Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Drewhunz

Did we land on the moon

Did we land on the moon?  

104 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I can see how many of the conspiracy theories have merit, such as the limit in technology and the anomalies thrown up by the photos.

But I believe they did land on the moon for these reasons:

The budget they had back then was (pun intended) astronomical, and if it were adjusted for inflation today, it would be crazy money, so the backing was there.

Think of all the people involved, not just in NASA, nor the US government, but international academics and agencies who were used at the time to verify signals, and work on rock brought back from the moon. This past week I spoke to the Guy who worked at Jodrell Bank (UK's largest radio) telescope, and was on duty at the time of the landing. His job was to monitor communications and progress by measuring radio frequencies, and later worked on moon rock brought back. This is just one of a million examples of someone involved that would've had to have been suitably duped into believing. Now, duping may be one thing, but think of all the people involved, how many have come out and said it was a fake. In this day and age, and the past 40 years for that matter, the amount of money involved for leaking a story would be too enticing. Obama couldn't fart without someone letting on.

The magnitude of the space race; If the Russians thought or believed it wasn't possible, they would have been the first to speak up…. I find it hard to believe they didn't try their best to uncover something, to prove it was faked. The political implication would've been bigger than Watergate, Clinton-Lewinsky and perhaps JFK combined!

The photo technology and imaging has progressed enough so that images can be taken of the supposed landing site from either earth, or orbiting satellites that show the lunar module still on the surface, and from orbiting images; foot prints can be seen.

I could go on, but they are pretty good reasons me thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love to hear someone's argument as to why/how we didn't... Then again maybe I wouldn't.

Im sure one would be the lack of technology. But that is looking back with the benefit of todays tech. I watched a show on it, and they said the ships computer had the computing power of todays hand held calculator! The mission almost went bad when the computer couldnt handle all the functions it needed to, so they told it to only focus on certain ones, and dont do others. Damn scary stuff. Amazing what they accomplished back then with so little to work with.

I highly doubt that.

Technology was not lacking back then. Maybe to your everyday John and Jane it was, but not to the government.

Example - Take the SR-71 blackbird. Even today that thing is mysterious and a marvel. It first flew in 1964. The moon landing was 5 years after that.

I think you underestimate how far technology is and was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love to hear someone's argument as to why/how we didn't... Then again maybe I wouldn't.

Im sure one would be the lack of technology. But that is looking back with the benefit of todays tech. I watched a show on it, and they said the ships computer had the computing power of todays hand held calculator! The mission almost went bad when the computer couldnt handle all the functions it needed to, so they told it to only focus on certain ones, and dont do others. Damn scary stuff. Amazing what they accomplished back then with so little to work with.

That's an urban legend. The Apollo missions used a number of on board computers. The AGC was actually a very advanced computer that built on guidence systems used for ICBM's, first to used integrated circuits, and a number of other features that made it quite revolutionary and much more powerful than a calculator (which isn't a computer at all really). All of the Apollo missions has two of these computers, as well as a flight computer, and the back up AGS in the lunar module.

The reality is to preform technical functions a computer doesn't need the ultra high end hardware that is in the modern PC. What really requires that is graphical needs, primarily video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see how many of the conspiracy theories have merit, such as the limit in technology and the anomalies thrown up by the photos.

But I believe they did land on the moon for these reasons:

The budget they had back then was (pun intended) astronomical, and if it were adjusted for inflation today, it would be crazy money, so the backing was there.

Think of all the people involved, not just in NASA, nor the US government, but international academics and agencies who were used at the time to verify signals, and work on rock brought back from the moon. This past week I spoke to the Guy who worked at Jodrell Bank (UK's largest radio) telescope, and was on duty at the time of the landing. His job was to monitor communications and progress by measuring radio frequencies, and later worked on moon rock brought back. This is just one of a million examples of someone involved that would've had to have been suitably duped into believing. Now, duping may be one thing, but think of all the people involved, how many have come out and said it was a fake. In this day and age, and the past 40 years for that matter, the amount of money involved for leaking a story would be too enticing. Obama couldn't fart without someone letting on.

The magnitude of the space race; If the Russians thought or believed it wasn't possible, they would have been the first to speak up…. I find it hard to believe they didn't try their best to uncover something, to prove it was faked. The political implication would've been bigger than Watergate, Clinton-Lewinsky and perhaps JFK combined!

The photo technology and imaging has progressed enough so that images can be taken of the supposed landing site from either earth, or orbiting satellites that show the lunar module still on the surface, and from orbiting images; foot prints can be seen.

I could go on, but they are pretty good reasons me thinks.

The conspiracy theory that it was a fake landing was probably put out there by the Russians. Nothing like a little disinformation to mess with your enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love to hear someone's argument as to why/how we didn't... Then again maybe I wouldn't.

Im sure one would be the lack of technology. But that is looking back with the benefit of todays tech. I watched a show on it, and they said the ships computer had the computing power of todays hand held calculator! The mission almost went bad when the computer couldnt handle all the functions it needed to, so they told it to only focus on certain ones, and dont do others. Damn scary stuff. Amazing what they accomplished back then with so little to work with.

That's an urban legend. The Apollo missions used a number of on board computers. The AGC was actually a very advanced computer that built on guidence systems used for ICBM's, first to used integrated circuits, and a number of other features that made it quite revolutionary and much more powerful than a calculator (which isn't a computer at all really). All of the Apollo missions has two of these computers, as well as a flight computer, and the back up AGS in the lunar module.

The reality is to preform technical functions a computer doesn't need the ultra high end hardware that is in the modern PC. What really requires that is graphical needs, primarily video games.

