SHsharkbok
Captain23,217 posts
SHsharkbokCaptain23,217 posts
19 Jul 2019, 11:54#2
It probably did happen, but the conspiracy agreements seem pretty convincing . (like a flag blowing in the wind....
Throw-in that no one ever goes back to the moon despite improved technology..
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Jul 2019, 11:59#3
You sound as if you're a bit on the fence there, Sharkbok, is your answer yes or no?
SHsharkbok
Captain23,217 posts
SHsharkbokCaptain23,217 posts
19 Jul 2019, 12:05#4
I would say 75/25. 75% they did land, and 25 % they did not
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
19 Jul 2019, 12:16#8
Rooibozo what one is justified about having doubts about is sharktwit and you too of course, Hahahahahhahahahaha Be assured yours truly is very doubtful about you two loons on many issues.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Jul 2019, 12:25#9
Oh do shut up you painfully stupid little man. You've answered the question and your response is noted so no need to start polluting this thread with your usual garbage and trying to turn this discussion into something else.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Jul 2019, 14:02#14
Pfffffhahahaha!
Klown reckons the debate comes to an end because he's just learned something everyone else has known for about 48 years!
Hilarious!
The Apollo missions ran from 1966 to 1972. The early Apollo missions were orbits and test flights. The first Moon landing was Apollo 11 in July 1969 and there was a second landing with Apollo 12 a few months later in November 1969. This was followed by Apollo 13 when the landing itself was aborted after technical problems (and they made a movie of it starring Tom Hanks . . . called . . . ummmm Apollo 13 . . . so you have to wonder at Klown's massive ignorance). Over the next two years there were further landings by Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17, the last landing happening in December 1972. So a total of 6 landings in 2 and a half years.
My first question to the conspiracy theorists was going to be around whether they only believed Apollo 11 was faked or if they thought all 6 landings were faked because it would be ridiculous to think that NASA went to all the trouble of faking the Apollo 11 landing if the rest of the landings were successful.
". . . duh-huh . . . the debate comes to a grinding halt before it's even started."
LMAO!
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Jul 2019, 14:10#16
I think they make a valid point. What is there to go back for?
But the real rea son would be budget. Back in the 1960s when the space-race was on, funding for NASA and fulfilling JFK's promise of getting a man on the moon before the end of the decade was an enormous chunk of the national budget . . . I think it was something like 5%. Nowadays the percentage is a tiny fraction of that.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Jul 2019, 14:15#17
Quite right C-Fan, 6 missions in the Apollo program successfully landed men on the moon, plus one failed mission (Apollo 13) and Apollo missions 2-10 which were testing the Saturn V rocket, testing orbits around earth, testing orbits around the moon right up to Apollo 10 which was a full dress rehearsal for the first landing where the lunar module flew down to 50 000 feet above the moon's surface.
Earlier I mentioned prior Apollo missions 2 through 10. There was also an Apollo 1 mission in 1967 but it was a disaster with all three astronauts dying in an explosion on the launch pad which nearly ended the Apollo program.
SHsharkbok
Captain23,217 posts
SHsharkbokCaptain23,217 posts
19 Jul 2019, 14:22#18
No one has been to the moon in recent times, at least since the internet, web and mobile cameras etc. So "if" the 1st landing was a conspiracy, so too could have the others.
However, I do think it is more likely that Lance Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. If I took enough r oids, I could also cycle to the moon.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Jul 2019, 14:28#20
Some interesting trivia . . . everybody (well okay , maybe not Klown) knows that Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the Moon but very few people would be able to name the last man to stand on the Moon. Astronaut Eugene Cernan of the Apollo 17 mission is the last man to have stood on the Moon and interestingly, he was also part of the Apollo 10 mission in May 1969 which was the full dress rehearsal for the 1st moon landing 2 months later.
So Cernan would have been one of the Apollo 10 astronauts to travel all the way to the moon, transfer to the Lunar Module, travel in the LM to within 50 000 ft of the Moon's surface and then go all the way back to Earth . . . only to actually walk on the moon less than 3 years later and become the last man on the Moon.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Jul 2019, 14:30#21
That's pretty much the point I'm making, Sharkbok. All the lunar landings were part of the Apollo program and they all happened within the space of about 2 and a half years . . . so to believe the first one was faked and the subsequent landings were genuine doesn't make any sense.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Jul 2019, 15:25#24
DumbAss, don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping space clean and not allowing mankind's pollution to extend beyond our own atmosphere . . . but I'm also struggling to imagine an object between 1mm and 1cm in size causing a "space accident".
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Jul 2019, 20:30#28
Mike apparently MIT agrees with you and not the idiotic Peeper. I'm guessing Peeper never understood the advantages of a low gravity launch:
'Humanity's most efficient path to Mars includes a pit stop near the moon, a new study suggests.
Mars-bound crewed spacecraft should launch with just enough fuel to get to filling stations near the moon, and these stations would then dispense propellant derived from lunar water-ice, according to the study.
Such a strategy would reduce the mass of a Mars mission by up to 68 percent at launch, resulting in significant cost savings, researchers said. (It currently costs thousands of dollars to put 1 lb., or 0.45 kilograms, of payload into Earth orbit.) [Visions of Deep-Space Exploration in Pictures]
"This is completely against the established common wisdom of how to go to Mars, which is a straight shot to Mars, carry everything with you," study co-author Olivier de Weck, a professor of aeronautics and astronautics and of engineering systems at the Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), said in a statement.
"The idea of taking a detour into the lunar system … it's very unintuitive," de Weck added. "But from an optimal network and big-picture view, this could be very affordable in the long term, because you don't have to ship everything from Earth."'
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Jul 2019, 21:13#31
The moon has 1/6 the gravity of earth. Thus a moon launch would save vast amounts of fuel vs an earth launch. So if a constraint is the amount of fuel to be taken on board.....refueling on the moon, or even a second launch from the moon, reduces the constraint.
This may not work for a variety of reasons but poor Peeper's (alliteration) focus on distance vs gravity is 'arsonnance'....hahaha. How thick is this bloke really?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Jul 2019, 21:15#32
Charlie Hunnam is already on the hemorrhoid belt?
SHsharkbok
Captain23,217 posts
SHsharkbokCaptain23,217 posts
19 Jul 2019, 21:44#33
If the moon became a self-sufficient station that could generate resources there would be more benefits of the low gravity launch. However, petrol and other weight would have to be transferred to the moon - as a two-stage process to Mars, ensuring the high gravity launch cant be avoided in the short term. Carting the petrol to the Moon, or/and then filling up a rocket created on the earth, on the moon is the immediate issue.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Jul 2019, 22:02#34
Agreed getting fuel up to the moon is an issue. But that can be done in stages. If the issue is having the maximum amount of fuel on your Mars bound rocket, it still makes sense to launch that rocket in lowest gravity....that way the huge consumption to break the gravity field is drastically reduced.
A ceteris paribus rocket launched from the moon has a much greater range than one launched from the earth.
And if you scan the MIT material again, you will see they are contemplating a propellant derived from Lunar water-ice. And if that were feasible a Lunar launch would not only have more range it would be more efficient as well.
SHsharkbok
Captain23,217 posts
SHsharkbokCaptain23,217 posts
19 Jul 2019, 22:32#35
It is only a matter of time before the moon can add more value to a Mars-bound flight.
Elton Musk is saying he wants to launch to Mars in five years.Part of the plans is to send a few rockets to Mars before a man-made mission. So the return petrol does not have to be carried to Mars in a rocket that has to support life. This would make the return flight less risk. I think people are more bullish about getting to Mars, the return trip is of greater concern.