landing, no one was capable of repeating the feat, not even the US, after 50 years, with all the immense advancements in technology that we had since then. All the details related to the construction of the spacecrafts that landed on the moon and the flight plans are classified, preventing any peer review.
This can't be denied by NASA.
The problem is that your gut isn't telling you that the moon landing was faked.
My gut is telling me that if the moon landing was faked, it will make no difference today. Who cares?
My gut is also telling me that there are a bunch of people who really get upset at the minimum suggestion of it not being true, and think that any public discussion where the hypothesis of it not having happened is posed is trolling or worse.
I believe that the landing happened, but I am prepared to accept if it is proved it didn't.
So, if you please, do not try to muzzle those who would like to discuss it.
It's telling you that perhaps you shouldn't have had that hot sausage and peppers sandwich for lunch. I suggest Pepto-Bismol.
Sorry for your indigestion.
-
it seems impossible to fool everyone,
Precisely.
-
I believe that the landing happened, but I am prepared to accept if it is proved it didn't.
So prove that it didn't, or quit blathering nonsense. There is an insurmountable pile of evidence clearly showing that it happened, it's not a matter of belief, it's just obvious and the only people claiming it didn't are nutjobs who see "evidence" of their wacky belief everywhere. There's as much proof that men walked on the moon as there is proof that we have sent rovers to Mars, or divers to the deep sea, or satellites into low earth orbit. What more is there to even discuss on the matter? Many thousands of people were involved in the effort which was one of the most monumental projects in the history of the nation. Hundreds of companies designed and built equipment, there is mountains of documentation, thousands of artifacts surviving from the missions, various bits of hardware from the rockets still orbiting the earth, images of some of the landing sites that remain on the moon along with a retroreflector placed there by the astronauts. Thousands of civilians watched the launches in person, millions watched the earlier flights live on TV. There is an absolutely massive amount of evidence that it all happened exactly as claimed and if someone managed to fake that I would find the faking a far more impressive feat than actually going there.
Any claims to it being fake constitute extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, of which nothing of the sort has been presented. All I see here is someone who wasn't alive when the moon missions took place, going on and on about a fictional movie as if that movie produced as entertainment is some sort of documentary or is in any way useful in learning about the actual events.
-
Good summary of the information for. One important piece that you did not mention is the tracking of radio and telemetry by many amateurs in many nation's. About the only way I can think of to fake those signals is to perform a lunar mission. Just as hard as doing it for real.
-
So prove that it didn't,
I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm interested in discussing what the OP proposed: the apparent non viability of landing two people on the moon in 1969.
or quit blathering nonsense.
Is this censorship?
There's as much proof that men walked on the moon as there is proof that we have sent rovers to Mars, or divers to the deep sea, or satellites into low earth orbit. What more is there to even discuss on the matter? Many thousands of people were involved in the effort which was one of the most monumental projects in the history of the nation. Hundreds of companies designed and built equipment, there is mountains of documentation, thousands of artifacts surviving from the missions, various bits of hardware from the rockets still orbiting the earth, images of some of the landing sites that remain on the moon along with a retroreflector placed there by the astronauts. Thousands of civilians watched the launches in person, millions watched the earlier flights live on TV.
The amount of junk we've been dumping into space is a proof that two people set foot on the moon in 1969?
There is an absolutely massive amount of evidence that it all happened exactly as claimed and if someone managed to fake that I would find the faking a far more impressive feat than actually going there.
Much more impressive, cheaper and safer.
Any claims to it being fake constitute extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, of which nothing of the sort has been presented.
If we were trying to prove something, we would go for the evidence. But we just want to discuss the aforementioned issues. Is that against the ethos of the forum? Is this kind of discussion a taboo among the members?
All I see here is someone who wasn't alive when the moon missions took place
I saw it live. (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/did-us-astronaut-land-on-the-moon-for-real/msg2058340/#msg2058340) Twenty years later I've been to the Kennedy Space Center on vacation. Its recorded in VHS. Do you wanna see the footage?
We were bombarded with news and articles on magazines, newspapers, books, tv, radio for years on end. I especially remember the high res photos like the one showed by the OP.
We expected that soon we'd be traveling to space, the moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, but the years came and went and the space age came to an end, until trips to the moon became a joke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAXQNwTRRTQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAXQNwTRRTQ)
, going on and on about a fictional movie as if that movie produced as entertainment is some sort of documentary or is in any way useful in learning about the actual events.
The film raised questions, can't we discuss them?
-
So prove that it didn't,
I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm interested in discussing what the OP proposed: the apparent non viability of landing two people on the moon in 1969.
or quit blathering nonsense.
Is this censorship?
1) you are blathering nonsense.
2) you are being silly asking if this is censorship. That is the kind of argument raised by people who are more or less subtly trolling - as a means of trying to continue the conversation by deflecting it down pointless alleys.
, going on and on about a fictional movie as if that movie produced as entertainment is some sort of documentary or is in any way useful in learning about the actual events.
The film raised questions, can't we discuss them?
Of course you can, but - like all other forums - this forum has a particular bias. This forum is very open to people who ask well-meaning but ignorant questions, and who listen to the responses. But away-with-the-faeries propositions are called such, and it becomes tiresome when people continue to advocate them beyond reason.
I'm sure you can find a "conspiracy-theories-r-us" forum which will welcome and support such nonsense.
-
Of course you can, but - like all other forums - this forum has a particular bias. This forum is very open to people who ask well-meaning but ignorant questions, and who listen to the responses. But away-with-the-faeries propositions are called such, and it becomes tiresome when people continue to advocate them beyond reason.
I'm sure you can find a "conspiracy-theories-r-us" forum which will welcome and support such nonsense.
I understand. Well-meaning ignorant questions. No conspiracies. So two people somehow landed on the moon in 1969. That's an unquestionable truth. Can we discuss what were the safety measures taken in case the LM didn't land exactly vertically? I mean, let's suppose it toppled on landing. How could the astronauts be rescued? Was there a backup space ship? I am sure such a question was raised by the engineers who designed the LM.
-
Of course you can, but - like all other forums - this forum has a particular bias. This forum is very open to people who ask well-meaning but ignorant questions, and who listen to the responses. But away-with-the-faeries propositions are called such, and it becomes tiresome when people continue to advocate them beyond reason.
I'm sure you can find a "conspiracy-theories-r-us" forum which will welcome and support such nonsense.
I understand. Well-meaning ignorant questions. No conspiracies. So two people somehow landed on the moon in 1969. That's an unquestionable truth. Can we discuss what were the safety measures taken in case the LM didn't land exactly vertically? I mean, let's suppose it toppled on landing. How could the astronauts be rescued? Was there a backup space ship? I am sure such a question was raised by the engineers who designed the LM.
Those appear to be no more than random questions thought up on the spur of the moment. The answers are everythimg practical, no, no, yes.
A well-meaning question implies that some basic research has been done. There's no indication you have bothered to do that.
Use google to find the real and definitive answers to your questions. Unless of course, all you want is to continue uninformed speculation with people.
To misquote a contemporary film, "I'm sorry bsfeechannel, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore".
-
Use google to find the real and definitive answers to your questions.
After all, why do we need a forum?
-
Use google to find the real and definitive answers to your questions.
After all, why do we need a forum?
For discussion of topics and questions that cannot be trivially found on this website (http://lmgtfy.com/). Or maybe, to ask a question that usenet greybeards will remember fondly, you think "what time is it?" is a good question. Hint: about 35 years ago that was used to stop people asking questions they could easily answer themselves.
Unfounded conspiracy theories can be discussed on many other forums and websites.
-
no one was capable of repeating the feat, not even the US, after 50 years, with all the immense advancements in technology that we had since then. All the details related to the construction of the spacecrafts that landed on the moon and the flight plans are classified, preventing any peer review
I find it shocking that after all this disscusion, you still don't know that there were several manned missions to the moon. So, what's the point of further discussion?
So much secrecy... ::) https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11 (https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11)
Oh. Look: a retrospective on the flight to the moon. Interesting: https://history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/Apollo.html (https://history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/Apollo.html)
More interesting Apollo information: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/main.html (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/main.html)
-
As I said earlier in the thread, this is an ongoing discussion between me and my scientific / engineering friends here in Germany.
And yes, there is plenty of evidence that the USA put an Astronaut on the moon in 1969.
(I was alive and watched it with my dad in Germany)
But the reason, why we have this discussion in the first place is that there are scientific inconsistencies and those can not be discussed away.
We might never find out the truth.
-
The film raised questions, can't we discuss them?
I was just about to ask, if they really did go to the moon, then where is all the cheese...
-
As I said earlier in the thread, this is an ongoing discussion between me and my scientific / engineering friends here in Germany.
Here someone points to various engineering related conundrums:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKbFPgUlYZufEraOs8rFktQ/videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKbFPgUlYZufEraOs8rFktQ/videos)
-
For starts, Columbus was not Italian. There was a documentary researching this subject. There were no records of such a family in his alleged home town. His humble origens are refuted by his writings that suggest a well schooled Spanish education. His brother married into the Portugese nobility. In that era, peasant stock did not get into the highest of the upper classes on merit. There is not a shred of proof connecting Columbus to Italy.
The reason nobody went back to the Moon is because it was an incredibly expensive venture staged at a time when the USSR seemed to be way ahead in the space race at the height of the cold war. Landing on the Moon was way to restore US pride and credibility. Everybody likes a good conspiracy story from space aliens to Elvis is still alive, to Hitler survived to airplanes did not brig down the twin towers to LHO did not shoot Kennedy. I worked on the Lunar Module program. We went to the Moon.At 02:56 UTC July 21, 1969.
After watching First Man:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213641/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213641/)
I was disappointed to see some lack of enginnering details and a lot romance in it. I was expectiong something like the Martian with much more "realistic" technical discussions.
Anyway I started to think about the technical problems they needed to solve/manage, and the more I think the more I got pushed in the "never happened" bucket.
When an Italian like me, with spanish money, discovered America we returned to that land more and more. Do they never went back to the moon? Not even once?
In my heart I believe a man was walking on the moon, but my brain is still not 100% convinced. It seems technically impossible. Please help.
PS: Am I becoming like a flat earth guy? :scared:
PPS: Any good book I can read on this topic?
This pictures still just fascinate me:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/43/1280x759/gallery-1509129338-1280px-aldrin-apollo-11-crop.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
After all, why do we need a forum?
For discussion of topics and questions that cannot be trivially found on this website (http://lmgtfy.com/).
:phew: What a relief! Because you know, if the forums stop discussing, how can Google find the information it needs to index?
I find it shocking that after all this disscusion, you still don't know that there were several manned missions to the moon.
Holy crap, really!? When I've been to the Kennedy Space Center they concealed that information from me. Those bastards! You see? It's all a hoax.
But the reason, why we have this discussion in the first place is that there are scientific inconsistencies and those can not be discussed away.
You can only do it privately. Discussing it on a public forum is taboo. I hope this thread can help mitigate a little bit of that.
We might never find out the truth.
Maybe that's the (provisional) truth.
-
As I said earlier in the thread, this is an ongoing discussion between me and my scientific / engineering friends here in Germany.
And yes, there is plenty of evidence that the USA put an Astronaut on the moon in 1969.
(I was alive and watched it with my dad in Germany)
But the reason, why we have this discussion in the first place is that there are scientific inconsistencies and those can not be discussed away.
We might never find out the truth.
Come on, it doesn't work that way!
The people on this site are EEs & Technicians, & yes, the odd scientist , medico & so on.
We are not easily terrified by "scientific inconsistencies" :scared:.
Hit us with your science, we can take it!
-
As I said earlier in the thread, this is an ongoing discussion between me and my scientific / engineering friends here in Germany.
Here someone points to various engineering related conundrums:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKbFPgUlYZufEraOs8rFktQ/videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKbFPgUlYZufEraOs8rFktQ/videos)
Yeah!
This guys calls himself " Aerospace Engineer"--- If he is that, then I'm the Pope!
Just more silly conspiracy theory crap!
-
But think about the odds. What if something went wrong and they got stranded there, without any possibility of rescue? Do you think the US would risk turning the moon forever into a tomb? Into the place of a tragic historical event?
I think you might be missing a big point about the culture of the US.
We are a country of risk-takers. And it used to be that it was expected that lives would be lost in the pursuit of progress (nowadays, it's not expected, but we still understand that sometimes it happens in the pursuit of progress). We lost 3 astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire, and it only strengthened the desire to go to the moon. We lost the crews of Challenger and Columbia. And throughout it all, it only caused a harder push to do things better and persevere.
To get a glimpse of this, please read Nixon's prepared speech another poster linked to: https://www.space.com/26604-apollo-11-failure-nixon-speech.html (https://www.space.com/26604-apollo-11-failure-nixon-speech.html)
This shows the attitude which is prevalent in the US.
One other way to think about this is to replace the word 'Tomb' with 'Monument' in your question. That is: "Do you think the US would risk turning the moon forever into a monument?" This is probably closer to what most Americans would have thought about the moon if it had ended up being the final resting spot of one or more Astronauts.
-
(...) I worked on the Lunar Module program. We went to the Moon (...)
Thank you for posting here. I think I have a million questions for you. :D
I would absolutely love to hear a proper Podcast on the topic, describing things such as the technical challenges, the project management of such a unique event, the unforeseen issues you had to face, etc.
Maybe Dave is interested as well?
-
The manned mission to the Moon was expected to be very difficult, that was the reason Kennedy chose it as something that could beat the Soviets while giving the US time to catch up.
At the (more or less) same time he (Kennedy) suggested join cooperation with Soviets for a moon expedition
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4209/ch2-4.htm (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4209/ch2-4.htm)
You've misinterpreted that. The proposal for cooperation came from the Soviets, after their own manned Moon mission was abandoned. Obviously, the USA had to consider the proposal, they would have quite liked to nosy around Soviet facilities, but ultimately after having found sufficient "technical reasons" they rejected the proposal.
The goal of the USA was to demonstrate their superiority, cooperation was never on the cards until much later. The US said they went to the Moon for all mankind, but they made sure to plant a US flag there.
-
Most crazy beliefs are a symptom of psychiatric illness.
Not really. Billions of people believe in a supernatural being they call "God". That is clearly crazy. Usually people use the term "crazy" to mean an irrational belief not shared by the rest of the population. If everyone shares a crazy belief, that is defined as "normal". :) In fact, there is a correlation between belief in religion and belief in conspiracy theories.
Humans are basically highly prone to irrational beliefs. There might be some evolutionary reasons behind that, for example, a rustling in the bushes could just be the wind, but it might also be a tiger.
The only interesting thing about Moon landing denial is that it shows how stupid humans are, when we can't agree on something that is undeniably true. If even recent events are denied, we probably can't trust any reports of current or historic events.
-
Not really. Billions of people believe in a supernatural being they call "God". That is clearly crazy. Usually people use the term "crazy" to mean an irrational belief not shared by the rest of the population.
So Cooper and Aldrin are crazy and irrational? I doubt that even most rabid flat earthers would imply something like that.
-
So Cooper and Aldrin are crazy and irrational? I doubt that even most rabid flat earthers would imply something like that.
So you're saying believing in something for which there is no proof is not crazy or at least irrational?
-
So you're saying believing in something for which there is no proof is not crazy or at least irrational?
http://www.msana.com/religion.asp (http://www.msana.com/religion.asp)
Freemasonry /.../ requires of its members a belief in God as part of the obligation of every responsible adult
-
http://www.msana.com/religion.asp (http://www.msana.com/religion.asp)
Freemasonry /.../ requires of its members a belief in God as part of the obligation of every responsible adult
So you were saying that believing in something for which there is no proof is crazy or at least irrational. I'm glad we agree.
-
The manned mission to the Moon was expected to be very difficult, that was the reason Kennedy chose it as something that could beat the Soviets while giving the US time to catch up.
At the (more or less) same time he (Kennedy) suggested join cooperation with Soviets for a moon expedition
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4209/ch2-4.htm (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4209/ch2-4.htm)
You've misinterpreted that. The proposal for cooperation came from the Soviets, after their own manned Moon mission was abandoned.
Well, here is another link... did I misinterpret this again?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/john-f-kennedy-and-nasa (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/john-f-kennedy-and-nasa)
At his June 3-4, 1961 summit meeting in Vienna with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, Kennedy suggested, “Why don’t we do it together?”
IMHO, Soviet Moon program was on a way to collapse after Khrushchev "retired" (1964) and Korolev - passed away (1966)...
-
We went to the Moon.
Who’s “We,” Paleface? (https://www.socialmatter.net/2014/05/21/whos-we-paleface/) :)
-
So you were saying that believing in something for which there is no proof is crazy or at least irrational. I'm glad we agree.
I expressed no direct opinion on the subject. However I do find little funny how worldview of space aces and some of their fans seem to be quite different.
https://noetic.org/earthrise/about/overview (https://noetic.org/earthrise/about/overview)
EarthRise at IONS is a conscious living center that provides a gathering place to explore ancient wisdom traditions, supports experiential learning, and engages in modern scientific inquiry. EarthRise at IONS has become a place where psychologists, educators, leaders, philosophers, frontier scientists, and spiritual masters conduct their work.
/.../
The vision for creating the Institute of Noetic Sciences came in 1971 when IONS’ founder Dr. Edgar Mitchell landed on the moon as one of the Apollo 14 astronauts. Space exploration symbolized for Dr. Mitchell what it did for his nation as a whole—technological triumph of historical proportions, unprecedented mastery of the world in which we live, and extraordinary potentials for new discoveries.
On the trip home Dr. Mitchell sat in the window seat of the cramped cabin of the space capsule; and as he saw Earth floating freely in the vastness of space, Dr. Mitchell was engulfed by a profound sense of universal connectedness. He stated, “On the return trip home, gazing through 240,000 miles of space toward the stars and the planet from which I had come, I suddenly experienced the universe as intelligent, loving, harmonious. My view of our planet was a glimpse of divinity. We went to the Moon as technicians; we returned as humanitarians.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sensorium/201803/real-magic (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sensorium/201803/real-magic)
Dean Radin, Ph.D., has pursued the most mind-boggling fringes of science — ESP, telepathy, and other wonders — earnestly and with excellence for decades. He is the chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) in Petaluma, CA, a next-level research and educational organization founded by the late astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell. Dr. Radin also worked on the United States government's top-secret psychic espionage program, known as Star Gate.
