Did We Ever Actually Make It to the Moon?

Jimmy Junior

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

I believe there is life of some description on some other planet somewhere, simply down to the number of other planets out there, but I don't think we'll ever see it - as previously discussed they would have to be travelling faster than the speed of light which would be difficult to accomplish.

If any planet is going to discover alternative life forms I don't think it'll be earth which does it - I don't believe we have even been to our nearest moon yet, partly due to the band of dangerous radiation which surrounds the earth.

I wouldn't like to witness what would happen if aliens landed on earth - on the one hand humans have been trying to conquer other countries to expand their empires for thousands of years and there is the danger that the aliens may try to do the same, but on the other hand if they are advanced enough to build a spaceship which can travel faster than the speed of light, there is a good chance they would be advanced enough to be able to get along with other species.
 

arach

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

Jimmy Junior said:
If any planet is going to discover alternative life forms I don't think it'll be earth which does it - I don't believe we have even been to our nearest moon yet, partly due to the band of dangerous radiation which surrounds the earth.
This bond, I assume you mean the Van-Allen-Bond, isn't that harmful, except you are in it for several days.

The Saljut 6, which orbited earth for around 175 days, suffered a radiation of about 55 Milli Sievert (mSv). The dosage that shouldn't be exceeded is (and is also the radiation limit for NASA astronauts) 200 mSv per year. The only place where the radiation is that high is the center of the inner Van-Ellen-Bond, where you get 200mSv per hour. BUT you are behind walls of aluminium and iron and other metal and whatever they use to build spaceships, which should protect you from the protones, which form the main part of the Van-Ellen-Bond. And you are not even in there for an hour. The inner Bond is about 5000 km thick, the american spaceships are usually around 30.000 km/h fast. 10 minutes of radiation... you probably get a higher dose if you are x-rayed.

It's not healthy of course, but it would no way kill you.

I really don't know why people believe in that paranoid conspiracy stuff concerning the moon landing. We have physics, we have mathematics, we have genious brains and gigantic computers - people could really start to believe that such things are possible.
There are other impossible things on earth you should question - e.g. I can't imagine how they do that lasagne, which you don't even have to put in the freezer or the refridgerator, but its long-lasting, about a year or more, although it contains meat... explain that to me! :confused:
 

Jimmy Junior

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

Well that doesn't sound like real food at all - I'll stick to making my own lasagne thanks!

I'me sure the technology does exist now to put a man on the moon, but did it exist in the 1960s?
I have to admit I'd never doubted the integrity of the moon landing story until I saw a documentary on it, which raised a few good points:

If they managed to land on the moon in the 60s, how come nobody else has been there since, and why did the Russians give up the 'space race' half way through?

If you speed up the films of the astronauts 'moonwalking', it just looks like they're running in the desert.

In the films of the astronauts placing the flag in the surface of the moon, the flag appears to be flapping in the wind - there isn't any wind in space.

On the moon the temperature is something like 80 degrees in the sun and -80 in the shade - the suits they were wearing just had a few plastic pipes with coolant running through them, which wouldn't have been able to cope with such differences in temperature.

The films taken on the surface of the moon show exactly what the astronauts are doing, even in the shade; the cameras were strapped to their chests so they wouldn't have been able to film with such accuracy, in the moon's shade it would be too dark to be able to see anything, and there were no stars in their films - there wouldn't be any clouds or anything to get in the way on the moon.

The films the astronauts supposedly took show many obvious signs of tampering, such as objects appearing in front of the crosshairs etched into the camera lens.

The films of them landing and taking off from the moon show they have perfect control of the lunar module which they never had during rehersals because the module was extremely difficult to control, and the film showed the module taking off without leaving a blast crater, as if it were being winched straight up into the air.


I really would love to believe that man has been to the moon, but it just doesn't look to me like it's actually happened.
 

Emrysgirl

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

I'm gonna try to tackle this with my extremely limited knowledge of space and high school freshman physics!:D

Jimmy Junior said:
If they managed to land on the moon in the 60s, how come nobody else has been there since, and why did the Russians give up the 'space race' half way through?
Noboby else has been there since b/c it's incredibly expensive, dangerous and utterly pointless. Putting a human being on the moon for the second time would serve no purpose other than fueling popular imagination. This is also in part why Bush's moon base idea/proposal got shot down. It is much more practical to use machines, which are less fragile.

