Apollo Landings 40 Years Ago, Was it a Hoax?

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
Ok I have my thoughts on this but what do you guys think

Did they land on the moon?

Or are the conspiracy theories correct?

I would think they probably did but then realised the photos etc were not good so redid them in a studio and this is where the conspiracy stuff starts.

Whatever - bloody brave men heading into the unknown

Ian
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

Or are the conspiracy theories correct?

No.

Over 400,000 scientists, engineers, machinists, and workers from hundreds of different companies and organizations were involved in the Apollo program from the early sixties to it's conclusion in 1972. These men and women worked extremely hard and made many sacrifices to achieve a goal that today seems maybe further out of reach than maybe in 1961.

What they accomplished was absolutely stunning.

For those into a telling of the story involving pictures, drama, and some action this is a great series and well worth a watch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon_(TV_miniseries)

This one is very good:

Amazon.com: In the Shadow of the Moon: Harrison Schmitt, Alan Bean, Edgar D. Mitchell, Michael Collins (II), Neil Armstrong, John Young (VIII), Sam Rayburn, Eugene Cernan, Lyndon Johnson, Jim Lovell, John F. Kennedy, Dave Scott (VII), Buzz Aldrin, Ch

I prefer books and just finished reading this one, although it has some errors it is an ok read. I like the politics explinations in some areas.

Amazon.com: Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men on the Moon: Craig Nelson: Books

This one I found better in many regards:
http://www.amazon.com/First-Men-Moo...r_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248189941&sr=8-10

 
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

As I told an old boss 15 years ago who was a skeptic, if the Americans faked the lunar landing, it must have been pretty complex because no else tried to duplicate the fake. For me, that was sufficient to say the event was real !!
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

Too many folks that have watched "Capricorn 1" instead of reading physics books I suppose is a good reason for this. It seems lately, every day hits a new low for social intellect.
 

Neal

Lifetime Supporter
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

The TV mini series was great! I remember watching it on the black and white TV. Truly a monumental accomplishment.
 
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

Terry,
I agree with your assessment. With so many people involved in the program, the idea that there was some kind of conspiracy or cover-up that thousands of people participated in and no one leaked the information is more science fiction than the idea that we landed on the moon. No way this could have been kept quiet for 40 years. The fact is that we did do the impossible and we could do even more if the human race quits looking at their own selfish needs and moved forward...where man has always gone before. Picture, if you will, how great it would be if the entire world decided to come together and fund space exploration. What great things we could accomplish!
Garry
 

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

I have a couple of questions to which I have not found answers
1) Lunar module landed and was slowed down by rockets firing to cushoin the fall. This would surely have blown away all dust for miles (No atmosphere / resistance to stop it)- so why was there still dust around to make footprints in?
2) Armstrong coming down the stairs and stepping onto the moon Who took that photo? Someone would have to be on the surface at reasonable distance from the module to get that shot.

Yes I am sure they went up in a rocket and yes there is evidence that something landed / crashed on the moon but was it manned? Are the photos that were shown and beamed around the world shown in the correct sequence? (For instance the first step onto the surface - was this actually armstrong making a 2nd "entrance" just for the camera?)

Putting it into perspective this was happening the same time that GT40s were winning at endurance racing The GT40 was considered high tech and advanced at that time - yes different budget perspective but could the whole Moon thing take place?

Sorry all but in my mind some big voids need filled or explained and yes I have done a load of reading around the subject. So I'm sitting on the fence still.

Ian
 
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

why does no one look with new teleskope on the moon ??, with today technik it must be easy to see the cars and rockets was landet 40 years ago,......i think nasa knows the landing places, so it must be easy to find something

i know, humans was on the moon, who can make this wonderfull pics from earth, if no one comes back from moon???,......

we all see this pics and our earth looks real like a wonderfull place, and looks like a planet where it is good to be there

this pics from our earth ar the 100% to realice the moonwalk from this great team 40 years ago

TEAM JUST

i want to go to the planets
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

I have a couple of questions to which I have not found answers

1) Lunar module landed and was slowed down by rockets firing to cushoin the fall. This would surely have blown away all dust for miles (No atmosphere / resistance to stop it)

Yes, the LEM used a rocket engine to slow the decent but the engine wasn't used at a high thrust and the effects of that thrust are greatly diminished.