Since already established that Cooper, Aldrin, Mitchell were responsible adults - heres some more:
http://freemasoninformation.com/masonic-education/famous/masonic-astronauts/ (http://freemasoninformation.com/masonic-education/famous/masonic-astronauts/)
-
I expressed no direct opinion on the subject. However I do find little funny how worldview of space aces and some of their fans seem to be quite different.
Since already established that Cooper, Aldrin, Mitchell were responsible adults - heres some more:
Don't worry, your intent was clear. The omission of something is an expression too.
-
Don't worry, your intent was clear. The omission of something is an expression too.
My intent was correct lack of basic knowledge about the people involved and event - it was not endeavour of purely technical importance. Not to mention some here calling responsible people under obligations crazy... clearly points to some grave misunderstandings about to world we live in.
-
My intent was correct lack of basic knowledge about the people involved and event - it was not endeavour of purely technical importance. Not to mention some here calling responsible people under obligations crazy... clearly points to some grave misunderstandings about to world we live in.
So, once more. Is believing in something for which there is no proof crazy, or at least irrational?
-
We went to the Moon.
Who’s “We,” Paleface? (https://www.socialmatter.net/2014/05/21/whos-we-paleface/) :)
If you worked on the lander, you were part of the team that got to the Moon and get to say "we". I loathe people who didn't contribute anything talking about "we", but if you were on the actual team I'd say you've earned it. This isn't exactly a sportsball fan claiming a victory he did nothing for to include himself.
-
So, once more. Is believing in something for which there is no proof crazy, or at least irrational?
Can you prove that no one has proof or at least no rational motivation to oblige people with responsibilities to believe?
-
But think about the odds. What if something went wrong and they got stranded there, without any possibility of rescue? Do you think the US would risk turning the moon forever into a tomb? Into the place of a tragic historical event?
The moon, let me remind you, is not a distant land or a lost point in a starry night. It appears prominently in the sky and is visible around the whole world.
If you really want to play this card, then:
Do you really think that the US would risk the creation of a totally fake space program that would be pretty much instantaneously found out by the USSR (and/or others eventually)? The USSR would rub the US nose in it for decades and US citizens would be too ashamed to even look up during the night.
-
Can you prove that no one has proof or at least no rational motivation to oblige people with responsibilities to believe?
Please take a moment to evaluate what you're trying to ask me and rephrase it in a sensible way. Ambiguous and confused questions lead to answers of the same nature.
Meanwhile you keep dodging a very simple and unambiguous question, probably because you don't like the answer to it. Is believing in something for which there is no proof crazy, or at least irrational?
-
Please take a moment to evaluate what you're trying to ask me and rephrase it in a sensible way. Ambiguous and confused questions lead to answers of the same nature.
Do you have access to full knowledge of whole humanity?
Meanwhile you keep dodging a very simple and unambiguous question, probably because you don't like the answer to it. Is believing in something for which there is no proof crazy, or at least irrational?
Thing is question is not simple at all. Simplest answer is perhaps it depends on that something:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes
-
Do you have access to full knowledge of whole humanity?
Thing is question is not simple at all. Simplest answer is perhaps it depends on that something:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes
The answer to your question is obviously "no". The answer to my question is obviously "yes". It seems you insist on doing what you did in the water dowsing thread not all that long ago. You bob and weave and throw up smoke screens and distractions, everything and anything to avoid answering questions you know would hurt your narrative or world view. It's possible we'll see the same outcome here too.
After nearly a dozen posts we finally have answer. Believing in something for which there is no proof is crazy, or at least irrational. It's nearly the exact definition of the word "irrational": "not endowed with reason or understanding, lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence, not using reason or clear thinking".
-
Please take a moment to evaluate what you're trying to ask me and rephrase it in a sensible way. Ambiguous and confused questions lead to answers of the same nature.
Do you have access to full knowledge of whole humanity?
Why answer a question when you can ask another one?
Meanwhile you keep dodging a very simple and unambiguous question, probably because you don't like the answer to it. Is believing in something for which there is no proof crazy, or at least irrational?
Thing is question is not simple at all. Simplest answer is perhaps it depends on that something:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes
Presumably your Jungian archetype is the trickster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster
-
Do you have access to full knowledge of whole humanity?
Thing is question is not simple at all. Simplest answer is perhaps it depends on that something:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes
The answer to your question is obviously "no". The answer to my question is obviously "yes". It seems you insist on doing what you did in the water dowsing thread not all that long ago. You bob and weave and throw up smoke screens and distractions, everything and anything to avoid answering questions you know would hurt your narrative or world view. Maybe we'll see the same outcome here too.
After nearly a dozen posts we finally have answer. Believing in something for which there is no proof is crazy, or at least irrational. It's nearly the exact definition of the word "irrational": "not endowed with reason or understanding, lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence, not using reason or clear thinking".
In this thread I am having difficulty distinguishing MrW0lf from a timewasting troll; maybe others have less difficulty. Talking of "same outcomes", ISTR a MrWolf was previously banned from this forum.
-
The answer to your question is obviously "no". The answer to my question is obviously "yes".
Now if you think about it a little might find that you have no real proof of most things you believe in, yet believe in contrary.
BTW heres interesting viewpoint on belief in God ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).
-
Now if you think about it a little might find that you have no real proof of most things you believe in, yet believe in contrary.
BTW heres interesting viewpoint on belief in God ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager)
You tried arguing something very similar in the infamous water dowsing thread without much success. Casting doubt on everything because you can't convince people of your convictions due to lack of any real evidence isn't a viable strategy. It's essentially the "fake news" approach repackaged. Let's not get into the same fruitless discussion again and let's not devolve this thread into the same mess that one was.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?u=124811 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?u=124811)
-
You tried arguing something very similar in the infamous water dowsing thread without much success.
Sometimes even little success maybe be of use for something. Anyway, if mindgames are too stressful for you then fine by me. And no need to mix it all up. Banning was due to "scope wars" 2 years ago. Story long forgotten since even Rigols now have "useless" full memory measurements and decoding. ;)
-
Not really. Billions of people believe in a supernatural being they call "God". That is clearly crazy. Usually people use the term "crazy" to mean an irrational belief not shared by the rest of the population.
So Cooper and Aldrin are crazy and irrational? I doubt that even most rabid flat earthers would imply something like that.
On that particular topic, yes I would say they are. There are a very large number of intelligent and otherwise quite sane people who earnestly believe there is a magical man in the sky who created everything, and that their magical man in the sky is real and every one of the hundreds of other magical beings other humans have earnestly believed in are not real. And that this magical man has to exist because the universe is far too complex to have been spontaneously created, and yet a magical being capable of creating everything was spontaneously created, it's pretty hard to call this rational with a straight face. It certainly seems to be hardwired in the human mind though.
-
I think you might be missing a big point about the culture of the US.
We are a country of risk-takers. And it used to be that it was expected that lives would be lost in the pursuit of progress (nowadays, it's not expected, but we still understand that sometimes it happens in the pursuit of progress). We lost 3 astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire, and it only strengthened the desire to go to the moon. We lost the crews of Challenger and Columbia. And throughout it all, it only caused a harder push to do things better and persevere.
To get a glimpse of this, please read Nixon's prepared speech another poster linked to: https://www.space.com/26604-apollo-11-failure-nixon-speech.html (https://www.space.com/26604-apollo-11-failure-nixon-speech.html)
This shows the attitude which is prevalent in the US.
One other way to think about this is to replace the word 'Tomb' with 'Monument' in your question. That is: "Do you think the US would risk turning the moon forever into a monument?" This is probably closer to what most Americans would have thought about the moon if it had ended up being the final resting spot of one or more Astronauts.
Thank you for enlightening me about the culture of the US. By the way, according to the dictionary a tomb is a monument.
Semantics aside, finally someone decided to answer one of my questions without quibbling. Of course, I have a lot more.
If the astronauts where expected to die on the moon, why bother bringing them back?
As for the Challenger accident, which I also saw live and is not a particularly pleasant memory, why did an investigation ensue? Why not just erect a mausoleum to their memory and let it be?
Why did Richard Feynman, member of the Rogers Commission entrusted with the investigation, attack NASA's "safety culture" by concluding that the estimates of reliability offered by NASA management were wildly unrealistic, differing as much as a thousandfold from the estimates of working engineers, and "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."?
Source: Wikipedia, Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.
Did he say that because NASA lost an expensive spacecraft? What did he mean by "reality must take precedence over public relations"? Did he mean that at NASA there is a precedence of bullshit over engineering? What did he mean by "nature cannot be fooled"? Did he imply that since NASA can't fool nature, they fool people instead, just to appear fanciful in the eyes of the public? Since he mentioned "culture", and Neil Armstrong was the vice-chairman, did he hint us that this is an ongoing practice since the times of the landings on the moon?
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
-
Sometimes even little success maybe be of use for something. Anyway, if mindgames are too stressful for you then fine by me. And no need to mix it all up. Banning was due to "scope wars" 2 years ago. Story long forgotten since even Rigols now have "useless" full memory measurements and decoding. ;)
I'd say we've played enough "mindgames" for a couple of lifetimes.
-
In this thread I am having difficulty distinguishing MrW0lf from a timewasting troll; maybe others have less difficulty. Talking of "same outcomes", ISTR a MrWolf was previously banned from this forum.
For clarity MrW0lf = MrWolf (same guy). MrWolf remains a banned account.
-
Why did Richard Feynman, member of the Rogers Commission entrusted with the investigation, attack NASA's "safety culture" by concluding that the estimates of reliability offered by NASA management were wildly unrealistic, differing as much as a thousandfold from the estimates of working engineers, and "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."?
Source: Wikipedia, Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.
Did he say that because NASA lost an expensive spacecraft? What did he mean by "reality must take precedence over public relations"? Did he mean that at NASA there is a precedence of bullshit over engineering? What did he mean by "nature cannot be fooled"? Did he imply that since NASA can't fool nature, they fool people instead, just to appear fanciful in the eyes of the public? Since he mentioned "culture", and Neil Armstrong was the vice-chairman, did he hint us that this is an ongoing practice since the times of the landings on the moon?
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Start here:
"Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster" by Allan J. McDonald.
https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Lies-Rings-Challenger-Disaster/dp/0813041937 (https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Lies-Rings-Challenger-Disaster/dp/0813041937)
-
Start here:
"Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster" by Allan J. McDonald.
https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Lies-Rings-Challenger-Disaster/dp/0813041937 (https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Lies-Rings-Challenger-Disaster/dp/0813041937)
Thank you. That answers a lot of questions, but one still remains unanswered. If the astronauts where expected to die on the moon, why bother bringing them back?
-
who said they were expected to die on the moon. It was simply a distinct possibility. You don't get international credit for sending people on a pointless one way mission.
-
Ah! So, their lives matter, don't they? (I was afraid of concluding, by the posts on this thread, that the US was a nation of "kamikazes" and "suicide bombers", and no regard for their safe return was considered.) This is in total accordance with the memories I had about the Apollo missions way back then. Particularly striking to me at the time was this photo, showing commander Philip Eldredge Jerauld (at microphone), ship's chaplain for U.S.S. Iwo Jima, offering a prayer of thanks for the safe return of the Apollo 13 crew members (the three guys in the center of the picture) soon after they arrived aboard the recovery ship.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Apollo_13_Crew_on_Deck_-_GPN-2000-001318.jpg/1024px-Apollo_13_Crew_on_Deck_-_GPN-2000-001318.jpg)
Source: Wikipedia
-
Instructions for adding someone to your ignore list:
1) Scroll to the top if needed, and click on "Profile"
2) Hover over "Modify Profile", go down to "Buddies/Ignore List...", then click on "Edit Ignore List"
3) Click on the entry field under Add to Ignore List
4) Type a name until it matches a unique member, then click on that name
5) Click Add.
Yes, it's awkward enough that someone has to be a consistent and active troll for me to go to the effort.
It's also hidden enough that many people don't know it's there.
Just thought you'd like to know.
-
Start here:
"Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster" by Allan J. McDonald.
https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Lies-Rings-Challenger-Disaster/dp/0813041937 (https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Lies-Rings-Challenger-Disaster/dp/0813041937)
Thank you. That answers a lot of questions, but one still remains unanswered. If the astronauts where expected to die on the moon, why bother bringing them back?
Obviously, they were not expected to die on the Moon, so your question is nonsense.
You have pushed this narrative throughout the thread, then in pure "Von Daniken" fashion, asked a question which presupposes that your original contention is correct.
-
Oh what a bunch of silly "people/nations wouldn't risk it" b.s.
Some people should read some mountaineering books, or early polar exploration. The risks were much the same - they might achieve something largely symbolic for Queen and Country, but they were just as likely to die trying.
Manned spaceflight was only a few years after Everest was first successfully climbed...
Maybe an Everest Conspiracy exists too - does Mallory still count since they found the body 75 years after he disappeared?
-
Soldiers going to war are every bit as likely to die (if probably more likely), and there have probably been hundreds of millions of them in history. You may reply that they were usually forced to. But many people risk their lives during work, hobby or doing extreme sports. Obviously this point makes no sense.
What can make this question at least worth asking is not about what could have made the fact impossible, which are just hypotheses and opinions, or on the opposite side, what could have made it possible, but the fact that all experimental proofs (images, videos, rock samples, testimonies, etc.) pretty much all came from only one source (the NASA) and that the experiment, even though reproduced by the NASA several times during the Apollo missions, was never reproduced by any other institution that we know of. On a scientific level, that makes it naturally questionable, as you need to resort to trust to accept it as a fact.
Of course most of the theories out there that state this never happened don't hold any more scientific value. Some have a few seemingly interesting arguments, but they are just hypotheses. Not facts. They are basically based on the opposite side of the same coin, mistrust. Mistrust is a state of mind, an opinion, not a fact.
Just a thought.
-
Soldiers going to war are every bit as likely to die (if probably more likely), and there have probably been hundreds of millions of them in history. You may reply that they were usually forced to. But many people risk their lives during work, hobby or doing extreme sports. Obviously this point makes no sense.
What can make this question at least worth asking is not about what could have made the fact impossible, which are just hypotheses and opinions, or on the opposite side, what could have made it possible, but the fact that all experimental proofs (images, videos, rock samples, testimonies, etc.) pretty much all came from only one source (the NASA) and that the experiment, even though reproduced by the NASA several times during the Apollo missions, was never reproduced by any other institution that we know of. On a scientific level, that makes it naturally questionable, as you need to resort to trust to accept it as a fact.
Of course most of the theories out there that state this never happened don't hold any more scientific value. Some have a few seemingly interesting arguments, but they are just hypotheses. Not facts. They are basically based on the opposite side of the same coin, mistrust. Mistrust is a state of mind, an opinion, not a fact.
Just a thought.
Not all experimental proof comes from NASA. There's an extensive list on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
-
Ah! So, their lives matter, don't they? (I was afraid of concluding, by the posts on this thread, that the US was a nation of "kamikazes" and "suicide bombers", and no regard for their safe return was considered.) This is in total accordance with the memories I had about the Apollo missions way back then. Particularly striking to me at the time was this photo, showing commander Philip Eldredge Jerauld (at microphone), ship's chaplain for U.S.S. Iwo Jima, offering a prayer of thanks for the safe return of the Apollo 13 crew members (the three guys in the center of the picture) soon after they arrived aboard the recovery ship.
There's a big difference between deciding that the level of risk is worth it, knowing that there's a possibility of no return, and a suicide mission.
Police officers go out every day knowing that there is a non-zero chance that they won't be coming back. Military troops do the same, with an even greater chance of not coming back. And so does every astronaut, test pilot, firefighter, construction worker, and the like. Does that mean that these people are "kamikazes" or "suicide bombers"? I don't think so. I think they're brave people who take the risk for the greater good.
As I mentioned earlier, one has to remember that this happened during the cold *war*. The risks taken during wartime, in furtherance of the war effort, are often much higher than those acceptable during peacetime. Yes, they went to the moon on questionable hardware, and there was every chance that they weren't coming back. But that isn't at all the same as sending someone on a suicide mission. Go watch more stuff about Apollo, including several scenes in "First Man" and you'll discover that the statements were pretty consistent: They had every intention to come back, but they knew that there was no way to be 100% certain. And the people who were working on Apollo hardware wanted to be as certain as they could be that they were coming back. But, nothing is 100%, especially with unproven and arguably experimental hardware.
-
Soldiers going to war are every bit as likely to die (if probably more likely), and there have probably been hundreds of millions of them in history. You may reply that they were usually forced to. But many people risk their lives during work, hobby or doing extreme sports. Obviously this point makes no sense.
What can make this question at least worth asking is not about what could have made the fact impossible, which are just hypotheses and opinions, or on the opposite side, what could have made it possible, but the fact that all experimental proofs (images, videos, rock samples, testimonies, etc.) pretty much all came from only one source (the NASA) and that the experiment, even though reproduced by the NASA several times during the Apollo missions, was never reproduced by any other institution that we know of. On a scientific level, that makes it naturally questionable, as you need to resort to trust to accept it as a fact.
Of course most of the theories out there that state this never happened don't hold any more scientific value. Some have a few seemingly interesting arguments, but they are just hypotheses. Not facts. They are basically based on the opposite side of the same coin, mistrust. Mistrust is a state of mind, an opinion, not a fact.
Just a thought.
Reproducibility is a good concept in academic science. But it is being stretched all out of reason here. No organization other than a government has ever destroyed a city with a nuclear weapon. Nobody with a brain argues that it didn't happen since it hasn't been duplicated by another agency.
-
Not all experimental proof comes from NASA. There's an extensive list on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Thanks for pointing this out. A lot of these seem pretty "indirect" though, as far as I've seen. But again my point was not to debunk the proofs that were gathered. They may all be completely relevant. I'm just considering why it could be seen as lacking on a scientific level overall. Again, I'm not trying to get a definite opinion on this. I don't really care actually. I know what we have achieved as far as space exploration is concerned at this point, and that's all that really matters. There have been enough international space programs to reasonably remove any doubt about where we are now.
My point is just that questioning is never futile, especially when the matter is complex.
Questioning with the intent of getting certainties is dubious and of course not what I was talking about.