The Russians gave up b/c 1) going to the moon was pretty much all that could be done at that point, so the race was over 2) money!!!

Jimmy Junior said:
If you speed up the films of the astronauts 'moonwalking', it just looks like they're running in the desert.
Ok...great...?? And if you slow it down it looks like they're standing still.

Jimmy Junior said:
In the films of the astronauts placing the flag in the surface of the moon, the flag appears to be flapping in the wind - there isn't any wind in space.
There's a very good explanation for that and I've heard it before. (from my dad, actually. I'll ask him about it and get back to you.)

Jimmy Junior said:
On the moon the temperature is something like 80 degrees in the sun and -80 in the shade - the suits they were wearing just had a few plastic pipes with coolant running through them, which wouldn't have been able to cope with such differences in temperature.
Different suits or different fluids?? How long were they out for in a stretch? Modern suits don't look all that different. How are they able to do it now?

I know there are a lot of people who actually know stuff about filming/editing. So I'll leave those points to them.
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

I tried to post this yesterday, but my internet just died multiple times so:
@jimmy junior:

How do you know it's fake? Have you been to the moon? Maybe if we point a telescope on the moon we'll find the American flag, a(some) lunar rover(s), the descent stages of the crafts, and, oh yeah, Neil Armstrong's foot print.

Can you explain the moon rocks the astronauts had when they landed? Couldn't use robots, they didn't have the AI.

And America can't go to the moon now. The only thing capable of propelling the Landers and crew was the Saturn V. But the Saturn V is classified as an ICBM, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, and they had to be destroyed and left out side so the (at the time) Soviet satellites could see they were not capable of launching. The only two remaining Saturn V's are in museums.
Jimmy Junior said:
If they managed to land on the moon in the 60s, how come nobody else has been there since, and why did the Russians give up the 'space race' half way through?
We aren't trying. We tried in 1969, we're not trying now. Bush says in 2020, he's going to leave it to some other president and let him/her deal with it.

Jimmy Junior said:
On the moon the temperature is something like 80 degrees in the sun and -80 in the shade - the suits they were wearing just had a few plastic pipes with coolant running through them, which wouldn't have been able to cope with such differences in temperature.
Only one side of the moon is on the sun, the way the moon moves with the earth, which revolves around the sun, causes it to only show 1 half of the moon. Hence the names: dark side, light side They landed on the light side, so it was 80 all the time, not bad weather for the moon.
 

arach

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

J. said:
@jimmy junior:
Maybe if we point a telescope on the moon we'll find the American flag, a(some) lunar rover(s), the descent stages of the crafts, and, oh yeah, Neil Armstrong's foot print.
Actually, that's a very good point. :D

Jimmy, didn't you ever hear anything about the mirrors on the moon? About the "Obervatoire de la Côte d'Azur" in Grasse in France? About the people there whose job is it to send laser signals to the moon to calculate the distance between earth and moon several times a day; laser signals that are reflected by special mirrors they put up there in Apollo Missions 11, 14 and 15? You can ask these scientists what they think about the whole conspiracy-story. ;)

And BTW: Those fakers always think the NASA is stupid. They think they would send them out on the moon in aluminium foil at 80 degrees, although the exploration was done when the sun was low, within a day or so of local sunrise at the landing site at the time of the landing, so that temperatures were actually quite moderate, even after a full 3 days on the lunar surface.
Just an example... from my personal point of view those arguments are pretty stupid and farfetched. But if you believe in them... I guess we could continue this pointless discussion forever. ;)
 

Jimmy Junior

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

Whoah... I seem to have stirred up a controversial subject here...

I'll answer specific questions from page 3 in a minute - I can only see page 1 at the moment.

