Moon Landing was it a giant skam?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Originally posted by boss of u
      THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BACK TOO THE MOON!!!

      y does every one say they have been? they have only been once. All the other Apollos where just going into space not to the moon.
      No Apollo 13 was not faked none of the lunches were. They only launched into space not to the moon.
      I don't no how they fooled the Russians no one rely does.

      now here is the main reason y i think that they did not go to the moon. Okey so does everyone know what the radiation belt is? it is a belt of very strong radiation coming from the sun and it is between the moon and earth. Now there suits where not suited to withstand that much radiation. and nether was there ship. so if they did go to the moon they probably would have died before getting back to earth or soon after. They where using Hard sheld suits which are prity much like armor. But the only thing that was invented at that time that could stop radiation where 'heavy metals' like led. As all heavy metals are poisonous to humans they could not use them in the construction of the suits or the ship.


      The radiation belt you speak of is the Van Allen radiation belt. It was discovered in 1958 by a scientist in the University of Iowa, in correlation to the Explorer 1 and 3 Missions (and when I say discovered I mean confirmed to exist.). The plasma particles from this belt cannot penetrate more than 1mm of lead. Giving the fact that the lunar landing was in 1969, 11 years later, I feel that during this time preparations would have been made to prevent this little "snag". Lead may be poisonous to the human body, however it can still be used in many things that are used today. Radiologists use lead suits on female patients, so I figure that during that 11 year period NASA figured a way to "rig up" some way to keep our space cowboys free from any harmful radiation.

      Sources of info on Van Allen belt And another Encyclopedia Brittanica
    • They didn't use any other heavy metals on the Apollo missions, this is true. On the Apollo missions the Astronauts were exposed to more radiation than any other space mission ever. This is due to the Solar maximum that occurred during the 1970's. The danger in space is not the radiation from the Van Allen belt, (like I said in my earlier post, the charged particles can only penetrate 1mm of heavy metal) but from solar winds. The way that NASA prevents our boys from taking to much X-ray in is that they monitor solar activity and when a solar wind is carrying charged solar particles, they simply radio in and tell them go back in your shuttle so you don't get fried. The Shuttle can take the radiation, it doesn't hurt it. Might help that it's made out of metal.
    • Originally posted by boss of u
      THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BACK TOO THE MOON!!!


      Yes they have. Here is where they landed





      y does every one say they have been? they have only been once.


      I think it is because they did, 5 more times

      Apollo 12
      Apollo 14
      Apollo 15
      Apollo 16
      Apollo 17



      All the other Apollos where just going into space not to the moon.


      Wrong again

      No Apollo 13 was not faked none of the lunches were. They only launched into space not to the moon.


      And again

      I don't no how they fooled the Russians no one rely does.


      Maybe it is because they didn't, makes more sense.
    • the moon landing wasnt a fake, the pics they got couldnt possible be take from a ship because they can only just get pics that good now (however many years down the line)

      but it still could have been un-manned



      and lol @ sea of moisture in that circle of where ppl have landed on the moon

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Revenged yoyo ().

    • Originally posted by Revenged yoyo


      but it still could have been un-manned



      Hardly. That's ignoring the fact that the Apollo missions returned a substantial amount of lunar soil.

      boss of u: So if you can't rotate/move in space, how do you explain ships navigating the rings of Saturn, or the asteroid belt? Or any other space mission.

      In space, movement is not the same as on Earth. You don't 'push' against anything. And regarding the fact there is nothing to go against, there is. Space is not a complete vacuum. Granted there is very little, but regardless the point is moot.
    • Originally posted by boss of u
      No you clearly know nothing about the physics involved in space their is nothing to push of so u can not turn accelerate/decelerate


      How did I miss this? You are oh so completely wrong here mate. Space is a vaccum at least you have that right, but rockets don't "push" against anything. You clearly don't understand how rockets work, as it burns fuel it pushes a great amount of force out of the back.

      Newtons 3rd Law:
      Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi. All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

      By this law if you fire things out of the rocket there MUST be an opposite reaction that will accelerate the rocket in the opposite direction to the direction the rockets fire (ie fire goes down, rocket goes up).

      As for turning and decelerating it is exactly the same concept just different direction of motion.

      ps. the satellites are not in space there in the stratosphere.


      Hmmm, no. Stratosphere goes up to 50 Km above the Earth. Even ISS does not orbit that low (350 Km).

      The Stratoshpere is not even the top of the atmosphere, the Exosphere still only extends 10,000 Km above the Earth.

      Geostationary orbit which is where many comunications and TV sattelites etc are is 35,786 km above the Earth. So you are entirely wrong in your statement.
    • Newtons law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This does not mean that there is a reaction to no action. Yes rockets push out with a great force but on earth it pushes against air. In space there is nothing to push against. therefore it can not turn slowdown/accelerate. It just carries on going at a constant velocity for ever or until it is pulled in by a gravitation field from a planet moon or large asteroid.
      this is what makes space trail so hard it takes a lot of calculations to precisely fire an object from one planet to another. U have to factor in Earths rotation the rotation of the other planet, both rotational speeds around the sun, exit velocity, entry velocity, entry angle..........It is not easy but it is doable as the unnamed expeditions have shown.