-
As I mentioned earlier, one has to remember that this happened during the cold *war*. The risks taken during wartime, in furtherance of the war effort, are often much higher than those acceptable during peacetime. Yes, they went to the moon on questionable hardware, and there was every chance that they weren't coming back. But that isn't at all the same as sending someone on a suicide mission. Go watch more stuff about Apollo, including several scenes in "First Man" and you'll discover that the statements were pretty consistent: They had every intention to come back, but they knew that there was no way to be 100% certain. And the people who were working on Apollo hardware wanted to be as certain as they could be that they were coming back. But, nothing is 100%, especially with unproven and arguably experimental hardware.
Perfect. That's what I thought. The mission was not to land on the moon with a slight possibility of coming back. The mission was to land there and come back alive. Their deaths in space or on the moon would have caused a great deal of undesired commotion and would certainly overshadow the whole endeavor.
Now that we agreed about that, we can start to discuss the safety measures that would have made it plausible.
-
As I mentioned earlier, one has to remember that this happened during the cold *war*. The risks taken during wartime, in furtherance of the war effort, are often much higher than those acceptable during peacetime. Yes, they went to the moon on questionable hardware, and there was every chance that they weren't coming back. But that isn't at all the same as sending someone on a suicide mission. Go watch more stuff about Apollo, including several scenes in "First Man" and you'll discover that the statements were pretty consistent: They had every intention to come back, but they knew that there was no way to be 100% certain. And the people who were working on Apollo hardware wanted to be as certain as they could be that they were coming back. But, nothing is 100%, especially with unproven and arguably experimental hardware.
Perfect. That's what I thought. The mission was not to land on the moon with a slight possibility of coming back. The mission was to land there and come back alive. Their deaths in space or on the moon would have caused a great deal of undesired commotion and would certainly overshadow the whole endeavor.
Now that we agreed about that, we can start to discuss the safety measures that would have made it plausible.
You can never be 100% sure of anything......drive to work, & you can have a fatal accident.
Many people drove all their lives in cars which did not have the safety equipment modern vehicles have.
Car accidents were still rare compared to safe trips carried out.
The same principle applies to travelling to the Moon.
You do everything you can to make the primary safety of the equipment the best you can, rather than spend time on special "safety" measures for the "one in a million" possibility.
After all, when you fly on an airline, they don't supply parachutes!
-
Not all experimental proof comes from NASA. There's an extensive list on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
When I visited the Kennedy Space Center, I had an eerie sensation that the moon in particular, and space in general had been privatized. Much like the Portuguese and the Spanish who divided the world in two equal parts in 1494 with the Treaty of Tordesillas to the exclusion of all other European nations for colonizing the non Christian lands. Although ignored later by the other nations, scars of this treaty can be seen in the maps of the world.
Given this precedent, it should be of no surprise if one day it come to light that those "independent" third parties had to sign an NDA.
Notwithstanding, the junk found on the moon doesn't mean someone landed there. In 1972, Lou Reed had a premonition:
Satellite's gone way up to Mars
Soon it'll be filled with parkin' cars
Up to now seven rovers have been dispatched there, and not a single terrestrial microbe had that chance.
-
"When I visited the Kennedy Space Center, I had an eerie sensation that the moon in particular, and space in general had been privatized."
Not yet, but when the first manned landing on Mars takes place and the spaceship is covered in the logos of the sponsoring companies you will know that we're at that point.
"Today the astronauts will be taking the Pepsi Mars Buggy to the Schiaparelli crater. This trip today is sponsored by Skittles, taste the rainbow! Now a word from our sponsors" :palm: :palm: :palm:
-
Now that we agreed about that, we can start to discuss the safety measures that would have made it plausible.
How about you doing some homework, by reading reputable sources. Reputable != denialist websites, written by ignoramuses (ignorami?) with an IQ that is too low to find and understand decent sources.
That will avoid us having to do your homework for you, might be the start of interesting discussions, and won't drag the average content of this forum downward.
-
The technology to send a man to the moon existed at that time, so let's all first agree that it was "plausible" to put a man on the moon in those years... Once we establish that, the only remaining discussion is, "did the USA had the MOTIVATION and MONEY to put a man on the moon?" And the answer to that is a resounding YES!
Nothing has advanced the level of science and technology like the space program. Many new technologies have been developed and many new inventions made. And that was the motivation.
The USA, the country with the largest GDP on earth, also no doubt had the money to do it.
-
But having said that, it isn't possible for an invidual or even an organization to conclusively prove that a man landed on the moon.
But a technologically well off government can prove it. The only thing that needs to be done is, send a powerful laser beam to the surface of the moon at the right moment and watch for the reflection of it coming from a mirror that was placed there by the Apollo crew. There is no other plausible explanation for this reflection other than a mirror on the moon surface.
So maybe some governments checked this, and after getting the reflection, know that the moon landing was real and don't challenge the USA about it being fake. And maybe others haven't even bothered, because they know that all necessary technology existed at that time, so moon landing was plausible.
-
Perfect. That's what I thought. The mission was not to land on the moon with a slight possibility of coming back. The mission was to land there and come back alive. Their deaths in space or on the moon would have caused a great deal of undesired commotion and would certainly overshadow the whole endeavor.
Now that we agreed about that, we can start to discuss the safety measures that would have made it plausible.
So, I think I'm almost done interacting with you at this point. It seems you've got this part down:
1) The mission was to land on the moon and bring them back alive.
2) The chances of #1 not succeeding was quite high, with one possible result being astronauts not coming home alive.
But it seems you're having a hard time understanding that this doesn't mean that it's not plausible that we would go. The *culture* of the US, especially at that time in our history, was such that the risk was not only deemed acceptable but also strengthened our support for the program. We knew that we might lose one or more astronauts. In fact, we lost three in the Apollo 1 accident, yet somehow it didn't create enough undesired commotion to derail the entire program. The reason is this underlying culture of risk taking and our belief that even after one or more setbacks, we'll continue to pursue our goals until we eventually succeed. Although we tend to be a bit more risk-adverse in some areas, this culture is still alive and well today. I don't think this is specific to the US, but it is definitely a big part of our culture.
I'd continue to try to explain, but it seems that you're also choosing (purposefully or not) to try to twist everyone's facts to make them fit your supposition. In particular, the last portion of your statement above seems to use a well known method of attempting to win an argument not supported by the facts, that is, take a set of facts, state them in the way most favorable to your position, and then use them to make a statement which isn't accurate and isn't supported by the facts. I apologize if I misinterpreted this but that's the way I see it.
I'm open to changing my views if you can show actual facts which support your viewpoint. But I'm not particularly interested in continuing a discussion where it seems that the other party isn't really interested in learning or discussing the actual facts and what they mean. Or presenting any facts to support their viewpoint.
So, thanks for the discussion but I think I'm done.
-
Some people should read some mountaineering books, or early polar exploration.
Good call. Roald Amundsen, with four companions, were the first men to reach the geographic south pole. Amundsen wrote:
I may say that this is the greatest factor—the way in which the expedition is equipped—the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order—luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck.
Like landing on the moon, Amundsen faced accusations of fraud. He also had a photograph to show:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/At_the_South_Pole%2C_December_1911.jpg)
That could have been taken anywhere. But the similarities with the evidence of people landing on the moon end there. The rival team of Robert F. Scott arrived at the south pole five weeks later and found the tent left by Amundsen with a letter and some supplies, and took this picture:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Robert_F._Scott_at_Polheim.JPG)
No doubt. Amundsen was there. Unfortunately, Scott and his team died on the way back, which as you could imagine was the cause of commotion and overshadowed Amundsen's feat at the time.
-
But a technologically well off government can prove it. The only thing that needs to be done is, send a powerful laser beam to the surface of the moon at the right moment and watch for the reflection of it coming from a mirror that was placed there by the Apollo crew. There is no other plausible explanation for this reflection other than a mirror on the moon surface.
US University:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mlszp (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mlszp)
France OCA:
https://aas.aanda.org/articles/aas/pdf/1998/11/ds1427.pdf (https://aas.aanda.org/articles/aas/pdf/1998/11/ds1427.pdf)
China:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/24/c_136920571.htm (http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/24/c_136920571.htm)
-
US University:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mlszp (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mlszp)
France OCA:
https://aas.aanda.org/articles/aas/pdf/1998/11/ds1427.pdf (https://aas.aanda.org/articles/aas/pdf/1998/11/ds1427.pdf)
China:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/24/c_136920571.htm (http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/24/c_136920571.htm)
Thanks for the links! The objective of placing those mirrors was for scientific measurements, but ironically today they have to be brought up in order to prove that man landed on the moon ;D
-
But it seems you're having a hard time understanding that this doesn't mean that it's not plausible that we would go.
OK. So forget the people. Let's suppose that instead of the astronauts, we want to send three robots to the moon, and land two of them. Suppose that they have the same ability to pilot the spacecrafts that the astronauts had. And since we want to ascertain the plausibility of the claim, our robots are programmed to "die" if they get submitted to a condition unsuitable to sustain human life.
Can we discuss the safety measures taken by the space program so as to bring our robots back intact?
So, thanks for the discussion but I think I'm done.
Well, I find it a victory that we've managed to maintain a discussion of such an apparently sensitive theme on this thread as civilized people. Other forums out there are not so lucky.
-
Well, I find it a victory that we've managed to maintain a discussion of such an apparently sensitive theme on this thread as civilized people. Other forums out there are not so lucky.
Me too, the topic was earmarked for potential deletion if it got out of hand but thus far has been pretty good.
-
Humans are basically highly prone to irrational beliefs...
...The only interesting thing about Moon landing denial is that it shows how stupid humans are, when we can't agree on something that is undeniably true. If even recent events are denied, we probably can't trust any reports of current or historic events.
Agreed.
You can pretty much disprove the conspiracy theories from the lunatic Illuminati believers and UFO fringe dwellers. Funny how we don't hear much about Chariots of the Gods these days except on B-grade Netlfix docos that incidentally bore me to tears. What happened to ESP? Buster Scruggs is more believable than anything an astrologer would make you believe. I actually met a bloke who ran a telephone astrology business. He admitted to me it there was no truth in it but he was making good money out of it. He justified his business by saying he was providing a good service to vulnerable people. He was selling :bullshit: to make money because he didn't have the brains to earn an honest living. A lower life form is those who speak to the dead at their much publicised shows, making money out of emotionally vulnerable people through charlatanism and trickery. There are no doubt some miraculous faith healing outcomes, but why doesn't the likes of Benny Hinn invite amputees to the stage to have them healed.
-
As much as those sort of people irritate me, I've come to realize that some people are just determined to believe, and will find a way to piss away their money on BS one way or another. If you manage to blow the cover on one BS artist, another will pop up to fill the demand. The responsibility lies on the individual to not be so gullible.
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-russian-influence-campaign-remains-so-hard-to-understand (https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-russian-influence-campaign-remains-so-hard-to-understand)
-
I can think of one way to prove that Armstrong & Aldrin landed in 1969, but the USA won't like it.
When*** the Chinese land on the moon they should have Tranquility Base as their aim point. Then, after landing, they walk up to the site and remove the Stars and Stripes, replacing it with the Chinese flag. The 'old' flag can then be returned to Earth.
This will have a number of effects...........
1 It should be simple to prove that the flag that was brought back had spent fifty years or so in a hard vacuum that also had a high UV content. So, proof that the landing in 1969 took place.
2 Because of what the Chinese did a new space race begins, and it doesn't end until mankind reaches the stars.
Well, we can all dream.
***When, not if.
-
We have independent photos of the Apollo hardware sitting on the surface of the Moon. I assume people are going to claim these may have been unmanned, but the room left for doubt is shrinking consistently. None of the third party observations seem to have shown anything which contradicts the official claims. If it's all an elaborate hoax, you have to wonder how far they went to fabricate the evidence. Land various craft capable of carrying men empty just in case anyone visited the sites later, however unlikely it seemed at the time? Sooner or later independent photos of tire tracks or foot prints are going to be made. Is there some theory about how those would be faked too?
Of course, much of the mission was based on our understanding of physics at the time. If the missions were made up, you'd expect some discrepancies to pop up as our understanding of physics in space improved. As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been the case. This only leaves room for the most far fetched "theories" of the Moon being a hologram and space launches being impossible and a hoax as rockets can't leave the atmosphere.
-
look, there are people that believe that the earth is flat and will nearly kill themselves in amateur rocket launches so that they can take a photo because they can't trust the entirety of the scientific community that has simply provided free to all the relevant information that the earth is round with no reason to lie.
We live in a society. Unlike in past millennia being smartish is no longer the minimum requirement to stay alive because societies infrastructure will keep you alive and now more than that even the stupid ones get to reproduce....
-
If something is technically possible and if there is a huge benefit in doing that thing, it will be a VERY safe bet to assume that somebody is doing it. You don't need a "smoking gun" type of proof for that.
For example, it is technically possible to use smart phones as surveillance devices and it has a huge benefit, so it is pretty much a certainty that somebody or some entity is doing that. You don't need to see actual surveillance information flowing out over the network link, or open ports listening, or hidden code in the firmware that wakes up under certain conditions.
Thus, given that the rocket science, orbit dynamics, and everything else that it takes to land on the mood was already available, and given all the expected benefits at the time, one would rather ask "why didn't the US put a man on the moon?" if the space program had been done in secrecy.
-
Not all experimental proof comes from NASA. There's an extensive list on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
When I visited the Kennedy Space Center, I had an eerie sensation that the moon in particular, and space in general had been privatized. Much like the Portuguese and the Spanish who divided the world in two equal parts in 1494 with the Treaty of Tordesillas to the exclusion of all other European nations for colonizing the non Christian lands. Although ignored later by the other nations, scars of this treaty can be seen in the maps of the world.
Given this precedent, it should be of no surprise if one day it come to light that those "independent" third parties had to sign an NDA.
Notwithstanding, the junk found on the moon doesn't mean someone landed there. In 1972, Lou Reed had a premonition:
Satellite's gone way up to Mars
Soon it'll be filled with parkin' cars
Up to now seven rovers have been dispatched there, and not a single terrestrial microbe had that chance.
Much of the evidence for the fact of the Moon Landings is from 1969 & the early '70s, when nobody would have known what an "NDA" was.
In any case, they are a poor protection, as a Congressional Investigation or a Royal Commission can turn your NDA into confetti any time they want to!
The "junk" had to get to the Moon somehow, which means transporting quite large pieces of equipment there, positioning them quite accurately, somehow make astronaut footprints, somehow drive the buggies around, all without leaving any evidence of artifice.
This would be hard to nearly impossible to do with today's technology, let alone that available in 1969.
NASA didn't know that they had such a long "breathing space" as it transpired they did.
For all they knew, a Soviet landing or even a manned orbiting mission could have "blown everything", so they somehow would have had to develop all this advanced automatic transport & equipment handling capability before the deadline set by JFK, whilst running a "fake" parallel Apollo program.
They then, in a huge rush, had to use it to plant Apollo 11 evidence, & continue to do the same thing in secret for all the other missions.
This is when the technology "wasn't good enough for a manned mission", according to your unsupported statement!
-
That's another good point, at the time people fully expected permanent moon bases to be in the near future and orbiting stations likely before that. Turned out there wasn't much point in a base on the moon so nobody ever bothered to build one. I do think it would be interesting to send a rover to the moon to check out the old landing sites up close. Wouldn't convince anyone who thinks it was fake but it would be interesting for the rest of us.
-
Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.
It seems it still may happen
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-wants-to-check-truth-of-1969-us-moon-landing/a-46441264] (https://www.dw.com/en/russia-wants-to-check-truth-of-1969-us-moon-landing/a-46441264) ::)
-
Sounds like the russia space program is trying to make ties where putin seems eager to break them.
-
Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.
It seems it still may happen
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-wants-to-check-truth-of-1969-us-moon-landing/a-46441264] (https://www.dw.com/en/russia-wants-to-check-truth-of-1969-us-moon-landing/a-46441264) ::)
I have some distant relatives where I know the father and daughters. The grandmother worked closely with Putin (so less than 6 degrees between me and Putin!).
The grandmother and mother both seriously believe the 1969 moon landings are only US propaganda.
-
Hey, I have many friends and relatives who believe in astrology. If people can do that, believing fake moon landings is a piece of cake.
-
Essentially we are talking IQ and education. People always have seek to have an explanation they don't like the unexplained. An explanation will come at any cost to rationality. With a lack of education people have very little reference framework to draw from to validate an idea and with less IQ are unlikely to be capable of working out truth from lies. Low IQ and lack of education tend to coincide and make one the most vulnerable to manipulation.
-
At great expense I have finally secured proof that man landed on the moon in July 1969. These pictures were taken by a third party and show clearly an astronaut leaving a lunar module and collecting rock samples.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oZzicGHvFE&index=15&list=PLAPGcD5LGrp4LXqTzIwTzqbTTmklCL27a (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oZzicGHvFE&index=15&list=PLAPGcD5LGrp4LXqTzIwTzqbTTmklCL27a)
Happy now?
-
I can think of one way to prove that Armstrong & Aldrin landed in 1969,
It better be true. I'd hate to think that I've been duped after all these years.
but the USA won't like it.
While I'm happy that this thread didn't degenerate into a flamewar between "flatearthers" and "nasatards", I expected a less Kafkaesque discussion.
Can we have access to the engineering details of the landing on the moon? Nope. They're classified.
Can we go to the moon and independently ascertain the viability of such a project? Never. After the first landings, there's no point going there.
Can we at least discuss its plausibility? Impossible. The astronauts were from a land of risk-takers, therefore the landings indisputably happened.
What about expressing some doubts that it might not have happened? Out of question. That belongs in the forum of delusional members.
By Kafkaesque I mean the frustration of not being able to ascertain the truth behind a certain fact, having as the only option to accept resignedly the official account.
But as the philosopher Jagger used to say: "You can't always have what you want".
So happy New Year, everyone.
-
While I'm happy that this thread didn't degenerate into a flamewar between "flatearthers" and "nasatards", I expected a less Kafkaesque discussion.
Can we have access to the engineering details of the landing on the moon? Nope. They're classified.
Can we go to the moon and independently ascertain the viability of such a project? Never. After the first landings, there's no point going there.
Can we at least discuss its plausibility? Impossible. The astronauts were from a land of risk-takers, therefore the landings indisputably happened.
What about expressing some doubts that it might not have happened? Out of question. That belongs in the forum of delusional members.