Before that, I should mention again that I didn't question the integrity of the moon landing until I saw a documentary (it was called 'conspiracies') on the subject; the same series suggested that the attacks on the twin towers in New York was a conspiracy to stir up hatred for America's enemies, and a big insurance scam because the twin towers wouldn't conform to modern safety standards. *I don't believe this, because if it were true, the conspirators should be considered mentally ill and should never have had a position of that authority in the first place.*

According to this documentary I saw,
1) nobody has claimed to have been to the moon in the last 35 years because viewers would expect better images, in colour, and experts would be able to spot a forgery a mile off,
2) The Russians gave up because they realised it was too dangerous. Bear in mind that while NASA spent millions of dollars developing a ball-point pen that would be operational in zero-gravity conditions, the Russians decided it would be easier and more cost-effective to use a pencil.

I'll disregard the comment about slowing down the film, to avoid embarassment.

If your dad is clued up on the subject he wouldn't be able to tell you anything about it - my dad worked for the MoD (including ESSA) for 30 years (he's 72 now), but I still don't know exactly what he did, due to the official secrets act.

I didn't understand your comments about the spacesuits, sorry.
 

Jimmy Junior

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

Pt 2
Of course I've never been to the moon - the whole point you (Justin) posted that, is because I suggested that nobody has ever been to the moon; all we have is what we've been told - years ago the British public were fooled (as an April fool's joke) into believing that spaghetti grows on trees. If they hadn't been told, many people would have believed it for years after because TV had only just been invented and they had no reason to suspect otherwise.

Those "moon rocks" could be bits of breezeblock for all we know - how can you prove they're not?
Your (Justin's) reason for the Americans not being able to go to the moon again was a bit weak - I mentioned that nobody else in the world has been to the moon.... Unless you could re-itterate that?

Suggetsting that the temperature is the same in the sunshine as it is in the shade (particularly closer to the sun) is a bit naive - I'm no meteorologist but I could still tell that at 6pm today it was warmer on the seafront here than it was in the city centre.

I've never heard of mirrors on the moon, and to be honest, I think it's a bit far-fetched that we have telescopes that can see what's on Mars, yet can't see the flag on the moon.

If anyone would like to hear my point of view on any other 'moon-landing' related questions, please post them here and I'll give it my best shot!
 

Malcolm

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

Im answering you with another question; do you really think I believe in witches?
 

Emrysgirl

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

Jimmy Junior said:
nobody has claimed to have been to the moon in the last 35 years because viewers would expect better images, in colour, and experts would be able to spot a forgery a mile off
Jimmy Junior said:
I'me sure the technology does exist now to put a man on the moon
Are you conradicting yourself or undermining the movie?

Jimmy Junior said:
The Russians gave up because they realised it was too dangerous. Bear in mind that while NASA spent millions of dollars developing a ball-point pen that would be operational in zero-gravity conditions, the Russians decided it would be easier and more cost-effective to use a pencil.
I don't think safety was at the top of the Russians' list. That's partly why they beat the US at every other point in the space race - they were willing to try w/ less testing/improving. I think the movie's very right about the money part. The Soviet Union had already started declining in the 60s. Either way, they didn't give up because it was impossible.

Jimmy Junior said:
I'll disregard the comment about slowing down the film, to avoid embarassment.
Ok, dumb example, but my point was: It doesn't prove anything. We all know that a forgery COULD have been made for just the film. Saying that it could have been something else doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't tell us anything about the validity of the moon landing.

My dad isn't involved in this stuff. He's in general relativity (a branch of physics). But he knows the explaination for the flag in the wind thing.

Jimmy Junior said:
I didn't understand your comments about the spacesuits, sorry
Same thing as what J and arach pointed out.

Jimmy Junior said:
Those "moon rocks" could be bits of breezeblock for all we know - how can you prove they're not?
light spectrometry. You can tell what the moon is made of (by annalyzing moonlight), you can tell what the rocks are made of. See if they match. I'm sure it's been done.

Jimmy Junior said:
Your (Justin's) reason for the Americans not being able to go to the moon again was a bit weak - I mentioned that nobody else in the world has been to the moon.... Unless you could re-itterate that?
Actually it's a pretty good reson. The reason no one's been to the moon since is that it's a complete waste of money. If we wanted to, we could, but we have no reason to try.

Jimmy Junior said:
I've never heard of mirrors on the moon, and to be honest, I think it's a bit far-fetched that we have telescopes that can see what's on Mars, yet can't see the flag on the moon.
I've heard of the mirrors. The telescopes that see what's on Mars show craters etc several kilometers wide. That's quite different from a 2 meter flag. The close up stuff is by Spirit and Opportunity.