      And if space is not a perfect vacuum like u say it is then how do all the un-maned probes fly so far out into the solar system? It would take enormous amounts of fuel.
    • Originally posted by boss of u
      Newtons law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


      In Newton's time space travel was unthinkable, so I think we can excuse him for not adding a bit that says 'by the way, this may differ in space'. Anyway rockets DO NOT PUSH AGAINST ANYTHING. They create a large amount of force which pushes the rocket in the right direction.

      And if there have been unmaned expeditions, what makes you so adament it is impossible for humans to go along?
    • Originally posted by boss of u
      Newtons law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This does not mean that there is a reaction to no action. Yes rockets push out with a great force but on earth it pushes against air. In space there is nothing to push against. therefore it can not turn slowdown/accelerate. It just carries on going at a constant velocity for ever or until it is pulled in by a gravitation field from a planet moon or large asteroid.
      this is what makes space trail so hard it takes a lot of calculations to precisely fire an object from one planet to another. U have to factor in Earths rotation the rotation of the other planet, both rotational speeds around the sun, exit velocity, entry velocity, entry angle..........It is not easy but it is doable as the unnamed expeditions have shown.

      And if space is not a perfect vacuum like u say it is then how do all the un-maned probes fly so far out into the solar system? It would take enormous amounts of fuel.



      Just imagine, if you can, a large body motionless in space, with nothing else anywhere. This large body happens to have a massive tank of oxygen and a massive tank of hydrogen in it.

      Currently the whole system has no momentum and no kinetic energy but a whole lot of potential energy (because you can combine the oxygen and hydrogen into dihydrogen monoxide, a reaction which releases energy)

      Now imagine that the oxygen and hydrogen are combined and expelled rapidly in one direction from the body. This expelled product has net momentum, so the remainder of the body must have a momentum of equal magnitude in the opposite direction.

      Voila, something moves with nothing to push against.



      On the subject of space being/not being empty, I think that 'deep space' is defined as a maximum of three particles per cubic metre. Don't quote me on it though. Those are seriously negligible to most calculations though. At any rate there are particles moving around through the universe, so it isn't quite empty but it is empty enough that you'd probably never consider considering it a gas.
    • boss of u: You seem to accept the fact that unmaned probes can move in space. Then please tell me how they negotiate asteroid fields and avoid other objects with your theory, by which they can't change direction? To be blunt, you're quite wrong with your idea of propulsion in a (near) vacuum.

      Also, you appear to have misinterpreted what I said about space not being a complete vacuum. It is not a true vacuum, since there are a very small amount of particles that exist there. Quantum mechanics also theorises that particles are created and then are destroyed millions of times a second in space.
    • Originally posted by boss of u
      Newtons law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This does not mean that there is a reaction to no action. Yes rockets push out with a great force but on earth it pushes against air. In space there is nothing to push against. therefore it can not turn slowdown/accelerate. It just carries on going at a constant velocity for ever or until it is pulled in by a gravitation field from a planet moon or large asteroid.
      this is what makes space trail so hard it takes a lot of calculations to precisely fire an object from one planet to another. U have to factor in Earths rotation the rotation of the other planet, both rotational speeds around the sun, exit velocity, entry velocity, entry angle..........It is not easy but it is doable as the unnamed expeditions have shown.

      And if space is not a perfect vacuum like u say it is then how do all the un-maned probes fly so far out into the solar system? It would take enormous amounts of fuel.


      Even on earth, rockets work not by "pushing on air" but by "pushing on fuel" if you extend the analogy. The fuel is pushed by the explosion out the rocket, and the same force pushes on the rocket in the opposite direction, from the exhaust. It's like recoil from a gun. If you fire a bullet, the gun "pushes' on the bullet and the bullet "pushes" back on the gun. The end result is recoil. You can try this in a vacuum, it will work the same way.

      Alternatively, you can think of this as conservation of momentum. In the absence of an external force, momentum is conserved. If you are originally stationary in space, you have zero momentum. If you then expel fuel out in one direction, in order to maintain zero moment for the system (rocket+fuel) your rocket must go the other way.

      If physics works as you say it does, we wouldn't be able to make ANY adjustments in space whatsoever. This is obviously wrong, otherwise, why do we put side boosters on our space ships?