By Kafkaesque I mean the frustration of not being able to ascertain the truth behind a certain fact, having as the only option to accept resignedly the official account.
But as the philosopher Jagger used to say: "You can't always have what you want".
So happy New Year, everyone.
You seem to suggest you have no proof or no access to any proof. However, there does seem to be a large body of evidence both from NASA and third parties. How is this not allowing you to ascertain "the truth behind a certain fact"? There's extensive documentation on how things were done and how they happened. Perhaps it would help if you indicated the reason for your dissatisfaction.
-
Basically do you trust the evidence you have available? the whole thing was filmed, what more do you want?
-
It is interesting to observe how different people form their opinions and what weight they give to the different evidence.
I have never been to Australia but I am quite sure it exists based on all the evidence I have at hand. Some people could weigh the same evidence and distrust it but that says a lot about them and their mental processes.
I know someone who is distrustful by nature and dealing with him is a pain because he is always afraid he is being cheated or lied to.
Evidence is a small part of how we form our opinions. If you are a science guy and surrounded by similar types then your interpretation of the evidence is supported and reinforced by your social circle and that helps support it. It is social, not reasoning.
People with limited education form their beliefs mainly through social means and find plenty of support for the most crazy ideas.
So, arriving at the right conclusion is a matter of choosing to believe the right evidence and disregard the wrong evidence. But how to decide?
Free unlimited power inventors continue to part the credulous from their money and there's a new one born every minute.
Ridiculous "experts" testify in courtrooms and defendants are convicted on incredible grounds. (http://"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6EXSWdl27E") Years later the whole thing is seen to be crazy but at the time it seemed sound. Every country and culture have their witch hunts.
Once you get into religious or political beliefs facts have almost nothing to do with them. People believe whatever they want to believe and no amount of facts is going to change their beliefs. Any evidence which contradicts their beliefs is just discounted and flimsy or ridiculous evidence which supports it is given a lot of weight.
We are much less rational than we would like to think.
-
Basically do you trust the evidence you have available? the whole thing was filmed, what more do you want?
So was Jurassic Park, and I don't intend to use it as proof that dinosaurs exist even though they look damn realistic on the screen.
Anything can be faked these days. Decades ago I remember seeing a faked picture of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan walking through the garden at 10 Downing Street. Thatcher was on Reagan's right, she was wearing a blue suit and the roses were pink. By the time they had finished Margaret Thatcher was on Ronald Reagan's left side, she was wearing a pink suit and the roses were blue.
As I said before, the evidence I have seen makes me conclude that man landed on the moon, especially the experiment with the hammer and the feather. There are however certain inconsistences with the 'plot' which mean that I am not 100% certain.
-
Well I was referring to the sheer amount of the filming.
-
As I said before, the evidence I have seen makes me conclude that man landed on the moon, especially the experiment with the hammer and the feather. There are however certain inconsistences with the 'plot' which mean that I am not 100% certain.
The Hammer and Feather experiment was for the longest time on my checklist for a good proof that it was indeed filmed on the moon under vacuum and different g-forces. But then I came across this video and many others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQhTGRdg0II (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQhTGRdg0II)
So, as I said before, it will be extremely hard to proof that they really landed on the moon.
But it is also extremely hard do disproof.
In my own opinion: We might never find out the truth.
The Russians would not start their own investigation, if they were convinced that it happened.
-
Oh my god! So a guy sits there and claims it is a fake with no counter proof and you believe it? So how did they drop the hammer and feather in their mock up and have them land together. Did he forget to mention that it is a metal replica feather? In that vein this guy can "prove" that anything is fake by just sitting there and saying it is fake. Why should i believe him?
-
The Russians would not start their own investigation, if they were convinced that it happened.
The russians are 19th century humans in a 21st century world. That is why the guy announcing that they were going to the moon to check was seen to be tongue in cheek. He knows it's silly but his 19th century boss putin has told them to do it to perpetuate the narrative to the people. And of course it will take them 10 years to be ready, so another 10 years of free propaganda.
-
Oh my god! So a guy sits there and claims it is a fake with no counter proof and you believe it? So how did they drop the hammer and feather in their mock up and have them land together. Did he forget to mention that it is a metal replica feather? In that vein this guy can "prove" that anything is fake by just sitting there and saying it is fake. Why should i believe him?
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I believe him!
The only thing this video is proofing, is the fact that the "Hammer Feather" experiment can be faked.
If we assume that NASA faked the moon landing with this elaborate hoax, then they must have faked this experiment as well. And since it is on video, it seems that it can be faked.
We do not know the truth and talking about this experiment will not get us closer to the truth.
-
actually if you look at the feather in the real landing you can see that it is very fluffy and probably chosen deliberately to avoid the claims of fakers as making a metal replica would be impossible. In your debunking video they used a much more dense feather that can easy be made out of a heavy material. The problem with the internet and in particular google's services is that it is driven by advertising and everyone wants a slice of the "easy money" so there are plenty of channels that should not even exist but do because they make money and the content is irrelevant.
-
also the studio demo has the feather bounce due to it's weight. the feather on the moon does not bounce. The snide text all over the video is childish at best. The scene in the film will have been done with CGI not available in the 60's but of course the fraudsters making these videos are too thick to take in the full picture.
-
As a connoisseur of conspiracy theories, I think some very high-ups in US had an actual backup plan to fake the landing, if they couldn't do it for real; possibly with Stanley Kubric as the consultant.
There isn't any actual evidence to back that up, only hearsay and conjecture, but it sure would not be out of character for CIA at that time; and in my opinion, is the simplest explanation for any odd discrepancies that might crop up in the records. (For example, if some fake moon landing clips are/were ever uncovered.)
-
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I believe him!
The only thing this video is proofing, is the fact that the "Hammer Feather" experiment can be faked.
If we assume that NASA faked the moon landing with this elaborate hoax, then they must have faked this experiment as well. And since it is on video, it seems that it can be faked.
We do not know the truth and talking about this experiment will not get us closer to the truth.
The problem seems to be that people look at all the pieces individually and try to discredit them. What's often ignored is that there's a large amount of pieces which are all internally and externally coherent, with little to no pieces opposing the story they tell. If it were to be all an elaborate hoax with this many people and moving pieces involved, that's absolutely remarkable. You'd expect more issues with the presented facts as new discoveries are made, or people or documents contradicting the official story surfacing. If you weigh the chance of that all working out against the possibility of there actually being a landing, the latter seems to be more likely. No matter how amazing the feat of landing on the Moon is and how much our monkey brains object to the notion of something so unnatural, Occam's razor still applies.
-
Apollo 11 plaque inscription:
"Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We came in peace for all mankind"
The statement "We came in peace for all mankind" is derived from the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act's declaration of policy and purpose:
"The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind."
Really, when either the US or other countries go into space, its something that transcends politics, its all of us as human beings pushing back the frontiers of human experience and knowledge. Together.
Because science, each science discipline, are global communities.
Maybe that seems unfamiliar to the younger generation because nowadays everything has been privatized as somebody said earlier. That's exactly what has happened.
And corporations rarely if ever fund truly ambitious programs any more.
We all should get out more!
-
We all should get out more!
In your case certainly, or shall we start a wager on how lng before i have to ban you again?
-
The problem seems to be that people look at all the pieces individually and try to discredit them. What's often ignored is that there's a large amount of pieces which are all internally and externally coherent, with little to no pieces opposing the story they tell. If it were to be all an elaborate hoax with this many people and moving pieces involved, that's absolutely remarkable. You'd expect more issues with the presented facts as new discoveries are made, or people or documents contradicting the official story surfacing. If you weigh the chance of that all working out against the possibility of there actually being a landing, the latter seems to be more likely. No matter how amazing the feat of landing on the Moon is and how much our monkey brains object to the notion of something so unnatural, Occam's razor still applies.
That has occurred to me too. Most individual portions could potentially be convincingly faked given enough effort. Where this breaks down is the vastness of the program, there are just too many individual aspects that nobody could have possibly had the foresight to flawlessly incorporate all of them. Given a choice between trying to fake it and just going there for real, faking it would be a more ambitious project with far greater consequences to failure. It would come out sooner or later, if a nation like Russia honestly believed we had faked it you can bet they would have gone there by now or at least sent a rover to find out. There is just such an overwhelming body of evidence that it all happened exactly as reported that it is just ridiculous to suggest otherwise. The technology clearly existed, there's a retro-reflector there to this day that we can bounce a laser off of.
-
A thought occurred to me during the New Years festivities. Since some people believe that the moon landings could not have been done because of the risk of death, apparently those people also believe that no one jumps off of mountains wearing squirrel flying suits, or jumps off of helicopters with a jet powered wing strapped on their back, or straps a hydrogen peroxide rocket on their back and jumps across canyons, or jumps off of bridges with a bungee cord strapped to their ankles or .... are also all faked.
There is apparently an incredible amount of fakery going on to portray all of these risky activities on YouTube.
-
A thought occurred to me during the New Years festivities. Since some people believe that the moon landings could not have been done because of the risk of death, apparently those people also believe that no one jumps off of mountains wearing squirrel flying suits, or jumps off of helicopters with a jet powered wing strapped on their back, or straps a hydrogen peroxide rocket on their back and jumps across canyons, or jumps off of bridges with a bungee cord strapped to their ankles or .... are also all faked.
There is apparently an incredible amount of fakery going on to portray all of these risky activities on YouTube.
If I'd have to point out one thing which seems to be an intrinsic part of human nature, it'd be the lengths humans are willing to go to just to make a senseless claim or a point. The whole Moon thing was essentially a massive undertaking to stick a flag into a rock in space and yell "FIRST!". If that's not exactly what humans do all the time and have done throughout history with gross disregard of the risks involved, I don't know what is.
-
It could be argued that there is a difference between an individual engaging in a risky activity and a government or other entity sending citizens off on a dangerous mission. This breaks down too though when you consider the hundreds of thousands of citizens who have been sent off to fight wars, many of which turn out to be rather pointless. Send many thousands of people to Vietnam knowing with certainty that a large number of them will never come home, or send a handful of guys to the moon knowing there is a very real chance they will not return but make every effort to return them safely? Given the choice I'd rather take a crack at getting to the moon and back than go to fight some random war for vague political reasons.
Lots of other examples closer to home. Numerous test pilots died trying to break the sound barrier, that didn't stop people from lining up to take a shot at it.
-
Actualy, why does it matter if moon landing happened for real or not? What is depending on this exact question?
If nothing else, a lot of technological advancement was credited to the moon (space) project that was later spun off to our daily life, that alone was worth it.
-
People with relevant skills can help extract new scientific information from old data using new methods.
I have a challenge for you. Volunteer to comb through old NASA moon data. I'm not kidding. People are needed to do that. People do that kind of thing all the time. You don't have to be a scientist. You just have to have a good idea. You don't even need to have a good idea if you do it on your own. You can be looking for swiss cheese. That data that was collected is everybody's its for all humanity and the Moon is all of our Moon.
People who manage this data exist who, within reason, can help you find it. Much of the data they collected has never been looked at with modern tools. Its just waiting for somebody with an idea, relevant skills and time to comb through it. That person could be you.
If you don't ask you will never know.
-
I know I said I was done, but I need to correct this:
Can we have access to the engineering details of the landing on the moon? Nope. They're classified.
There is not much classified anymore, and much of it is available if you ask NASA for it. Some of it was initially classified just because we didn't want the Russians knowing what we were doing. All that is left is some export-control issues - which basically means if someone outside the US wants the information it will need to be reviewed to make sure there isn't information contained within which isn't exportable to certain countries.
Here's an example of something which might answer a lot of your questions:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790076883.pdf
and a post-action report:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730023037.pdf
A lot of the data which isn't available doesn't exist mainly because it either was done by seat-of-pants engineering, or records of seemingly little value were tossed once it was clear they weren't going to the moon again. But a lot of it is available for review at the JSC library.
-
Actualy, why does it matter if moon landing happened for real or not? What is depending on this exact question?
If nothing else, a lot of technological advancement was credited to the moon (space) project that was later spun off to our daily life, that alone was worth it.
What depends on that question is if they lied you or not. If they did, what makes you think everything else you are being told is true?
-
Other space missions (unmanned) from several other countries have photographed the sites of the Apollo moon landings from orbit.
There is actually a concern now about historic preservation.
---
-
If historic preservation is a concern, send rovers there to document it and take photos, personally I don't think a bunch of junk left on the moon by humans is of any real historical benefit, it's just not worth dragging it back to earth.
-
No, they want to preserve its state on the Moon, not on Earth. As a park or something.
And yes it is of historical benefit because once its gone its gone forever.
Luckily the conditions on the moon are much more favorable to it remaining the same than Earth or even Mars.
Because no atmosphere, so no wind or rain, etc.
However you can bet that tourists would immediately screw it up.
-
Who is ever going to go look at it? The moon doesn't belong to anyone and the stuff left behind is of no real value. If it were possible to bring it back to earth then it could be in a museum where people would actually see it but it's all moot really, it's never going to be practical to go visit the moon in significant numbers so the stuff will continue to sit there. If someone did go there and salvage bits and pieces it wouldn't bother me in the least, it's not like I'm ever gonna notice it's gone.
-
What if we built a "space elevator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator)" ?
The cost to go into space would fall, a lot.
Just grab a boost from the Earth's own angular velocity.
A space elevator is a proposed type of planet-to-space transportation system.[1] The main component would be a cable (also called a tether) anchored to the surface and extending into space. The design would permit vehicles to travel along the cable from a planetary surface, such as the Earth's, directly into space or orbit, without the use of large rockets. An Earth-based space elevator would consist of a cable with one end attached to the surface near the equator and the other end in space beyond geostationary orbit (35,786 km altitude). The competing forces of gravity, which is stronger at the lower end, and the outward/upward centrifugal force, which is stronger at the upper end, would result in the cable being held up, under tension, and stationary over a single position on Earth. With the tether deployed, climbers could repeatedly climb the tether to space by mechanical means, releasing their cargo to orbit. Climbers could also descend the tether to return cargo to the surface from orbit.[2]
The concept of a tower reaching geosynchronous orbit was first published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.[3] His proposal was for a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of Earth to the height of geostationary orbit. Like all buildings, Tsiolkovsky's structure would be under compression, supporting its weight from below. Since 1959, most ideas for space elevators have focused on purely tensile structures, with the weight of the system held up from above by centrifugal forces. In the tensile concepts, a space tether reaches from a large mass (the counterweight) beyond geostationary orbit to the ground. This structure is held in tension between Earth and the counterweight like an upside-down plumb bob.
To construct a space elevator on Earth, the cable material would need to be both stronger and lighter (have greater specific strength) than any known material. Development of new materials that meet the demanding specific strength requirement must happen before designs can progress beyond discussion stage. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have been identified as possibly being able to meet the specific strength requirements for an Earth space elevator.[2][4] Other materials considered have been boron nitride nanotubes, and diamond nanothreads, which were first constructed in 2014.[5][6]
A prototype was launched in 2018 to tether to future stations as well as the International Space Station.[7] It is a miniature version to be further examined before making the decision to build up a large structure in the coming years.
The concept is applicable to other planets and celestial bodies. For locations in the solar system with weaker gravity than Earth's (such as the Moon or Mars), the strength-to-density requirements for tether materials are not as problematic. Currently available materials (such as Kevlar) are strong and light enough that they could be used as the tether material for elevators there.[8]
------
How would it work?
Apparent gravitational field
A space elevator cable rotates along with the rotation of the Earth. Therefore, objects attached to the cable would experience upward centrifugal force in the direction opposing the downward gravitational force. The higher up the cable the object is located, the less the gravitational pull of the Earth, and the stronger the upward centrifugal force due to the rotation, so that more centrifugal force opposes less gravity. The centrifugal force and the gravity are balanced at geosynchronous equatorial orbit (GEO). Above GEO, the centrifugal force is stronger than gravity, causing objects attached to the cable there to pull upward on it.
The net force for objects attached to the cable is called the apparent gravitational field. The apparent gravitational field for attached objects is the (downward) gravity minus the (upward) centrifugal force. The apparent gravity experienced by an object on the cable is zero at GEO, downward below GEO, and upward above GEO.
The apparent gravitational field can be represented this way:: Ref[40] Table 1
The downward force of actual gravity decreases with height: g r = − G M / r 2 {\displaystyle g_{r}=-GM/r^{2}} {\displaystyle g_{r}=-GM/r^{2}}
The upward centrifugal force due to the planet's rotation increases with height: a = ω 2 r {\displaystyle a=\omega ^{2}r} a=\omega ^{2}r
Together, the apparent gravitational field is the sum of the two:
g = − G M r 2 + ω 2 r {\displaystyle g=-{\frac {GM}{r^{2}}}+\omega ^{2}r} {\displaystyle g=-{\frac {GM}{r^{2}}}+\omega ^{2}r}
where
g is the acceleration of apparent gravity, pointing down (negative) or up (positive) along the vertical cable (m s−2),
gr is the gravitational acceleration due to Earth's pull, pointing down (negative)(m s−2),
a is the centrifugal acceleration, pointing up (positive) along the vertical cable (m s−2),
G is the gravitational constant (m3 s−2 kg−1)
M is the mass of the Earth (kg)
r is the distance from that point to Earth's center (m),
ω is Earth's rotation speed (radian/s).
At some point up the cable, the two terms (downward gravity and upward centrifugal force) are equal and opposite. Objects fixed to the cable at that point put no weight on the cable. This altitude (r1) depends on the mass of the planet and its rotation rate. Setting actual gravity equal to centrifugal acceleration gives:: Ref[40] page 126
r 1 = ( G M ω 2 ) 1 3 {\displaystyle r_{1}=\left({\frac {GM}{\omega ^{2}}}\right)^{\frac {1}{3}}} {\displaystyle r_{1}=\left({\frac {GM}{\omega ^{2}}}\right)^{\frac {1}{3}}}
On Earth, this distance is 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above the surface, the altitude of geostationary orbit.: Ref[40] Table 1
On the cable below geostationary orbit, downward gravity would be greater than the upward centrifugal force, so the apparent gravity would pull objects attached to the cable downward. Any object released from the cable below that level would initially accelerate downward along the cable. Then gradually it would deflect eastward from the cable. On the cable above the level of stationary orbit, upward centrifugal force would be greater than downward gravity, so the apparent gravity would pull objects attached to the cable upward. Any object released from the cable above the geosynchronous level would initially accelerate upward along the cable. Then gradually it would deflect westward from the cable.