Why? The moon on has 1/6th the Earth's gravity and the weight of the LEM in the presence of the moon is only around 3500-4000 lbs. The decent engine could produce 10,000 lbs of thrust but only a fraction of that was used on decent.

Therefore, using only a bit more than 3500 lbs of thrust would allow Neil Armstrong to keep the LEM at a constant altitude. A gentle decent would probably be around 3000 lbs of thrust. That sounds like a lot but you've got to remember that the thrust is directed with a nozzle with a diameter of around 55 inches and that nozzle is designed to spread the thrust out over a wide area.

Convert that nozzle diameter to square inches with A = pi * r^2 and you'll get around 2374 sq inches. Take the 3000 lbs of thrust over that area and you only get around 1.25 psi, 1.25 pounds per square inch of force. That isn't a whole lot. Now this isn't entirely perfect because the nozzle isn't perfect at distributing thrust 100% uniformly over the nozzle area. I'm sure a radial function exists developed by the rocket guys that describes the thrust distribution but you get the idea.

It'll move some dust, as evidenced in the various photos and videos of the landings site and blast area. But it isn't going to blow out of an area for miles, or even tens of yards. Check out some of the footage and pictures, you'll see blown dust but nothing like what you're thinking. The dust gets blown in a straight line and continues "out of sight over the horizon", Neil Armstrong's words. So, no billowing clouds.

2) Armstrong coming down the stairs and stepping onto the moon Who took that photo? Someone would have to be on the surface at reasonable distance from the module to get that shot.

The camera on the LEM took the picture. You can read about deployment of the camera here. The LEM is actually a pretty big piece of flying machine with a gear span over 30 feet. The camera taking the picture folds out and is probably 20 ft from the ladder. Neato design, had a plastic model when I was a kid that incorporated that feature as well as the folding legs and the pop out rover.

Apollo 11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The important part is here and if you wish to visit the Smithsonian Air and Space museum you can have a look at a LEM and see the camera package and how it folds into the module.

At 02:39 UTC on Monday July 21 (10:39pm EDT, Sunday July 20), 1969, Armstrong opened the hatch, and at 02:51 UTC began his descent to the Moon's surface. The Remote Control Unit controls on his chest kept him from seeing his feet. Climbing down the nine-rung ladder, Armstrong pulled a D-ring to deploy the Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) folded against Eagle's side and activate the TV camera, and at 02:56 UTCEDT) he set his left foot on the surface.<sup id="cite_ref-ALSJ_4_19-0" class="reference">[20]</sup> The first landing used slow-scan television incompatible with commercial TV, so it was displayed on a special monitor and a conventional TV camera viewed this monitor, significantly reducing the quality of the picture.<sup id="cite_ref-Blunder_5_20-0" class="reference">[21]</sup> The signal was received at Goldstone in the USA but with better fidelity by Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station in Australia. Minutes later the feed was switched to the more sensitive Parkes radio telescope in Australia. Despite some technical and weather difficulties, ghostly black and white images of the first lunar EVA were received and broadcast to at least 600 million people on Earth.<sup id="cite_ref-Parkes_21-0" class="reference">[22]</sup> Although copies of this video in broadcast format were saved and are widely available, recordings of the original slow scan source transmission from the moon were accidentally destroyed during routine magnetic tape re-use at NASA. Archived copies of the footage were eventually located in Perth, Australia, which was one of the sites that originally received the Moon broadcast.
Edited - Ron Earp, 9/21/09 9:25 PM
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

why does no one look with new teleskope on the moon ??, with today technik it must be easy to see the cars and rockets was landet 40 years ago,......i think nasa knows the landing places, so it must be easy to find something

i know, humans was on the moon, who can make this wonderfull pics from earth, if no one comes back from moon???,......

See Post #4 below.

Hubble has not the proper numerical aperture to image the moon at all. Even if it did, the pixel resolution of Hubble pointed at the moon would be something on the order of 150-200 meters - the LEM is about 8-9 meters wide. You'd see nothing.

Earthbound telescopes don't have the resolution to pick up a LEM either since their resolution is measured in miles.