The processing power of the newer TI and HP scientific calculators fars surpasses what was available in the early to mid sixties when the lunar landing equipment was designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of money raised/used for the program back then was something truly astounding, I want to say I read 25billion the other day, but Ive had a few to drink since then. NOW, 25billion in todays dollars?

Using an inflation calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi ) plugging in 25billion in 1969 (which was the year landed...not the years of development) the number yielded in 2008 dollars is $145,238,173,366.52

If you take $145billion today and want to get something done..like fly to saturn, you might be suprised in what could happen.

Also, the SR71 is a really good example of how advanced/ingenuitive our country was back then....While it may not have all of the bells and whistles the f-22 has, it is still awe inspiring. Not to mention the CURVES on that baby, gives Mariah Carey a run for her money.

Zach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too bad there are no more F-22s to be had.

Well, if we save that much 500 more times it will almost cover the health care program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The amount of money raised/used for the program back then was something truly astounding, I want to say I read 25billion the other day, but Ive had a few to drink since then. NOW, 25billion in todays dollars?

Using an inflation calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi ) plugging in 25billion in 1969 (which was the year landed...not the years of development) the number yielded in 2008 dollars is $145,238,173,366.52

If you take $145billion today and want to get something done..like fly to saturn, you might be suprised in what could happen.

Also, the SR71 is a really good example of how advanced/ingenuitive our country was back then....While it may not have all of the bells and whistles the f-22 has, it is still awe inspiring. Not to mention the CURVES on that baby, gives Mariah Carey a run for her money.

Zach

its all relative, dude. a billion 40 years ago is worth 5.8 billion today and a rocket scientist in '69 was making 75 grand where today he's making 435 grand because his education costs 24 grand more than the 5 thousand it cost in 69 because fuel costs rose hundreds of points because world population has doubled driving the cost of land up etc etc.

arguing inflation is redundant. its all the same, just a bigger, more astonishing number that buys the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here's a true fact about the Us's space program. We spent millions creating a pen that could work in zero gravity situations. We eventually found one after 30 years. For that time, the russians just used pencils. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, here's a true fact about the Us's space program. We spent millions creating a pen that could work in zero gravity situations. We eventually found one after 30 years. For that time, the russians just used pencils. :P

The need for a pen was a combination of bureaucracy and military involvement in NASA missions. You can't sign documents or make "official" marks on forms without it being in something more permanent than pencil.

Plus mechanical pencils will fail after the first piece of graphite runs out and standard wood will leave a lot of dust and debris from sharpening. Not to say pencils aren't used, I think their standard pocket has a slot for a pen, pencil, grease pen, marker and highlighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start by saying I've always believed we landed on the moon, and still do. But when you make that pic below full size the ship looks fake as hell. It looks like something made for a bad space movie, covered in tinfoil. Isn't there also supposedly something about the shadows that people use to say the pics are fake?

Like I said, I believe we landed when we say we did, but the pic below doesn't really prove it to me.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369227m...drinLM_full.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me start by saying I've always believed we landed on the moon, and still do. But when you make that pic below full size the ship looks fake as hell. It looks like something made for a bad space movie, covered in tinfoil. Isn't there also supposedly something about the shadows that people use to say the pics are fake?

Like I said, I believe we landed when we say we did, but the pic below doesn't really prove it to me.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369227m...drinLM_full.jpg

Watch the mythbusters episode. The explanation for shadows and such are ridiculously simple, they're just caused by uneven terrain.

And the LM is built like that because that's all they needed to build. Any more fancy paneling would have been extra weight.

Everything about he moon conspiracy theories rely on is easily proved wrong.

Also consider that to pull a fake landing off, you need to keep a secret for 40 years with hundreds or thousands of people, you have to actually launch something, send it out of the earth's orbit and have it come back so you can fool the radar systems, you have to build the sets and go to great expense to make them believable, you have to somehow generate high quality images and video, make them believable, so on and so forth.

Basically, you have to pull off the actual mission, just with nobody inside, nearly impossible with the computer technology of the day, and then you have to fake the landing somewhere else.

It's not completely impossible, but it's very improbable, quite impossible to keep a secret, and it would be cheaper to just go to the moon and land there.

Looking at all the evidence, it's hard for me to believe people still believe those conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mythbusters proved it last night

but i do believe that the government set up 9/11. after watching loose change on youtube. look into it very convincing

...and OJ didn't do it. AND I've got a bridge in London I'm looking to sell. Any takers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mythbusters proved it last night

but i do believe that the government set up 9/11. after watching loose change on youtube. look into it very convincing

...and OJ didn't do it. AND I've got a bridge in London I'm looking to sell. Any takers?

People like that are the reason I want to leave the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mythbusters proved it last night

but i do believe that the government set up 9/11. after watching loose change on youtube. look into it very convincing

...and OJ didn't do it. AND I've got a bridge in London I'm looking to sell. Any takers?

People like that are the reason I want to leave the country.

completely agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mythbusters proved it last night

but i do believe that the government set up 9/11. after watching loose change on youtube. look into it very convincing

...and OJ didn't do it. AND I've got a bridge in London I'm looking to sell. Any takers?

People like that are the reason I want to leave the country.

I'm having visions...of a hammer...a ban hammer...not Jan Hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mythbusters proved it last night

but i do believe that the government set up 9/11. after watching loose change on youtube. look into it very convincing

...and OJ didn't do it. AND I've got a bridge in London I'm looking to sell. Any takers?

People like that are the reason I want to leave the country.

I'm having visions...of a hammer...a ban hammer...not Jan Hammer

Well, we might as well Jan Hammer him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That reference is going to go over the heads of much of the younger population on the board, lol. Christ, I had to Google "Jan Hammer." Most of the results that came-up cited his work on 'Miami Vice' - and the extent of my experience with that TV show has come entirely from it's mention in The Wedding Singer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...