The field of celestial (orbital) mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_mechanics) also includes making highly energy efficient transitions between the zones of gravitational influence surrounding orbiting bodies. Once freed of gravity, the cost of traveling between celestial bodies is fairly low if you effectively use the energy their angular velocity can give you. Its escaping the pull of a planet or moon or the sun that can be expensive if you have no angular velocity to get you started. Apart from this angular velocity, the ultimate speed of any space vehicle is limited by the mass and speed of that mass it can throw behind it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztwkXq4Hj7Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztwkXq4Hj7Q)
Visualize sailing the oceans driven by the trade winds.
If you do a gravitational simulation you'll see what I am talking about.
There are technical challenges! This is where engineering comes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAXGUQ_ewcg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAXGUQ_ewcg)
-
Who is ever going to go look at it? The moon doesn't belong to anyone and the stuff left behind is of no real value. If it were possible to bring it back to earth then it could be in a museum where people would actually see it but it's all moot really, it's never going to be practical to go visit the moon in significant numbers so the stuff will continue to sit there. If someone did go there and salvage bits and pieces it wouldn't bother me in the least, it's not like I'm ever gonna notice it's gone.
Assuming the trendline for cost per kilo to orbit continues, within the next 20-30 years space tourism is likely to become a very real thing. NASA has a stated goal of "tens of dollars per kg" by 2040, and it looks reasonable to expect those prices to be correct. Some estimates are that the price will drop below $10/kg around 2050, and below a dollar around 2070. Once you're going to orbit for that cheap, people are going to want to go onto the moon, and see those historic sites. Note that these estimates are based on past trendlines which have proven fairly stable over the last 50 years.
-
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/181207145450-china-lunar-rover-exlarge-169.jpg)
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/02/health/china-lunar-rover-far-moon-landing-intl/index.html
Curious how the earth's station communicate with it as its at the dark side ? Does China have satellite there ?
-
yes, they do.
Ultimately, the far side of the moon will be an ideal site for observing the rest of the universe without radio interference from the Earth.
-
Who is ever going to go look at it? The moon doesn't belong to anyone and the stuff left behind is of no real value. If it were possible to bring it back to earth then it could be in a museum where people would actually see it but it's all moot really, it's never going to be practical to go visit the moon in significant numbers so the stuff will continue to sit there. If someone did go there and salvage bits and pieces it wouldn't bother me in the least, it's not like I'm ever gonna notice it's gone.
Seeing how NASA still claims ownership of the engines and other stuff it dropped on Earth during the Apollo launches, you can bet you're going to get some strong-arming if anyone goes near the Apollo kit or sites on the Moon.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/jeff-bezosapollo-11-rocket-engines-lost-at-sea/
-
Space tourism is a LONG way from moon tourism. The moon is a vast distance from the earth, it's by far the furthest from our planet that man has ever gone. There is a huge difference between a jaunt into low earth orbit and a round trip to the moon, and if you want to physically visit the surface of the moon that's a whole new level of complexity. There's a reason we only sent people there a handful of times, it's seriously expensive, difficult and dangerous.
As far as NASA claiming ownership to the stuff on the moon, what are they gonna do about it if someone manages to get there and swipe something? It's not like some random guy is gonna build a rocket in his back yard and get there, it will be a major effort by the government of a large country. I don't think we'd declare war on China or Russia or whatever over it.
-
Space tourism is a LONG way from moon tourism. The moon is a vast distance from the earth, it's by far the furthest from our planet that man has ever gone. There is a huge difference between a jaunt into low earth orbit and a round trip to the moon, and if you want to physically visit the surface of the moon that's a whole new level of complexity. There's a reason we only sent people there a handful of times, it's seriously expensive, difficult and dangerous.
As far as NASA claiming ownership to the stuff on the moon, what are they gonna do about it if someone manages to get there and swipe something? It's not like some random guy is gonna build a rocket in his back yard and get there, it will be a major effort by the government of a large country. I don't think we'd declare war on China or Russia or whatever over it.
I can definitely see the US beating its chest over it in warlike terms, but it's probably going to be along the lines of politically pestering those responsible.
-
“Once you get to earth orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system.”
— Robert A. Heinlein
If space tourism catches on, Moon vacations are almost inevitable.
-
Actualy, why does it matter if moon landing happened for real or not? What is depending on this exact question?
If nothing else, a lot of technological advancement was credited to the moon (space) project that was later spun off to our daily life, that alone was worth it.
What depends on that question is if they lied you or not. If they did, what makes you think everything else you are being told is true?
Politicians lie every once and then (all the time?), we all know it. No one cares much about it - certainly not that much it would turn our world upside down.
After 50 years, I hardly can imagine this would make any difference.
-
The moon doesn't belong to anyone and the stuff left behind is of no real value.
http://tl2k.org/history/ (http://tl2k.org/history/)
On July 20, 1969, two American Astronauts landed on the moon of the planet Earth, in an area known as Mare Tranquilitatis , or “Sea of Tranquility”. One of those brave men was Brother Edwin Eugene (Buzz) Aldrin, Jr., a member of Clear Lake Lodge No. 1417, AF&AM, Seabrook, Texas. Brother Aldrin carried with him SPECIAL DEPUTATION of then Grand Master J. Guy Smith, constituting and appointing Brother Aldrin as Special Deputy of the Grand Master, granting unto him full power in the premises to represent the Grand Master as such and authorize him to claim Masonic Territorial Jurisdiction for The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Texas, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, on The Moon, and directed that he make due return of his acts. Brother Aldrin certified that the SPECIAL DEPUTATION was carried by him to the Moon on July 20, 1969.
-
Yea the mason's, they are a country of their own?
-
Yea the mason's, they are a country of their own?
More like international jurisdiction I suppose. However they seem to have certain pet country ::)
(http://www.unity95.org/uploads/1/1/3/1/113112393/published/alexandria-masonictemple.jpg?1509297793)
-
I don't believe it!
China Becomes First Country To Land A Spacecraft On The Far Side Of The Moon
01/03/2019 01:08
China became the first nation to land a spacecraft on the far side of the moon, the country’s state-run media announced Thursday, a milestone that solidifies Beijing’s ambitions to become a world leader in space exploration.
The probe, dubbed the Chang’e-4, touched down at 10:26 a.m. Beijing time, landing on the moon’s dark side, which forever faces away from the Earth. It’s the first lunar landing since 2013, when the Chinese Space Agency sent another craft to the moon, the Chang’e-3, becoming the third nation to send a vehicle to the moon, after the United States and the former Soviet Union.
Chang’e-4, which is carrying a rover that will explore the far side, has already sent images back to Earth. China sent a separate satellite into space in May to serve as a communications relay with the rover because being on the dark side of the moon prevents a direct signal from being sent back to Earth.
China has announced bold plans for its space program and plans to send another probe, the Chang’e-5, to the moon next year. That craft would be the first to bring moon samples back to Earth since 1976.
The New York Times also noted that China could soon be the only nation to have a space station in orbit. President Donald Trump has considered ending funding for the International Space Station by 2025 even as he touts America’s new Space Force. That would leave China’s Tiangong-2 as the only such structure in existence.
The United States remains the only country to send humans to the moon, but Trump has said he wants to send Americans back to the lunar surface in the future.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-lands-spacecraft-far-side-moon_us_5c2da202e4b08aaf7a95d583 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-lands-spacecraft-far-side-moon_us_5c2da202e4b08aaf7a95d583)
-
Have faith :)
-
yes, they do.
Ultimately, the far side of the moon will be an ideal site for observing the rest of the universe without radio interference from the Earth.
They do ? I can't find any reference on this, as Chinese orbiting satellites sent are not there anymore. :-//
Example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program
-
yes, they do.
Ultimately, the far side of the moon will be an ideal site for observing the rest of the universe without radio interference from the Earth.
They do ? I can't find any reference on this, as Chinese orbiting satellites sent are not there anymore. :-//
Example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program
Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_4
Queqiao relay satellite has been in halo orbit of the Moons L2 point since June.
There's also the Longjiang-2 orbiting the moon, although strictly speaking it's using the moon as a shield, not actually exploring it.
I'm not sure what happened to the spacecraft that carried the lander. I haven't seen anything about that. Details are a little slim on the Chinese programs.
-
Several years ago some guy in the RTLSDR community was successfully able to receive the "Jade Rabbit" (yes that really is its name- see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbxwiIZQIMw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbxwiIZQIMw) ) Chinese lunar missions (very weakly) using two off-the-shelf SDRs and a re-purposed satellite dish.
It would be impossible to fake that.
-
I call BS, you can't land on the dark side of the moon, it's too dark! :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
-
I call BS, you can't land on the dark side of the moon, it's too dark! :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Most street lighting equipment is now made in China. Now we can see that the primary motivation in developing this industry was to be able to light landing sites on the dark side of the moon.
-
I call BS, you can't land on the dark side of the moon, it's too dark! :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
There's no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact its all dark.
-
10/10 for the Pink Floyd reference :-+
-
The obvious question now is: did the Chinese land on the dark side of the moon for real?
-
This is an amazing thing that Apollo program used (and planning for Chang'e 5 as well) below concept has been proposed... 1919 (!!!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvous
Lunar orbit rendezvous was first known to be proposed in 1919 by Soviet engineer Yuri Kondratyuk, as the most economical way of sending a human on a round-trip journey to the Moon.
-
Well, everyone interested in rocketry and human spaceflight should really know about Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky).
The really uncomfortable part of the early US space program is how much of it relied on Operation Paperclip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip) scientists, and the results from human experimentation by Nazi scientists (especially high altitude experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation#High_altitude_experiments) that essentially defined the survivability envelope). I do believe, but don't have any references at hand, that Nazis also did lethal radiation exposure experiments (initial LD50 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD50) equivalent doses), and that their results were essential in choosing an acceptable risk practical trajectories through the Van Allen belts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_belt) (avoiding the inner belt, and only passing through the outer edge of the outer belt).
I suspect that most who believe that sending humans to the moon was/is too dangerous, simply do not understand how thorough the human experiments Nazis did were, and how much of a boost they gave to human spaceflight.
(I myself am quite conflicted about it, because those results -- brutally and inhumanely obtained by essentially torturing innocents to death! -- gave a real, significant boost to understanding of what humans can endure. How do you express the importance of those results correctly, while at the same time pointing out how absolutely horrible the experiments were? It certainly is an intriguing topic to discuss regarding human morality, price of individual human life, and the age-old question of whether it is evil to torture a few to death when the results could potentially save hundreds, if not thousands? I myself don't have any answers to that.)
-
i think the Nazi did a lot that potentially helped medical science as well.
-
(I myself am quite conflicted about it, because those results -- brutally and inhumanely obtained by essentially torturing innocents to death! -- gave a real, significant boost to understanding of what humans can endure. How do you express the importance of those results correctly, while at the same time pointing out how absolutely horrible the experiments were? It certainly is an intriguing topic to discuss regarding human morality, price of individual human life, and the age-old question of whether it is evil to torture a few to death when the results could potentially save hundreds, if not thousands? I myself don't have any answers to that.)
How much "data" was obtained at Hiroshima?
-
The obvious question now is: did the Chinese land on the dark side of the moon for real?
They went to the dark side and stole all the cookies. (https://www.snorgtees.com/come-to-the-dark-side-we-have-cookies)
-
While the Nazi experiments probably did contribute, there was a huge body of knowledge created by explorers, both government supported and private. Google "Wiley Post", one of the guys who developed pressure suits. Or look into the test pilots who rode rocket sleds with their faces in the wind. Or Google "Orville Anderson and Albert Stevens", then Dr. John Paul Strap and finally David Simmons 1957 flight.
People since the end of WWII have expressed ethical concerns about using the Nazi data, and in many cases didn't - either because it violated their ethical standards, or was deemed untrustworthy. Many of the experiments were more in the nature of torture than controlled scientific experiments. Also the question of whether data coming from a starved, beaten and totally demoralized human being is representative of normal human responses.
-
How much "data" was obtained at Hiroshima?
I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.
While the Nazi experiments probably did contribute, there was a huge body of knowledge created by explorers, both government supported and private.
The survivability results were essential for two reasons: it gave spacecraft designers and mission planners known absolute limits (acceleration, pressure change rates, radiation doses) they had to avoid, but probably even more importantly, they could present their plans with real-world numbers that show the astronauts had good odds of surviving, to those holding the purse strings. (As you know, politicians are loathe to associate with anything that could end up a public disaster, because that would hurt their careers).
Also the question of whether data coming from a starved, beaten and totally demoralized human being is representative of normal human responses.
For survivability (LD50 equivalent), you could argue their results were conservative; that their estimates were valid baselines, with healthy humans having even better odds. I do believe the Paperclip scientists did.
You would be surprised to find out how many of the known lethality limits can be traced to Nazi human experiments. In particular, I wonder how big an impact they had on 1969 Evaluation on Drug Activities, pharmacometrics, by Paget and Burns et al.; not as a source for their numbers, but as a confirmation of the validity of their model. As I understand it, it is still cited as the source for the scaling coefficients between LD50 doses in different species, including humans.
-
Have faith :)
Without engineering details, that's what's left for us. I hope that one day we will be allowed to discuss it openly and even reenact the deed.
The obvious question now is: did the Chinese land on the dark side of the moon for real?
The not so obvious question is: given the amount of precautions the Chinese took to land an unmanned rover on the moon having the state-of-the-art technology of 2019, is it reasonable to think that the US landed two PEOPLE on the moon 50 years ago?
It's just a question. As Richard Feynman used to say: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
Or, in another memorable quote of his: “We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.”
-
I think Richard Feynman was trying to build human nature into his statements of fact.
-
I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.
Oh I thought you were intrigued to discuss this. I guess I was wrong.
-
How much "data" was obtained at Hiroshima?
I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.
Does it matter whether it was the Nazis or the Americans? In the aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing the survivors were treated abysmally, trying to extract information about the effects of radiation on human bodies.
-
Have faith :)
Without engineering details, that's what's left for us. I hope that one day we will be allowed to discuss it openly and even reenact the deed.
The obvious question now is: did the Chinese land on the dark side of the moon for real?
The not so obvious question is: given the amount of precautions the Chinese took to land an unmanned rover on the moon having the state-of-the-art technology of 2019, is it reasonable to think that the US landed two PEOPLE on the moon 50 years ago?
Well, to nitpick, Apollo 11 wasn't quite 50 years ago!
The Soviets landed two unmanned rovers on the Moon, in 1970 & 1973 respectively.
Of course, those rovers didn't have anything like the capabilities the Chinese ones have, so it seems likely that much of the effort in the modern ones went towards making sure those enhanced functions were delivered safely----- no lives, but a lot of money & national prestige at stake.
1960s technology did a lot of amazing stuff, like simultaneously threatening us with, & protecting us from, nuclear annihilation.
International airlines managed to navigate effectively & safely over many millions of km in total, over that time.
Nuclear submarines could circumnavigate the world submerged, the first heart transplants had been done.
Does that really sound like a society suffering under the burden of "primitive" technology?
It's just a question. As Richard Feynman used to say: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
Or, in another memorable quote of his: “We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.”
-
The Soviets landed two unmanned rovers on the Moon, in 1970 & 1973 respectively.
Of course, those rovers didn't have anything like the capabilities the Chinese ones have, so it seems likely that much of the effort in the modern ones went towards making sure those enhanced functions were delivered safely----- no lives, but a lot of money & national prestige at stake.
Oh, the Chinese one will send a lunar sample back too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16
-
The moon landing conspiracy believers have released a faked NASA film that they claim shows how the landing was all done in a studio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLVChRVfZ74 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLVChRVfZ74)
-
I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.
Oh I thought you were intrigued to discuss this. I guess I was wrong.
I was talking about human experimentation, not war.
Torture, mutilation, rape, and in general, violence towards noncombatants, are usually used as a weapon in war. That is a completely separate topic.
Some of the experiments Nazis did, did have at least a partial scientific purpose. You can argue whether the experiments were done as a weapon of war, or how (un)important the scientific aspect was to those doing the experiments. I am not interested in that discussion, because after three quarters of a century later, it is difficult to see what insight or value that kind of discussion would yield: we do not know their thoughts.
Some of those experiments established the envelope of human survivability/statistical lethal limits; the basis of LCt50 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD50).
What intrigues me, is how one should approach those results. On one hand, they were obtained by unforgivable horrible experiments on innocents. On other hand, the results did advance human science, especially the understanding of what humans could and could not endure. On the gripping hand, those results could not be obtained by any other way but lethal experimentation. Would the results be more acceptable if they had experimented on criminals sentenced to death? Volunteers to such do not exist.
Many people have big problems to relate at all to those results. Their contribution to human science is often minimized, probably because the idea of having important results due to what essentially was torturing innocents to death, is so abhorrent. That in my opinion is a healthy response -- but it does not change the facts. The few things I know about lethality in humans (like human-animal LD50 coefficients; i.e. how to map lethality in mice to lethality in humans), all seem to be partially based on those results. Is the correct response to hide those roots? Does that not insult the memory of those innocents that were murdered? Is that not intellectual dishonesty, not acknowledging that to get to where we are now, quite a few innocents have been killed?
Insurance companies, and even governments do the same kind of calculations every day. Pollution limits are typically not those that ensure no deaths; they are based on acceptable risk. How is that "acceptable risk" different from killing innocents in order to obtain valid results? (If we omit unnecessary torture and degradation, that is.)
All this ties in to the original topic, because of the key arguments why some believe US astronauts did not land on the moon; that the landings were faked. In essence, the arguments boil down to "they would not have risked the lifes of the astronauts", or "the astronauts would not have survived". (Anyone who thinks they didn't have the technology (delta-V, to be specific) to do it, only needs to check: they really did.) My belief and understanding is that they very well did risk it, knowingly, and the top politicians even had a hidden backup plan of faking it if the Apollo program failed.
Which, if you think about it, is rather more cold than just faking it.
How much "data" was obtained at Hiroshima?
I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.
Does it matter whether it was the Nazis or the Americans? In the aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing the survivors were treated abysmally, trying to extract information about the effects of radiation on human bodies.