Ron
 
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

I wonder why NASA chose to land on the side of the moon we cant see from our perspective on Earth?

Surely there must be a suitable spot on the visible side?

I know they sent up lunar mapping sattelites in the early '60's.

How did the spacesuits and or the .025 ally skin of the craft protect the astronauts from the exposure to Gamma/solar radiation?

I mean you can't stand in the sun for five minutes these days for fear of skin cancer.

I'm not saying they did not go, just thinking of some problems they would have to face.
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

I wonder why NASA chose to land on the side of the moon we cant see from our perspective on Earth?

Surely there must be a suitable spot on the visible side?

I know they sent up lunar mapping sattelites in the early '60's.

How did the spacesuits and or the .025 ally skin of the craft protect the astronauts from the exposure to Gamma/solar radiation?

I mean you can't stand in the sun for five minutes these days for fear of skin cancer.

I'm not saying they did not go, just thinking of some problems they would have to face.

You can see the sites:

The Apollo Landing Sites

But no Earth telescope can image a lander that hardly measures 30 ft corner to corner. See the posts below. But that site has some images from ground based telescopes of the landing locations. See post #4 below for modern images from the moon orbiting mapper that is running right now doing everything in high res.

Solar and gamma radiation is a huge problem and missions had to be planned with predicted solar fluxes in mind. Beyond that the craft and suits were engineered for protection to cover nominal events for mission duration. Which meant, barely enough and not enough given what we know about high energy outbursts now. Fortunately the latter are relatively rare.

I think the skin thickness (outer, bonded to a honeycomb) of the LM was 0.0004", nickel-steel. Been awhile since I read about it but that is what I remember. Grumman built the craft and there are entire books about that.

Fellows, if you want to read about a fantastic adventure in science and engineering you owe it to yourself to pick up some of the books that cover the development of the program. It is fascinating. Seriously, if you've only done cursory reading on the subject or "web only reading" then spend some time to get a good technical overview of the program with some well-authored books. The size, scope, and time/money will blow you away.

What is even more amazing is that we really can't repeat it today. The public doesn't have the stomach for the spending nor the tolerance for the risks involved. Times are indeed different.

I'll sign off on this thread now and let the conspiracy folks have at it.
 

flatchat(Chris)

Supporter
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

I'm sitting on the fence with Ian ---

Why haven't they / we been back since ?

With our abilities these days you'd think that there'd be a holiday resort on it by now :uneasy:

A recent doco of Stanley Kubrick, claims that he filmed the whole scenario at a studio in London ---including pre-empted speeches from president Nixon in case the mission failed etc. This filming was a barter arrangement for the use of a state of the art camera that he'd borrowed from the Americans.

I reckon you could get away with a lot more propaganda in those days:shocked:

If the moon did become populated, does that mean that Armstrong would be their God ??
 
Re: 40 Years Ago Was it a Hoax?

Ian - Ron's explanation was spot on, but I will add another very important factor (which perhaps he mentioned, but I skimmed through it and may have missed it) - having no atmosphere to help blow around and pick up dust will make a HUGE difference when the rocket fires near the surface of the moon. You are taking Earth bound experience (with air as a medium to move around and move other things like surface dust) and applying it to the moon's surface which has no atmosphere.

All those supposedly wrong camera angles and shadows and things are actually correct if you take into account all the factors that played into their making - the relative size and distances of the objects, the camera's aperture, etc... The people who make the seemingly believable arguments against all the moon landing data don't have a good spatial and mechanical understanding to be making those arguments. They are making complete fools of themselves.

Chris - they did indeed film a speech by Nixon in case Neil and Buzz were stuck on or around the moon. We DID go back - 5 times. Why we haven't been back even more is simple - politics and money. Nixon wasn't a supporter of it (actually JFK wasn't either - he would much rather have done something big here on Earth and tried several times to work jointly with the Soviets on space exploration.) It's just not something that happens that easily and cheaply. I also wonder if we're just too complacent about it now to do it again so successfully. You know - ho hum, been there - done that. Back then, people literally devoted their lives and jeopardized their family life to make it happen. There was even a very prominent figure in NASA that was taken from work at one point in a straight jacket. Yes we have the technology, but it is still very difficult and expensive.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top