Malcolm said:
Im answering you with another question; do you really think I believe in witches?
No, I don't. I was just checking. See, I didn't think anyone still believed in the moon landing conspiracy theory either.
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

Emrysgirl said:
Actually it's a pretty good reson. The reason no one's been to the moon since is that it's a complete waste of money. If we wanted to, we could, but we have no reason to try.
It's not a complete waste of money. There are thing on the moon that you can't do or do as well on Earth. Ball berings are one. the must be round, and no, or 1/3 of Earth gavity is a great place to do them.

The moon could be used as a staging point to interplanetary, or interstellar travel. Again, less gravity, less friction, more fuel saved for flight. like a spaceport.
 

yardgames

Retired Administrator
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

I'm going to let this debate rage on because it's rather interesting to see how you rebuttle each other's comments. But it has absolutlely nothing to do with aliens any more, so I've split it into its own thread. And before you reply, think about what you're going to say and back it up with evidence, or you'll be going back and forth like this forever.
 

arach

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

Jimmy Junior said:
I've never heard of mirrors on the moon, and to be honest, I think it's a bit far-fetched that we have telescopes that can see what's on Mars, yet can't see the flag on the moon.
Pretty dumb discussion again, because I'm not really informed about the topic moon, and neither are you. The documentary you saw doesn't count; they could tell you anything and you would believe it because you are no NASA expert.

Do you think the flag is still there? After 35 years of asteroid bombardements? Don't forget that the moon has no atmosphere, so it's not protected against all the stuff that's flying around in space. I don't wanna calculate but I guess in those 35 years there happend to be one single 5 cm Asteroid, which crashed into the moon next to the flag, and the flag was catapulted into space.
 

Emrysgirl

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

J. said:
It's not a complete waste of money. There are thing on the moon that you can't do or do as well on Earth. Ball berings are one. the must be round, and no, or 1/3 of Earth gavity is a great place to do them.

The moon could be used as a staging point to interplanetary, or interstellar travel. Again, less gravity, less friction, more fuel saved for flight. like a spaceport.
No, I wasn't saying that going to the moon was a waste of money. I was saying that sending a HUMAN is a waste of money. Like I said in my 1st post, "It is much more practical to use machines, which are less fragile." W/ machines, you can put in spare parts (like w/ the multiple cameras on Spirit) and you don't have to worry about it living. It also saves you the cost of dehydrating food, oxygen supply etc.
 

Emrysgirl

New member
What a relevant discussion considering all the Nasa stuff going on now! I guess that kinda goes to support Jimmy Junior:D.
 

Jimmy Junior

New member
Thanks for all of your questions - I've just got my internet connection back after a couple of days offline, but I'm a bit too drunk to answer them all now. I'll try again later...
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Wheather or not we ever made it to the moon, what do you think we could do there, I named two earlier, but I'm curious.

I like the idea of a staging point. we launce a space craft from Earth, it lands on the moon, and launches again, a gas station. We could also use it to build starships that are never ment to land of the Earth, or anyother planet. There would be men ferried from the moon to the starship that is being built, they build the ship, and then pump it full of air, thenpoof, 1 starship ready to visit another star system.
 

Emrysgirl

New member
J. said:
I like the idea of a staging point. we launce a space craft from Earth, it lands on the moon, and launches again, a gas station.
That's what the ISS is for. How about storing nuclear waste?:D But I suppose the moon's atmosphere is so thin that it wou ld float back to earth.
 

Jimmy Junior

New member
Re: Are we alone in the Universe, or Galaxy?

In response to Emrysgirl's questions:
I was suggesting that although the technology exists, another human hasn't walked on the moon because they would see there is no evidence of human activity, and the excitement of the organisation that sent them there would prove that it has never been done before.

Who were the 'moon rocks' annalised by? The organisation that went to find them. If a robot were sent to the moon to get more, I'm sure they would be different.

If there is no reason to send anyone else to the moon, why have other people been to go and float around in space since then? Surely that is even more pointless?

Again, the technology exists to view the surface of Mars in detail, why not the moon, considering the pictures taken by the 1960s astronauts weren't very clear?
 
Top