I didn't know that!
I do think it is a bit different, because the bombs were dropped for war reasons, not to get those results.
(Some do believe that most Nazi experiments were just a cover to enjoy torturing innocents to death; I do not agree. I think that the scientists involved really were looking for data, and that the torture and denigration and abysmal treatment was "incidental" -- a result of having dehumanised and demonised the victims at the ideological level. The post-war history of the Paperclip scientists seems to support that view. I know this opinion is offensive to some, but in my opinion, the Nazis were evil because of their ideology; not the other way around. It is the ideology that gets people to do evil things, not evil people who twist "a good ideology like socialism" into evil purposes.)
However, I do agree that discussion regarding the knowledge of the effects of radiation on humans as found from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims is also intriguing. Were they treated badly intentionally, or just because they were in a hurry (as they knew the information obtained could possibly save other lives)? Especially when you have lots of casualties, correctly triaging the patients -- no matter how cruel or unjust -- is key in ensuring maximum survival rate. Or was it because dehumanising the victims is the typical way a normal human being psychologically handles such horrible situations? I'd like to know, but it is kind of a different discussion.
-
What intrigues me, is how one should approach those results. On one hand, they were obtained by unforgivable horrible experiments on innocents. On other hand, the results did advance human science, especially the understanding of what humans could and could not endure. On the gripping hand, those results could not be obtained by any other way but lethal experimentation. Would the results be more acceptable if they had experimented on criminals sentenced to death? Volunteers to such do not exist.
Well the experiments were already done and cannot be undone. The results should be utilized to extract the maximum value possible out of the situation, which obviously should never be repeated. If further data is needed, much can be extrapolated from real world events in the same way that I consider data from real world car accidents far more valuable than controlled crash tests.
-
The moon landing conspiracy believers have released a faked NASA film that they claim shows how the landing was all done in a studio.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/michoud-hollywood-movie-teams-utilize-facilitys-expanses/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/michoud-hollywood-movie-teams-utilize-facilitys-expanses/)
Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) is now being filled with the sound of clapperboards, as opposed to the noise of space hardware being constructed. Numerous major movie studios are taking advantage of what are now large empty expanses inside the New Orleans facility.
Some jolly fun artistic mix on the MAF theme (Warning! Hardcore flat earth content! :scared:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c48cq3wS2H8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c48cq3wS2H8)
-
Oh crikey. They have a movie studio that they hire out so the flat earthers have decided the only movies they can be making are fake ones. Maybe they need to get out more to their local cinema.
-
Why on Earth would they publicise the tools like that if it's all a big secret? That doesn't make much sense.
-
The moon landing conspiracy believers have released a faked NASA film that they claim shows how the landing was all done in a studio.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/michoud-hollywood-movie-teams-utilize-facilitys-expanses/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/michoud-hollywood-movie-teams-utilize-facilitys-expanses/)
Your quoting what I said and then replacing the link I had with one of your own not only misrepresents what I said but was taking what I said out of context. If you want to make a point do it honestly.
https://youtu.be/xLVChRVfZ74 (https://youtu.be/xLVChRVfZ74)
-
Why on Earth would they publicise the tools like that if it's all a big secret? That doesn't make much sense.
Because the fake Moon landings weren't filmed on Earth! The fake Moon landings were filmed on the Moon! It's all part of the conspiracy!
-
Your quoting what I said and then replacing the link I had with one of your own not only misrepresents what I said but was taking what I said out of context. If you want to make a point do it honestly.
What point? It just seemed funny that they actually do have a studio.
-
Well, of course the astronauts went to the moon.
They had to fill out customs forms when they returned.
https://www.space.com/7044-moon-apollo-astronauts-customs.html (https://www.space.com/7044-moon-apollo-astronauts-customs.html)
What more proof do you need?
-
The reason why people are so bitter perhaps is more related to in many cases, our growing up with the awe inspiring and real promise of the whole human race going, together, into space, so we all developed dreams that perhaps have been let down by changes since then.
But that doesn't mean they wont happen. Its quite possible that they will. We're just at a stage, all of us, the human race, where we've temporarily stalled.
However, the space accomplishments we share including the moon landing and ISS and the various space missions by a great many countries and commercial entities are real and we all, nomatter where we come from or do, should be proud of them.
Because I spent a long time working in research in the Bay Area and was a very early adopter of web technology, I've worked for a lot of different entities some of whom helped publish NASA data. (and all sorts of other things)
A very long time ago I was also one of a very long list of talented people who helped develop tools and policies to leverage that data better, making it much more useful and available and cite-able.
NASA was at that time (and I am sure still is) a very high-functioning organization made up of great people who get a very high level of performance out of a workforce who genuinely love their jobs.
Also, contracting organizations that interact with them are also great people and great places to work, that strive, hard, to prevent anything that even remotely suggests unprofessional behavior.
They are probably as good as it gets anywhere in the world of contracting employment.
I was spoiled by my time in the research community, in a sense. I do think that all work should and likely someday will be more like that than what most jobs are like today.
I want us to realize that every mind thats wasted by lack of opportunity and frustration is a real tragedy.
I'm pretty old now, but am still very into science.
The major thing that I wish I had but lack is a better knowledge of math.
-
growing up with the awe inspiring and real promise of the whole human race going, together, into space,
I wonder where such mind-numbing pablum came from? Space is very clearly a gigantic, empty, radiation-blasted hell. Life is here, on this planet, right here, right now.
Space is, and always has been, a dead end. No one is "colonizing" space, not now, not tomorrow.
I think a few Russians got bored and ate too many magic mushrooms a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cosmism
-
I wonder where such mind-numbing pablum came from? Space is very clearly a gigantic, empty, radiation-blasted hell. Life is here, on this planet, right here, right now.
Space is, and always has been, a dead end. No one is "colonizing" space, not now, not tomorrow.
I think a few Russians got bored and ate too many magic mushrooms a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cosmism
Staying on the planet is a dead end. Spread out or perish.
-
The layer of human habitable Earth is certainly very thin and precious and space is very big, and its conditions are extreme, compared to Earth our home. And you're right, I don't see us as being able to live on any of our Sun's other planets or the Moon, ever, unless tremendous quite considerable amounts of effort is expended in creating a bubble of human habitable 'Earth like' conditions, making space for the immediate future not something which we can use short term to solve big problems like world hunger directly.
But, we should still explore it, we really must explore it.
growing up with the awe inspiring and real promise of the whole human race going, together, into space,
I wonder where such mind-numbing pablum came from? Space is very clearly a gigantic, empty, radiation-blasted hell. Life is here, on this planet, right here, right now.
Space is, and always has been, a dead end. No one is "colonizing" space, not now, not tomorrow.
I think a few Russians got bored and ate too many magic mushrooms a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cosmism
-
I wonder where such mind-numbing pablum came from? Space is very clearly a gigantic, empty, radiation-blasted hell. Life is here, on this planet, right here, right now.
Space is, and always has been, a dead end. No one is "colonizing" space, not now, not tomorrow.
I think a few Russians got bored and ate too many magic mushrooms a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cosmism
Staying on the planet is a dead end. Spread out or perish.
Bah hahahaha hahah!!! :-DD Oh geez... Where did you get such a bizarre childish viewpoint from? Everything grows, lives, and dies, even entire species. Even us. Yes, evolution is still happening, eventually there won't be anything human no matter what we do now. And if you were really concerned about perishing you'd be backing life extension research, not fragile tin cans in low earth orbit or gangly cameras on wheels.
-
But, we should still explore it, we really must explore it.
1) Why? Where's the same poetic rush to explore the bottom of the ocean or the center of the Earth? What "must"? According to who? Because the sci-fi you read as an unpopular teen told you so?
2) We "explored" space just fine so far by sitting in front of telescopes. It's empty. That particular cubic meter of hard vacuum there is pretty much the same as the cubic light year of hard vacuum over here.... So what? I just don't get it.
We're already in space. No one "explores" much of anything, I'd be willing to bet most of you geeks have barely stamped two pages in your passport, yet you get all frothed up about pictures of dead rocks floating between planets light minutes away... LOL
Oh look! A rock! In space! Let's explore it! In the meantime, there are millions of more interesting rocks RIGHT HERE. So it's not about exploring at all, it's a religion.
After all, it's the same periodic table of elements out there as down here, right?
-
But, we should still explore it, we really must explore it.
1) Why? Where's the same poetic rush to explore the bottom of the ocean or the center of the Earth? What "must"? According to who? Because the sci-fi you read as an unpopular teen told you so?
2) We "explored" space just fine so far by sitting in front of telescopes. It's empty. That particular cubic meter of hard vacuum there is pretty much the same as the cubic light year of hard vacuum over here.... So what? I just don't get it.
We're already in space. No one "explores" much of anything, I'd be willing to bet most of you geeks have barely stamped two pages in your passport, yet you get all frothed up about pictures of dead rocks floating between planets light minutes away... LOL
Oh look! A rock! In space! Let's explore it! In the meantime, there are millions of more interesting rocks RIGHT HERE. So it's not about exploring at all, it's a religion.
After all, it's the same periodic table of elements out there as down here, right?
Yup.
We could argue about this forever but I'm not expecting you to be convinced nor have you convinced me. The best point you made you didn't really explore which is that there is a very great deal about the Earth including vast portions of it (deep underwater, for example) which we know are teeming with life, including many life forms we still know almost nothing about, but which we still largely have not explored.
Life at the bottom of the Marianas Trench or similar, is guaranteed to still hold surprises - Life is pretty amazing, evolution, for example, in animals, plants and fungi, is amazingly good at coming up with useful chemicals and processes, ones we likely could use. The chances of finding value versus cost does make exploring those hidden places on Earth IS a no-brainer, there is somewhere we agree, why aren't we doing more of it?
I also agree with Mr. Scram's sentiment, though, we have to diversify or eventually we'll be wiped out by something. Most likely ourselves at this point.
Should we be worried about what might happen if we go into space?
Yes, especially if we treat each other like crap.
-
https://gtmarket.ru/concepts/7359 (https://gtmarket.ru/concepts/7359)
Google Translate:
/.../
Social psychology considers the phenomenon of social illusions as a powerful factor of social integration and the mobilization of society to solve metahistorical problems and problems of geopolitical significance. In contrast to rational arguments and realistic expert assessments, social illusions, due to their simplicity, figurativeness and richness in metaphors and symbols, are much more accessible and understandable for the mass consciousness, are easily digested and become the basis for motivating social action.
/.../
The logic of development of social illusions ultimately leads to disappointment, faith is replaced by skepticism, apology - by criticism. The unattainability of the proclaimed goals, the inconsistency of the abstract and the everyday, the utopian and the isolation of social illusions from the reality of the life world become obvious. As a result, the moral and psychological climate is changing in society, values are being re-evaluated, the search for new orientations and ideals begins.
(http://discovermagazine.com/~/media/Images/Issues/2015/sept/soviet-shuttle.jpg)
-
we have to diversify or eventually we'll be wiped out by something. Most likely ourselves at this point.
I'd say we're quite diverse already:
(https://www.fieldsportsmagazine.com/images/stories/polar_safari_ice_fishing.jpg)
(https://knightrider78.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/masai_2.jpg)
How, exactly, would we "diversify" into breathing hard vacuum and eating solar neutrinos?
Like this?
(https://data.whicdn.com/images/123586277/large.jpg)
BTW, have you "explored" the myriad of human possibilities that already exist here? Hmmm?
-
Bah hahahaha hahah!!! :-DD Oh geez... Where did you get such a bizarre childish viewpoint from? Everything grows, lives, and dies, even entire species. Even us. Yes, evolution is still happening, eventually there won't be anything human no matter what we do now. And if you were really concerned about perishing you'd be backing life extension research, not fragile tin cans in low earth orbit or gangly cameras on wheels.
Apparently a large body of scientists has a "bizarre childish viewpoint". Don't try insulting others. You're only insulting yourself. ;) Life on Earth is a finite endeavour. The best way of ensuring its existence is getting off of Earth, whether it's us, a successor species or another species. Those fragile tin cans are necessary to get there, just like malformed fins were the first step towards the legs of a gazelle. Pretending that's a futile endeavour is silly, as securing its own survival is essentially all that live does.
-
I'd say we're quite diverse already:
(https://www.fieldsportsmagazine.com/images/stories/polar_safari_ice_fishing.jpg)
(https://knightrider78.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/masai_2.jpg)
How, exactly, would we "diversify" into breathing hard vacuum and eating solar neutrinos?
Like this?
(https://data.whicdn.com/images/123586277/large.jpg)
BTW, have you "explored" the myriad of human possibilities that already exist here? Hmmm?
All of that could be easily wiped away with a comparatively mundane disaster. Being on the top means easily tumbling down. That's how the big dinosaurs met their demise.
-
This sci-fi doom cult is hilarious. Do you people genuinely go through your daily life thinking this kind of mind-rot? Jesus wept.
-
This sci-fi doom cult is hilarious. Do you people genuinely go through your daily life thinking this kind of mind-rot? Jesus wept.
Yes, dinosaurs and mass extinctions are sci-fi. ::)
-
Bah hahahaha hahah!!! :-DD Oh geez... Where did you get such a bizarre childish viewpoint from? Everything grows, lives, and dies, even entire species. Even us. Yes, evolution is still happening, eventually there won't be anything human no matter what we do now. And if you were really concerned about perishing you'd be backing life extension research, not fragile tin cans in low earth orbit or gangly cameras on wheels.
Apparently a large body of scientists has a "bizarre childish viewpoint". Don't try insulting others. You're only insulting yourself. ;) Life on Earth is a finite endeavour. The best way of ensuring its existence is getting off of Earth, whether it's us, a successor species or another species. Those fragile tin cans are necessary to get there, just like malformed fins were the first step towards the legs of a gazelle. Pretending that's a futile endeavour is silly, as securing its own survival is essentially all that live does.
I don't entirely disagree with him here.
Life is finite, period. Some day the sun will die out and the earth will be absorbed, chances are the human race will die out for other reasons millions of years before then. If we spread out to other planets, we will eventually die out on those too, nothing lasts forever. While nobody likes to think about our own mortality, it is an inescapable fact. Even if we knew of another habitable planet and had the means to get there, the vast majority of the population of the earth would perish anyway, it's simply not possible to evacuate a significant number of people on a planetary scale to save much of anything, it would only be propagating the species. At that point we have to ask what is the real value to the universe of propagating the human species? I don't think we are *that* important, the vast majority of the universe, assuming there is life elsewhere, would not even notice we were gone.
Backtracking a little, it's likely all moot anyway given we are almost certain to die off at some point anyway. We consume resources at a far higher rate than they are produced, eventually these will start to run out and wars are certain to break out over the resources that remain. Between violence within our own species, plagues, and catastrophic events, I have little doubt that humans are not the final life form on the earth, like the dinosaurs we will be here for a while, and then we will be gone, replaced by something else. It is inevitable. The "good" news is that every one of us here will likely be long dead and unable to worry about or debate it long before that happens.
-
I don't entirely disagree with him here.
Life is finite, period. Some day the sun will die out and the earth will be absorbed, chances are the human race will die out for other reasons millions of years before then. If we spread out to other planets, we will eventually die out on those too, nothing lasts forever. While nobody likes to think about our own mortality, it is an inescapable fact. Even if we knew of another habitable planet and had the means to get there, the vast majority of the population of the earth would perish anyway, it's simply not possible to evacuate a significant number of people on a planetary scale to save much of anything, it would only be propagating the species. At that point we have to ask what is the real value to the universe of propagating the human species? I don't think we are *that* important, the vast majority of the universe, assuming there is life elsewhere, would not even notice we were gone.
Backtracking a little, it's likely all moot anyway given we are almost certain to die off at some point anyway. We consume resources at a far higher rate than they are produced, eventually these will start to run out and wars are certain to break out over the resources that remain. Between violence within our own species, plagues, and catastrophic events, I have little doubt that humans are not the final life form on the earth, like the dinosaurs we will be here for a while, and then we will be gone, replaced by something else. It is inevitable. The "good" news is that every one of us here will likely be long dead and unable to worry about or debate it long before that happens.
As far as we understand the nature of the universe, life is ultimately finite. What pretty much defines life is that it does anything and everything to prolong its existence a little longer. With every human on or very near Earth, it doesn't take a lot geologically speaking to wipe out humans. Even all of life being wiped out isn't impossible. If we're a little more spread out, it all becomes a lot more resilient. This means leaving Earth and heading into the system and further universe. At that point very few things would mean the end, although other dangers would inevitable arise. Colonizing space means having a backup. We may not be able to stave off heat death, but we can at least aspire to witness it.
Besides, if it's all ultimately futile why should we bother at all? Why get out of bed in the morning? Why eat, love or reproduce? We're heading towards out inevitable death anyway. We may as well save ourselves some trouble and stop postponing it another day. Even though that probably sounds a bit extreme, it boils down to the same thing.
-
One thing I often think, we need to clean up our acts here, particularly in how we treat one another and other living things of all kinds, and our planet, treat our planet better- before we go out very far into space.
I really do think we will be able to live much longer lives in the future, if we want to. If we stop poisoning our planet that would help a lot.
When our lives are longer, we'll begin to see everything differently.
Then a lot of things will start falling into place that we don't really grasp now, as a species.
-
Why should we bother at all? Well that comes down to the whole "what's the meaning of life" existential question. It's not too difficult though, for me I enjoy being alive, I enjoy doing the things I enjoy doing. The fact that I know that I'll be dead and gone within a handful of decades doesn't stop me from enjoying life but it does help me to focus on today rather than worrying what I'll do 100 years from now because I know with almost certainty that I will not be alive 100 years from now. Everything is finite, everything ends, we cannot change that. All we can do is focus on making the limited time we have as interesting as possible.
I'm not worried about spreading out to another planet, once I'm dead and/or all the people I know are dead it makes very little difference to me whether the human race as a whole lives on or not. My own life is intrinsically tied to the earth, it is my home, and if the earth was no longer a viable place to live I'm not sure I'd even want to go on living anyway. If we find another habitable planet I'm not sure I'd want to see humans take it over, change it to our liking, rape it for its resources and pollute the natural environment with our byproducts the way we have done to the earth. In some ways humans behave a bit like a parasitic infection.