      Also, space is not a PERFECT vacuum, there are particles here and there, but in general, it's a lot more empty than any vacuum we've made here on earth. In the area between stars the density is something like 1 particle per million cubic kilometers or something ridiculous like that, I forget the exact figure at the moment. But even this minuscule density gives REAL astronomical effects. Extinction is a big problem for astronomers, as the light from distant stars are absorbed by ISM or inter-stellar medium. This was one reason we once thought we were at the center of our galaxy. We saw roughly the same number of stars in all directions (of our disk), so we thought we were the center, but the real reason was that the farther stars were too faint to see because of extinction.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Angelofdarkness ().

    • Originally posted by boss of u
      Newtons law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


      So the action of pushing the fuel out of the rocket MUST have an equal and opposite reaction of pushing the rocket forward.

      This does not mean that there is a reaction to no action.


      No thats right, lukily firing out a high temperature stream of fuel is an action and thus by Newtons 3rd law there is a reaction.

      Yes rockets push out with a great force but on earth it pushes against air.


      No, that is not how it works. It is EXACTLY the same process on Earth, Rockets accelerate slower on Earth in fact because they are fighting Gravity and Air Resistance.

      In space there is nothing to push against. therefore it can not turn slowdown/accelerate. It just carries on going at a constant velocity for ever or until it is pulled in by a gravitation field from a planet moon or large asteroid.


      If you just push a rocket and leave it that is true. HOWEVER, by firing rockets you can de(a)ccelerate and turn. It is all done by the same process.

      this is what makes space trail so hard it takes a lot of calculations to precisely fire an object from one planet to another. U have to factor in Earths rotation the rotation of the other planet, both rotational speeds around the sun, exit velocity, entry velocity, entry angle


      That is because there is no need to fire fuel the whole way there. There is no resistance in space and so you can accelerate to a speed and go ahead. That said, you dont need to bother with the rotation of the planets, it is mostly the orbital velocity that is important.


      ..........It is not easy but it is doable as the unnamed expeditions have shown.


      So have the Manned expeditions. You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, so why do you even bother trying?

      Have you addressed a single argument against your statement, I told you of the other Apollo missions, No dissagrement? What about the Laser range finder?

      And if space is not a perfect vacuum like u say it is then how do all the un-maned probes fly so far out into the solar system? It would take enormous amounts of fuel.


      Ironically because it isnt a vacuum. The solar system is full of particles emitted by the sun called the soalr wind. Solar sails on sattelites reflect sun light and (ironically again) by Newtons 3rd Law have a force which moves them.

      Also there are Ion engines, same principle again. Firing particles out the back, 3rd Law slow but steady acceleration (no resistance)
    • Do we use any solar sails atm? I was not aware we had any in use...the pressure is so minuscule, it would take forever to get that craft going at high speeds. 8| (same with the ion engine...)
    • Originally posted by Angelofdarkness
      Do we use any solar sails atm? I was not aware we had any in use...the pressure is so minuscule, it would take forever to get that craft going at high speeds. 8| (same with the ion engine...)


      Solar Sails are still not deployed but the theory behind them is solid (actually I got slightly confused between solar sails and solar panels to be honest, got too caught up in the Space is a perfect vacuum :P). Ion engines are used however, and work on the same principle (ie Newtons 3rd Law).

      Both are very slow accelerations, but are useful over great distances involved (wouldn't be too useful to the moon etc).

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Roboute Guilliman ().

    • RE: Moon Landing was it a giant skam?

      Originally posted by Roboute Guilliman
      Is a run not just a fast walk?

      Uhhh not even close? When walking your body is upright and your arms swing loosely at your sides, you use you legs to pull you forward.

      When running (not jogging, actual running), your upper body is leaned forward, you swing your arms all the way up to your chest, and your legs are pushing you forward.

      A fast walk is called power walking, which is completely different from running (unless you run like a fag of course).

      The use of 'fag' in such a derogatory way is not acceptable. Warned - CrystalClear
    • RE: Moon Landing was it a giant skam?

      Originally posted by criticizer
      Originally posted by Roboute Guilliman
      Is a run not just a fast walk?

      Uhhh not even close? When walking your body is upright and your arms swing loosely at your sides, you use you legs to pull you forward.

      When running (not jogging, actual running), your upper body is leaned forward, you swing your arms all the way up to your chest, and your legs are pushing you forward.

      A fast walk is called power walking, which is completely different from running .


      I may have been wrong, but what does it look like when you walk when there is 1/6g and no air?


      (unless you run like a fag of course)




      Like that guy?
    • LOL crit whats up dogg?

      I think vista is a bigger than the supposedly moon land skam. Hmm whatyou think?
      1 spam warning: please try to be a tad more serious in the future - fo
    • RE: Moon Landing was it a giant skam?

      Originally posted by Roboute Guilliman


      I may have been wrong, but what does it look like when you walk when there is 1/6g and no air?




      The same as always with a very light body and long bipedal legs, a bounding stride. It's most efficient in that situation. Look at the gait of some bird species for instance. In the higher gravity of earth the cyclic speed is greater, but a larger body in less gravity would have maintain a lesser cyclic speed (frequency). This is pretty much what the footage shows.