-
Colonization of space does not mean colonization by humans alone. Humans cannot survive without a supporting biome. (Anyone who disagrees, try removing the bacteria from your bowels and surviving for more than a couple of weeks. Hasn't been done yet.)
The idea that humans could build cities in space, or any urban type habitation, is wrong: even here on Earth urban areas require massive amounts of cultivation for food production alone. Add to that, we need a stable, reliable oxygen supply as well, and a way to keep the carbon dioxide content under control.
One key aspect of human colonization of space is that it requires humans to scientifically investigate how to build and maintain biomes indefinitely. Without that, colonization will not work. In my opinion, that knowledge alone, especially applied to life here on Earth, even if we never get off planet, will be worth the effort and resources spent.
If we ignore colonization of space, there really is nothing to force us to really research biome interactions and maintenance and the nitty-gritty details, because thus far, nature has always corrected any mistakes humans have made. Until one day we find out that didn't happen that one fatal time, and we find out we're headed for early extinction.
-
Oh don't get me wrong, all this research and knowledge is certainly cool and I'm sure it will find value in many areas, increasing our overall understanding of life, biology, the universe, etc. I just don't buy into the "Noah's space ark" fantasy of piling into a rocket to go colonize another planet to save the human race for all time thing. IMHO it's just not gonna happen, our primary focus should be improving life here on earth because this is where the vast majority of us and generations to come are going to spend the rest of our days no matter what happens. We have no backup planet, even if we find another inhabitable planet most of us would not be able to cross the vast distance to get there.
-
Oh don't get me wrong, all this research and knowledge is certainly cool and I'm sure it will find value in many areas, increasing our overall understanding of life, biology, the universe, etc. I just don't buy into the "Noah's space ark" fantasy of piling into a rocket to go colonize another planet to save the human race for all time thing. IMHO it's just not gonna happen, our primary focus should be improving life here on earth because this is where the vast majority of us and generations to come are going to spend the rest of our days no matter what happens. We have no backup planet, even if we find another inhabitable planet most of us would not be able to cross the vast distance to get there.
I agree that the idea of colonizing another place is unlikely and many people coming along impossible. That's not what would happen. At best we'd spread somewhere and then reproduce into a sizeable population there. Nodules of humanity separated by unimaginably vast distances of hostile emptiness. Some may never meet again. The first step would be living with some comfort and longevity in space, though. How that'd happen is still a mystery we're yet to solve, but it'd certainly improve the quality of life back on Earth too. Just like seafaring has inspired many inventions we still benefit from today, heading off into space is bound to do the same. With some luck the circular waste cycle required can be translated back to the suffering Earth.
-
A new planet might have mineral wealth, but without any alien life to sequester (extra-)solar radiation in carbon rich materials there isn't really anything to continue our current energy-intensive economies with.
So if we can't live sustainable here, what will moving to another planet achieve? An extra few hundred years? It isn't a long term plan. A quick spreadsheet model of 1000 colonists having 1.5 offspring every 25 years give billions before a 1000 years.
The sad but true truth is that the best thing that could happen is a plague wiping 99%+ of people.... that would definitely make a dent in carbon emissions.
-
A new planet might have mineral wealth, but without any alien life to sequester (extra-)solar radiation in carbon rich materials there isn't really anything to continue our current energy-intensive economies with.
So if we can't live sustainable here, what will moving to another planet achieve? An extra few hundred years? It isn't a long term plan. A quick spreadsheet model of 1000 colonists having 1.5 offspring every 25 years give billions before a 1000 years.
The sad but true truth is that the best thing that could happen is a plague wiping 99%+ of people.... that would definitely make a dent in carbon emissions.
It's not about saving or moving the existing population. That seems to be a common misconception.
-
A new planet might have mineral wealth, but without any alien life to sequester (extra-)solar radiation in carbon rich materials there isn't really anything to continue our current energy-intensive economies with.
So if we can't live sustainable here, what will moving to another planet achieve? An extra few hundred years? It isn't a long term plan. A quick spreadsheet model of 1000 colonists having 1.5 offspring every 25 years give billions before a 1000 years.
The sad but true truth is that the best thing that could happen is a plague wiping 99%+ of people.... that would definitely make a dent in carbon emissions.
It's not about saving or moving the existing population. That seems to be a common misconception.
How many do you think is a reasonable number to set up a colony? 10? 100? 1000?
It doesn't really make that much that a difference. If the expectation is that the population will increase. Send only 10 and get an extra century vs sending 100...
-
Its true that we need to focus mostly on our mission to Planet Earth.
We're going to be here in 100 years and whatever the situation is we'll all have to live with it. We should do our best to have all of our futures be good ones.
Hamster, you're wrong about a horrible plague being somehow good. You should consider the fact that many countries are aging because people aren't having children. Apart from the poorest and most unequal countries birth rates are falling. There are big parts of many countries that were populated in the past which are now almost totally deserted. For example, big parts of Japan are basically ghost towns. Its not because they aren't good places to live either.
Also, faster than light travel between the stars is still the stuff of science fiction. We already know that the Earth is the only planet in our own solar system that has the right conditions to support our kind of life. So that means we'd need to travel to another star. That's basically impossible in the kinds of ships we could build now, because of the time spans required, and the Newtonian rules which govern rocket-like propulsion systems, even the most advanced ones. That is, unless we suddenly developed something like the 'warp drives' in science fiction (people are working on hashing out ideas like that (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013) but even if it happens it's not about to happen overnight. Frankly, realizing FTL travel may simply not be possible.)
So then for people to go to the stars would require them setting off on one or perhaps many huge Noah's Arc like ships, knowing they and their children and probably several generations would not live to see their new home, because using current technologies it would take a very very very long time to travel to the nearest stars with any strong indication they might have planets that could sustain life like Earth. Half of that time would be accelerating and half deaccelerating. What if there was a malfunction and we couldn't slow down? We would have little opportunity to do anything but gaze at what might have been our new home, colors blue shifted and then red shifted by the effects of relativity as it flashed by.
Another risk might resolve joyfully or tragically. Suppose they did set off, and a few years later we back here on Earth discovered how to travel faster than light. They might arrive at their destination to find that others, perhaps including their great grandparents or their siblings, had beaten them to their new home, and had built a nice colony to welcome them when they arrived-many decades or more likely hundreds of years later. Or they might find their great grandparents skeletons. Supposed they had arrived, set up a colony, but then been wiped out by a terrible plague. Some tenacious alien microorganism might have found them to have been a delicious feast.
-
How many do you think is a reasonable number to set up a colony? 10? 100? 1000?
It doesn't really make that much that a difference. If the expectation is that the population will increase. Send only 10 and get an extra century vs sending 100...
The process will probably at least partially depend on technology to reduce the number required and I know better than to make predictions about technology. I'm not sure what you mean by "get an extra century".
-
So then for people to go to the stars would require them setting off on one or perhaps many huge Noah's Arc like ships, knowing they and their children and probably several generations would not live to see their new home, because using current technologies it would take a very very very long time to travel to the nearest stars with any strong indication they might have planets that could sustain life like Earth.
...
It ain't gonna happen like that IMHO. We'll develop androids with human level A.I. and send them out to explore. They don't worry about children or generations or ... you can fill in the rest. No, we aren't going to the stars our machines are.
-
So then for people to go to the stars would require them setting off on one or perhaps many huge Noah's Arc like ships, knowing they and their children and probably several generations would not live to see their new home, because using current technologies it would take a very very very long time to travel to the nearest stars with any strong indication they might have planets that could sustain life like Earth.
...
It ain't gonna happen like that IMHO. We'll develop androids with human level A.I. and send them out to explore. They don't worry about children or generations or ... you can fill in the rest. No, we aren't going to the stars our machines are.
I think so too, we are going to evolve into a machine civilisation unless we get wiped out before that happens.
"Blessed are the children of Karras, for they are the chosen ones. They alone will inherit the earth."
-
I just don't buy into the "Noah's space ark" fantasy of piling into a rocket to go colonize another planet to save the human race for all time thing.
No, me neither.
What I would love to see, is research stations on Moon, Mars, and maybe on a few asteroids. Hollowing out a nickel-iron asteroid (via melting it; there's actually theories on how this could be done) and then rotating it a bit to get a semblance of gravity inside, for pockets of truly closed biome research, would be amazing. And probably not nearly as expensive as one might think.
You could safely do all sorts of potentially dangerous genetic and nanotechnology research in such places, for example.
(Terminator gene research freaks me out a bit. Not the tech that makes non-germinating seeds, the tech that makes the N'th-generation seeds non-germinating: the risk of bacteria passing the gene to a wild cousin species that then passes it as a recessive gene via pollination. Everything is fine for a few seasons, then suddenly a large fraction of all cereal crops fail to germinate. Oops.)
As Kuiper belt objects (basically dirty snowballs) contain water ice, they could potentially make for great places for Earth life habitats. I believe that if biological human beings ever go to other stars, we'll probably do so by colonizing Oort cloud objects; similar to how Polynesia and eventually New Zealand was settled.
our primary focus should be improving life here on earth
But that's exactly why we need space research!
Like I said, right now, a vast majority of people believe humans cannot affect Earths ecosystems, because it is just too big. That may or may not be true; thing is, if it is not true, we can easily kill ourselves off. To find out what we really should be doing, we need to try and go into space, because to do so, we are forced to take Earth life with us to survive, and find out what we need to do to keep those miniature biosystems viable. The results are directly applicable to life here on Earth!
A key misconception many people have, is that every cent put into space research is somehow out of Earth life research. That is absolutely false.
The amount of resources we put into research is minuscule. We could do anything we wanted in space, if we put all the resources humans currently use for visual cosmetics (makeup and such) into space research. Research does not make any kind of a dent in our resource use, really. (And that completely ignores any returns from such research.)
In fact, if we look at past research projects, each cent spent in space research has involved an additional large fraction of a cent being used to research biomes, life, new agricultural methods, and so on. It is not a zero-sum game. So, if you wanted more resources for research on improving our life here on Earth, you really should support space research as well.
-
We went to the Moon.
Who’s “We,” Paleface? (https://www.socialmatter.net/2014/05/21/whos-we-paleface/) :)
If you worked on the lander, you were part of the team that got to the Moon and get to say "we". I loathe people who didn't contribute anything talking about "we", but if you were on the actual team I'd say you've earned it. This isn't exactly a sportsball fan claiming a victory he did nothing for to include himself.
I worked for Grumman. We constructed a number of modules to test specific systems. I helped wire and test them. We still used Simpson 260's and the engineers were using slide rules. It was an amazung feat considering the technology available at the time. The assent stage was wired to the decent stage by a ton of wiring. To separate them the breakers were turned off and a guillitine driven by an explosive charge cut the wires. There was no way you could have that many connectors pull apart. In testing every connector mating and unplugging was logged in a book, lest something be left unplugged. Even though they were expensive Deutsch connectors ( like Cannon plugs) with like 64 pins,they were replaced after so many cycles. There were thousands of people and hundreds companies involved. We worked three shifts, around rhe clock. It is insulting to have some foil hat guy claim it was faked. I think their time would be better spent looking for Elvis.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
"The amount of resources we put into research is minuscule. We could do anything we wanted in space, if we put all the resources humans currently use for visual cosmetics (makeup and such) into space research. Research does not make any kind of a dent in our resource use, really. (And that completely ignores any returns from such research.)"
Exactly, and that is why we should be putting money into fusion, thorium and other new energy ideas instead of windmills. You can't go into space with a windmill, but you can with a fusion reactor. Having fusion would make a lot of space projects feasible that are currently in the pulp fiction category.
Total climate change expenditure - about $1.5 trillion a year, upwards of $350 billion being on wind turbines and the like.
Cost to complete the ITER fusion reactor - $20 billion, once. NIF, slightly less.
Arguably windmills can't solve climate change either, because after decades of development they still supply only 2% of world energy. So, the likelihood of them replacing fossil fuels on any sensible timescale is extremely remote.
Success with fusion or thorium can replace most applications of fossil fuels, and deployment might not take all that long once it's been shown that the technology works reliably and is cost effective. The switch from coal to gas didn't take that long, after all. If the alternative is better/cheaper, market forces will do the rest.
-
While I'm not advocating a catastrophic plague, I'm not the slightest bit worried about there ever being a shortage of people. It can easily be demonstrated that a small number of people and multiply into a very large number over only a handful of generations. If the population ever drops substantially it will be easy to make more people.
The areas with sparse populations exist not because there is a shortage of people, but because people tend to like to cluster in specific areas for social and economic reasons. People want to live near well paying jobs and well paying jobs tend to cluster near other well paying jobs because that's where the talent pool is. Areas like where I live around Seattle have seen the population explode, it is a nightmare even compared to 20 years ago. Traffic is unbearable, housing prices are absurd, there are just way, way, WAY too many people crowding in and it is feeling claustrophobic. The fact that there are lightly populated areas in Japan is little comfort.
-
"The amount of resources we put into research is minuscule. We could do anything we wanted in space, if we put all the resources humans currently use for visual cosmetics (makeup and such) into space research. Research does not make any kind of a dent in our resource use, really. (And that completely ignores any returns from such research.)"
Exactly, and that is why we should be putting money into fusion, thorium and other new energy ideas instead of windmills. You can't go into space with a windmill, but you can with a fusion reactor. Having fusion would make a lot of space projects feasible that are currently in the pulp fiction category.
Total climate change expenditure - about $1.5 trillion a year, upwards of $350 billion being on wind turbines and the like.
Cost to complete the ITER fusion reactor - $20 billion, once. NIF, slightly less.
Arguably windmills can't solve climate change either, because after decades of development they still supply only 2% of world energy. So, the likelihood of them replacing fossil fuels on any sensible timescale is extremely remote.
Success with fusion or thorium can replace most applications of fossil fuels, and deployment might not take all that long once it's been shown that the technology works reliably and is cost effective. The switch from coal to gas didn't take that long, after all. If the alternative is better/cheaper, market forces will do the rest.
Even if you put the total global spending on renewable energy at $1.5T, and I'd love to see where you pulled that number from, it is completely dishonest to claim all of that as "Total climate change expenditure", whatever that is. These alternate sources are providing energy, energy we need, and to make it out as some kind of liberal vanity exercise is quite pathetic.
Almost all the energy we use came from the Sun originally. The oil we use to power our cars, trucks and airplanes was solar energy a few hundred million years ago and it took that long for the biomass that absorbed the solar energy to be converted into crude oil, gas and coal. The efficiency of transferring solar energy into useful energy is quite low and the dwell time of 300M years makes that process pretty terrible versus, for example, solar photovoltaic that is even in its cheapest and least efficient form, is still way more efficient than the Sun>Oil process and solar cells have the great advantage of being instantaneous -- no waiting. There are lab grade solar cells with 46% efficiency and commercial ones are following a price/performance curve that is pretty soon going to make solar the cheapest option there is. If a significant percentage of homes and buildings had solar panels and other structures like parking lots and some freeways had panels over them we could generate 100% of the energy we need and do so without requiring the dedication of any other land for that purpose beyond that needed for the cell and panel production.
There are only two kinds of energy that are not from the Sun: nuclear and tidal. However, it could be argued that nuclear is a result of a stelar process and that the Sun plays a small role in tidal energy production. In summary, the Sun is responsible for pretty much all the energy we use and the question I have is: do we wish to continue to use that energy from an indirect method that takes hundreds of millions of years, is less efficient, and creates far more waste and pollution?
Brian
-
There are only two kinds of energy that are not from the Sun: nuclear and tidal.
Geothermal ?
-
There are only two kinds of energy that are not from the Sun: nuclear and tidal.
Geothermal ?
And what's the source for geothermal -- oh, that's right, its nuclear decay within the core...
Brian
-
There are only two kinds of energy that are not from the Sun: nuclear and tidal.
Geothermal ?
And what's the source for geothermal -- oh, that's right, its nuclear decay within the core...
Brian
:-//
Not here, it’s from holes drilled into the earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_New_Zealand
-
I think raptor1956's point is a really really good one. I think we'd all be hard put to find almost any source of energy that didnt originate in the sun in one way or another. What that means though? It could mean a lot of different things.
One thing we should consider, suppose big volcano(s) go boom and the atmosphere gets filled with a real lot of ash. The earth becomes a white instead of a blue ball from space for a few (thousand?) years and here on Earth most of us (except for the ones with geothermal and maybe nuclear power?) freezing, dark and dry and dying off by the billions and what little rain falls is laced with sulfuric acid. What then for solar, wind and hydro power? And humanity. The volcanic abrupt climate shift part (involving large areas of basaltic volcanism) has actually happened several times and likely was behind at least one huge mass extinction. Maybe more. I actually live on top of one of the volcanoes that was involved in it. It still looks very volcanic in places too. ('traprock') There are tons of signs of it if you know where to look.
(Even though it happened many millions of years ago and was covered over by ice god knows how many times since then, up to a mile deep.)
*Thats a good reason to have backup plans elsewhere too*.
-
Just pedantry, but nuclear power doesn't come from our sun, but from the dead carcasses of earlier sun's elsewhere.
-
Hmmm... looking for info on that I found this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Pretty interesting!
Another interesting thing more relevant to the discussion, check out the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
concept. A well thought out proposal of how faster than light travel might be possible..
-
There are only two kinds of energy that are not from the Sun: nuclear and tidal.
Geothermal ?
Yep, drill a hole in the right place and you get geothermal power. Now, where did that energy come from -- what is the source of that energy. Well any planet that condenses from the gasses that make of the solar system will produce heat as they compress but that heat doesn't last and for a planet the size of Earth we'd have pretty much used up that heat of formation quite some time ago. But, it turns out we have a good deal of radioactive material in our core and the decay produces the energy needed to keep the core nice and toasty. That heat is what powers geothermal ... even in NZ.
Brian
And what's the source for geothermal -- oh, that's right, its nuclear decay within the core...
Brian
:-//
Not here, it’s from holes drilled into the earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_New_Zealand
That's right, in numerous places if you drill a hole into the Earth you can extract heat and use it to produce electrical power. Where the hell do you think the energy that you pull from the ground comes from? Well, here's the deal...
Like most planets the Earth formed from the dust and gas and as it compressed it heated. That heat, if not added to, would have dissipated bu now so its a good thing we have another mechanism to keep the core nice and hot. That mechanism is the decay of radioactive material. So, we can thank nuclear processes for are molten core and the Earths magnetic field -- not to mention the heat you pull from the ground.
Brian
-
Just pedantry, but nuclear power doesn't come from our sun, but from the dead carcasses of earlier sun's elsewhere.
If you'd read what I said I never said nuclear power came from OUR SUN. What I said is that it is a result of stellar processes. Our Sun is unlikely to die in a way to produce the kinds of heavy elements that produce nuclear energy, but the stars that do are still stars -- just like the Sun is a star.
And, as far as renew-ability is concerned, nuclear power based on fission isn't the answer. Fusion offers a significant possibility and with fewer negatives, but solar can be distributed and individuals can own there own power generation and not have to pay a utility company or the oil industry. It should not be hard to understand that this fact makes solar a frightening thing to the fossil fuels and electrical power companies and is the reason those industries spend large amounts of money to astroturf and troll the subject and to grease the palms of politicians in both parties.
Brian
-
Please feel free to ignore this rant :)
My beef with the solar being THE solution is that well under half of energy usage in a developed economies is household/personal use.
Wikipedia says that on a per capita basis the average energy usage in the USA is a little over 9kW - so on an average day (9kW * 24 hrs) = 108kWh will be used per person for all uses (electricity, transport, industry, aviation...).
Ignoring storage losses (and even the effect of latitude), if the average person wanted to use solar that must be in ballpark figures about 100m^2 per person....
100^2 * 1kW/m^2 of sunlight * 20% efficency * 6 hours of rated power per day = 120kWhw per day.
A family of four are going to need a heck of a lot of panels in a purely solar powered energy economy, with the current levels of energy usage.
It isn't a low-carbon economy that is needed, but a low energy economy, and as economic activity is closely related to energy usage that isn't politically going to fly until it is too late.
Sure, solar may be part of a solution (if one exists) but it isn't the whole solution.
BTW, Qatar citizens use 25kW per capita... Luckily it is sunny there!
-
Demographics are changing too, people are living much longer but more of that time is healthy time and machines are doing more and more work by themselves. So we won't need the younger generation to work to support the old, or the manager class, to mediate between workers and owners, because machines will be able to manage themselves.
Everybody could even have a vacation from our traditional roles due to automation!
What are people going to do with all that time? My hope is that they will learn new stuff!
-
Throughout history, automation has replaced working class people and shifted more of the income to the people who develop and own the machines. It has never really delivered on the promised increased leisure time, it just results in a further concentration of wealth amongst the few at the top. I wouldn't expect that to change to any significant degree going forward.
-
Throughout history, automation has replaced working class people and shifted more of the income to the people who develop and own the machines. It has never really delivered on the promised increased leisure time, it just results in a further concentration of wealth amongst the few at the top. I wouldn't expect that to change to any significant degree going forward.
That is certainly a pessimistic view. Whether you show the source as automation or unions most of the developed world has gone from essentially zero leisure time to a five day work week (or less) with an eight hour work day. It only takes a couple of 'non working' hours to take care of chores, even though there are far more of them today (baths daily, not annually, clothes washed after one wearing instead of a few times a year and the like). Just the microwave oven has reduced 'work' time by a lot for most people in industrialized societies.
Wealth concentration still exists, and has been increasing for the last two or three decades, but the overall trend is more murky. Also the total wealth is clearly increased. A lower class person a couple of hundred years ago would have owned one or two sets of clothes, if lucky a one or two room house, and some very rudimentary personal belongings.
-
According to Oxfam, an NGO that tracks wealth and poverty, using data compiled by Swiss Re and others, wealth is becoming more concentrated at an exponentially increasing rate. So there really needs to be a discussion about how we will handle the end of work as we knew it in the past soon, or we really risk some terrible things happening. (Because the right to regulate is being taken away - for why, see the Trilemma of Globalization arguments- basically to protect the investments of a highly mobile global investor class. Many of whom no longer work.)
In the era of work and industrial activity, it became normal to associate wealth to work, but the fact is, the upper class are fairly contemptuous of work in many cases and go to great lengths to signal to one another that they don't need to work to remain wealthy. (For example, for a long time in the UK, only unemployed land owners could vote) Thorstein Veblen in his Theory of the Leisure Class (http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/LCS/theoryleisureclass.pdf) drew a lot of parallels tying the conspicuous consumption activities of status conscious modern humans to older tribal societies. So the freeing of humanity from drudge work especially will be the realization of a long cherished dream.
Actually, if we go back to the pre-industrial era, especially the pre-agricultural era, the amount of time spent directly involved in work type activities (hunting and gathering) appears to have been in most cases less than today. A great deal of time was what we today would call socializing but it was actually activity to ensure the cohesion of the group and pass on needed information for survival to the next generation. Or so Ive read. Also, people who assume that post-industrial society will revert to a cottage industry model neglect the fact that in post-industrial society there won't be many jobs. So the opportunities for a comparable number of people to earn an income as existed in the past wont be there. Way back in the 1960s Hans Moravec had managed to convince John F. Kennedy to initiate a discussion on this coming era and its challenges but shortly after he agreed to do so he was assassinated. Lyndon F. Johnson, the president who replaced Kennedy, also promised to attempt to start a national discussion on this but the Vietnam War again prevented it from happening. And then after that the idea of having this discussion just seems to have vanished.
-
Throughout history, automation has replaced working class people and shifted more of the income to the people who develop and own the machines. It has never really delivered on the promised increased leisure time, it just results in a further concentration of wealth amongst the few at the top. I wouldn't expect that to change to any significant degree going forward.
The reason is supply and demand. Classical economics predicts the value of work will be influenced by the supply of similar labor.
-
A few years ago I read that the distribution of wealth was more unequal today than at the time of the french revolution. On the other hand, the only one who could afford a flushing toilet then was Marie Antoinette. During the middle ages a farmer would have spent more time doing manual labour at the farm just to produce the essentials to get through the year, but (s)he would also be eating better and more nutritious food and maybe would be happier and healthier? Of course, for a roman slave that wouldn't be the case.
I think it is clear the majority of people are getting poorer and poorer, but to some extent that is offset by (mainly) technological progress that makes things like flushing toilets and bread cheaper. Every now an then there is a little social progress as well, like abolition of slavery, human rights charters or public healthcare. Overall, as Steven Pinker says, many things are getting better, but at snail-speed. I wouldn't want to go back in time and live like a medieval farmer, I like my modern healthcare and conveniences too much, despite all its shortcomings. That doesn't mean there isn't any problems today, or things that couldn't be better.
There are robot factories already now, one produce furniture for Ikea for example. What happens when there is only one guy who owns all the robots that are making furniture? Or one gal that owns all the fully automated wheat farms? I'm not looking forward to the answer. Oligopolies seems to be getting commonplace already. I predict most people who read this will do it on a computer running either windows or mac-os with a processor from Intel (maybe AMD) for example. That is not a free market economy, more like Monoploy (https://www.amazon.com/Hasbro-C1009-Monopoly-Classic-Game/dp/B01MU9K3XU/ref=sr_1_1/146-1929791-0988425?ie=UTF8&qid=1546832227&sr=8-1&keywords=monopoly).
-
Free from the point of view of the corporations is freedom to buy your labor inputs wherever they are the cheapest. Thats one of the core things that has been changing since 1995. Non tariff barriers to trade in services are being eliminated very rapidly by global economic governance organizations who increasingly hold the real power. Turning the world into a giant mall where one can buy workers, policy, labor, women, and even human organs cheaper and cheaper. But 'essential' things, like life saving drugs, housing, education, water etc. are becoming more and more expensive by design.
-
Oligopolies seems to be getting commonplace already. I predict most people who read this will do it on a computer running either windows or mac-os with a processor from Intel (maybe AMD) for example. That is not a free market economy, more like Monoploy (https://www.amazon.com/Hasbro-C1009-Monopoly-Classic-Game/dp/B01MU9K3XU/ref=sr_1_1/146-1929791-0988425?ie=UTF8&qid=1546832227&sr=8-1&keywords=monopoly).
Or count how many semiconductor manufacturers are on market today and compare them to say of 30 years ago. The number of produced items has increased but it all comes from fewer vendors...
-
Throughout history, automation has replaced working class people and shifted more of the income to the people who develop and own the machines. It has never really delivered on the promised increased leisure time, it just results in a further concentration of wealth amongst the few at the top. I wouldn't expect that to change to any significant degree going forward.
People worked far longer hours in the 19th century. If we lived like 19th century people we could be down to a pretty short work week by now. However, in the 19th century most people, in even the most developed countries, lived pretty horrible lives. Even as a child in the UK I was bloody cold for a lot of the winter, because it was financially impractical for most people to heat more than a small area of their homes. Life was still pretty basic in many ways. Until the internet meant that lots of us are never really off work, the 35 to 40 hour work week and several weeks vacation per year was giving lots of us a reasonable balance between work hours and the quality of life we can get from them.
-
Throughout history, automation has replaced working class people and shifted more of the income to the people who develop and own the machines. It has never really delivered on the promised increased leisure time, it just results in a further concentration of wealth amongst the few at the top. I wouldn't expect that to change to any significant degree going forward.
People worked far longer hours in the 19th century. If we lived like 19th century people we could be down to a pretty short work week by now. However, in the 19th century most people, in even the most developed countries, lived pretty horrible lives. Even as a child in the UK I was bloody cold for a lot of the winter, because it was financially impractical for most people to heat more than a small area of their homes. Life was still pretty basic in many ways. Until the internet meant that lots of us are never really off work, the 35 to 40 hour work week and several weeks vacation per year was giving lots of us a reasonable balance between work hours and the quality of life we can get from them.
Of course we are going more forward than backward in most ways, but the fact the wealth of the wealthiests is ever growing leaving things to further improve still...
-
There still seem to be residual expectations from the 1900s that things will get better despite economic shifts occurring which are constantly reacalibrating everything in the other direction. In particular the WTO Ministerial every two years is designed to effectuate progressive liberalization which will result in huge efficiency gains in developed countries. Think NAFTA but for the rest of the jobs.
Throughout history, automation has replaced working class people and shifted more of the income to the people who develop and own the machines. It has never really delivered on the promised increased leisure time, it just results in a further concentration of wealth amongst the few at the top. I wouldn't expect that to change to any significant degree going forward.
People worked far longer hours in the 19th century. If we lived like 19th century people we could be down to a pretty short work week by now. However, in the 19th century most people, in even the most developed countries, lived pretty horrible lives. Even as a child in the UK I was bloody cold for a lot of the winter, because it was financially impractical for most people to heat more than a small area of their homes. Life was still pretty basic in many ways. Until the internet meant that lots of us are never really off work, the 35 to 40 hour work week and several weeks vacation per year was giving lots of us a reasonable balance between work hours and the quality of life we can get from them.
Of course we are going more forward than backward in most ways, but the fact the wealth of the wealthiests is ever growing leaving things to further improve still...
-
Things do largely get better overall, but not everything does. Automation has taken over countless jobs but rather than the person who formerly did that job sitting back and enjoying themselves while the machine does the work for them, they are out of a job and the owner of the company pockets what used to be their paycheck. Manufacturing in most first world nations has been gutted, what is next? Automation is effective because it allows many fewer but more highly skilled people to replace a large workforce of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. It's a double edged sword, the reduced cost of goods allows us to have more "stuff" but it is progressively harder to make a good living so the cost of necessities like housing rise.
Goods are cheaper because it requires far fewer man hours to produce a given gadget, but that also means a lot fewer paychecks. Everyone has got to make a living somehow.
-
I can answer that question. Services are the other 80% of the economy. The two were supposed to be gutted together back in the 90s but services got hung up in negotiations between the various groups that all wanted their cut. Every two years, they meet, the Uruguay Round, Seattle, the Cancun talks, Doha, Hong Kong, Bali, Geneva in between, again and again, Nairobi and most recently Buenos Aires. They need international involvement (multilateralism) they claim that legitimates the end run around democracy! I don't think so. But read it for yourself! (See "Golden Straightjacket" "Globalization Trilemma" on places like the WEForum site (the Davos people) and so on) Now the latest story is that it helps poor people (Really, I couldn't make this up!) to prop up the people who oppress them the most. And find jobs for their children. Especially if they don't pay!? The "poor" countries want the jobs and other concessions in exchange for their companies to broker in exchange for cooperation in their con game against the mutually resented soon to be former middle class. It's their entitlement!
Automation would have taken ten or twenty more years to decimate the number of jobs that services liberalization can probably offshore or onshore in just two or three.
Things do largely get better overall, but not everything does. Automation has taken over countless jobs but rather than the person who formerly did that job sitting back and enjoying themselves while the machine does the work for them, they are out of a job and the owner of the company pockets what used to be their paycheck. Manufacturing in most first world nations has been gutted, what is next?
Services. Of course under global value chains it makes no sense to do anything expensive in the developed countries that can be done for less in the two dollar a day or less countries. Thats their new middle class. But of course only an idiot would delude themselves into thinking that will create any kind of other middle class anywhere else. But that is the totally debunked argument that they still repeat. All knowing its total hogwash. They are literally following the killing the goose that laid the golden egg fable as if they were in a trance. Groupthink has captured their common sense clean away.
If you look at history its just full of really huge disasters where people thought some ideologically obsessed ruling entity that had other priorities was going to help them and that it wouldn't let things just fall apart, but it did. Changing so many things all at once like they are doing, behind everybody's backs, basically changing the entire world's government in order to make money everything instead of not everything, is a mistake. We need some common sense. But we don't have any honesty from any of these entities, its not in their vocabulary.
-
Just give customers options machines cant handle and need labor to change. Everyone is gonna get bored of how shit looks and works with hypermass production.
If every day is exactly the same you will go crazy.
Unless your some thumping commie you wanna be a little different
Also tell me a mass produced bread you enjoy eating? Its a bandaid for logistical problems and the poverty gap. Everyone would be eating artisan stuff if they could. You eat fucking wonderbread and cans because the world is too fucked up to get you a reasonably conveniant bakery.
That kind of shit happens because your like fucking god damn molex crimpers are so expensive screw it im gonna eat beans out of a can for a month.
Mass production also results in hillarious situations when it comes to form and function.
Also not enough engineers to occupy the machines with complex low production jobs.
-
In free-market capitalism, the public votes every day as to which entrepreneurs should control the stock of capital. An entrepreneur who does not meet the public's needs, soon has to go out of business. An entrepreneur who gives the public what they wants becomes wealthy and can reinvest.
As such, a divide between rich and poor can only exist to the extent that one entrepreneur better predicts the needs of the consumers over a longer period than another. (One who works a 9-5 job is an entrepreneur by this definition but has only one customer, restricting his/her ability to profit).
The reason why a large and growing divide between rich and poor exists currently, is that we do not have free-market capitalism. Instead, every aspect of the economy is controlled and regulated. Because of the phenomenon of regulatory capture, it is normal practice for the market leaders in a particular industry to cause large amounts of choking legislation to be produced, which is costly to comply with and restricts new entrants to those who have substantial capital backing.
Or in a simpler case consider professional licensing, doctors, lawyers and so on... it's the same thing. Basically the reason doctors and lawyers can virtually print money is that the supply of these essential services is sharply restricted. Not free-market.
I should be allowed to consult anybody I want for medications or surgery, and I should be allowed to have anybody I want argue my case in a Court. Charlatans may remain in business for a while, but if somebody doesn't do their due diligence, it's basically their own responsibility. I don't need Government to protect me by providing a "minimum" standard of service that I cannot afford.
Open up the free market to genuine competition, and see the gap between wealth and poor close up within years or decades. It's that simple.
Nick
-
Watch this video of why Russia didn't land on the Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6fjs_8Yx8&t=175s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6fjs_8Yx8&t=175s)
Penguins and Polar Bears live in different hemispheres.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6XeELc3QH8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6XeELc3QH8)
Is this true?
What's for all this silly stuff?
Why are all these NASA guys and gals such weirdos?
Why would NASA lie?
-
That video is just plain FUD! The technology to put an object into earth orbit is already there. Hell, it was there for the past 60 years! If this video is casting doubt in some people, then they might as well doubt the presence of satellites in orbit! But then, how do we watch live TV across continents? How does GPS work? How about satellite phones? But I'm sure the guys making this video have an explanation for those, too, just like the flat earthers :)
-
Why are all these NASA guys and gals such weirdos?
Because they were fascinated by science, technology, and space since they were kids. And they have put so much time into the study and learning of science, their social skills didn't develop as well as their peers that were socializing in their spare times.
Why would NASA lie?
NASA doesn't have any reason to lie about anything. Look at the huge building in Arlington, VA that has 5 edges if you want to see chronic liars :)
-
Yup, you're a Flatearther. Time to take a Flatearth Cruise the the edge of earth and prove it is flat by falling off LOL, just kidding.
We may think it was too easy for man to go into space and just land on the moon. That is not so. There setbacks and disasters are just not spoken about
for your enjoyment, is a Youtube that shows how difficult it was to make a reliable rocket to clear earth's orbit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9EnUQltR9A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9EnUQltR9A)
Thank Fabio Baccaglioni for this series.
-
Perhaps you are very stupid?
You can't imagine how many mistakes I did in the past. Opening a therad like this was the last one. :palm:
Hmm. So you CAN learn? So all is not lost!
I think Antarctica is fake. How can it be cold there if the sun shines during the day? It's warm here at the same time!
Actually most of Antarctica is in darkness for 24 hours per day, when it's warm in Canada.
So, that's why polar bears don't eat penguins. They can't find them in the dark. ;)
Groan. Good grief, now this thread really does need to be locked.
LOL, LOL, LOL!
Zucca has one really good point.
What books are there to read that tell the story of space and humanities effort to get out there?
How about if we build a list of great reads?
...and I cannot think of a single title, I just have the name Richard Feynman stuck in my head.. :palm:
-
My question is, 1) Does NASA really make fake PR/propaganda videos in which they pretend to be in the ISS but aren't? 2) If so, why?
-
My question is, 1) Does NASA really make fake PR/propaganda videos in which they pretend to be in the ISS but aren't? 2) If so, why?
:palm:
-
Astronauts are real, I used to work with one, well, in the next building over from one. And she used to go running a couple times a week with one of my co workers, they were old friends from college.
I also used to see them at lunch and in the gym. And they do have all sorts of machines to simulate various aspects of space.
-
The Blue Earth, its an IMAX film with a soundtrack by Brian Eno.