nice.
how about videos. is there a video of it taking off the moon surface ?
i'm sure it was possible to fit a camera with a transmitter and leave it on the surface - did they ever do that ?
Apollo 11 Video Restored
"while they are releasing newly enhanced video, there was no missing video discovered. ... all the video taken on the mission was transmitted to television in 1969."
Couldn't they just use a propelled wide winged shuttle. Very large wings and propulsion to gain some lift. Then at the very last moment shoot up and do a stall.Actually, the really hard target is Mars (even for unmanned missions), for superficially the stupidest of reasons - Landing!
Unlike the moon it has enough surface gravity to make a rocket controlled decent fuel prohibitive, but the atmosphere is too thin to make parachute landing practical, and even aerodynamic braking from orbital velocity (shuttle reentry style) is hard.
Or a rope will do aswell.
The rocket equation is not hard, and actually you don't even need to make escape velocity as the ship will be captured by the targets gravitational field long before it reaches the functional edge of the field implied by the mass in question.
There are only really two numbers that matter for space propulsion: propellant mass fraction and engine exhaust velocity, know those and you can calculate available delta V, know the required delta V and the engine exhaust velocity and you can calculate the propellant mass fraction, and thus the vehicle mass.
dV = Ve *Ln(Mr)
It is worth noting that the Apollo missions very deliberately left as much as possible behind at each stage (The lander left the decent engine and tankage behind when it took off from the moon to reduce total mass, and left the bulk of the ship that had carried the crew from earth in lunar orbit, thereby minimising the mass transferred to and from the surface), the mass fractions are typically large enough that carrying as little payload mass as possible pays big dividends when landing and boosting back to orbital velocity (even lunar orbital velocity).
Earth orbit is **HARD** (Right on the edge of the specific impulse available with non nuclear propulsion), once you can put mass into earth orbit, the moon is easy in comparison.
Actually, the really hard target is Mars (even for unmanned missions), for superficially the stupidest of reasons - Landing!
Unlike the moon it has enough surface gravity to make a rocket controlled decent fuel prohibitive, but the atmosphere is too thin to make parachute landing practical, and even aerodynamic braking from orbital velocity (shuttle reentry style) is hard.
BTW Saturn 5 was kerosene / Lox, not hydrogen (picky detail that does not change the basic point).
Regards, Dan.
i agree its all about mass fractions. which means that adding even a little extra trip to the moon should something like quadruple the total amount of energy needed.
but fine. saturn was a big rocket. i suppose there are no obvious blatant contradictions there.
i just needed to make sure that it wasn't an obvious lie like WTC7.
it still seems unlikely that a plan so complex would go right. the same people who say that 9-11 was not an inside job because it actually worked ( and the government supposedly always fails ) - these same people don't have any problem with a much more complex plan working with the Apollo missions.
they don't think its possible to fly a plane by remote control in 2001 but they think its possible to land on the moon, then take off from it, then dock somewhere on the lunar orbit etc - in 1968.
to me the suspicious part about moon landings is we don't seem to be able to go there TODAY and canceling those projects, yet we supposedly went there 40 years ago.
well, maybe we did. not saying we didn't. but it was something i found curious.
Apollo 11 Video Restored
"while they are releasing newly enhanced video, there was no missing video discovered. ... all the video taken on the mission was transmitted to television in 1969."
well isn't that convenient. we lost the tapes! my dog ate my homework! all 4 black boxes couldn't be recovered!
they supposedly have the tech to put man on the moon but don't have enough brains to not erase the tapes.
you see it is hard to believe this nonsense.
Last edited:
well isn't that convenient. we lost the tapes! my dog ate my homework! all 4 black boxes couldn't be recovered!
they supposedly have the tech to put man on the moon but don't have enough brains to not erase the tapes.
you see it is hard to believe this nonsense.
There were five other successful missions to the moon for which plenty of original video is available including lunar module liftoffs. I vote we end this ridiculous thread.
John
I vote we end this ridiculous thread.
The worst party I ever went to was on the moon... there was no atmosphere!
I watched it on TV, I was studying physics, chemistry and maths at the time, I'm a pretty reasonable estimator, none of it struck me as unlikely at the time and what sure as hell is unlikely is that the USSR would have stood by and let the USA perpetrate a fraud. We did a lot of orbital energy calculations in school, never mind university, it's just not that difficult. Just because these things are currently a mystery to you, you forget that much of the basic science is over a century old. Probably well over a million people worldwide are capable of calculating the rough hydrogen + oxygen capacity of a Saturn 5, the energy evolved from it's combustion etc., etc., which I'd do myself if it wasn't for the effort involved because I'm rusty and anyway I don't need convincing.
Where do you imagine those things go when they fire them up there into the sky? Learn the mechanics, sure. That makes you a student. Doubt that it all adds up? That just makes you a flake.
w
😀
Apollo 11 Video Restored
"while they are releasing newly enhanced video, there was no missing video discovered. ... all the video taken on the mission was transmitted to television in 1969."
Not according to these guys ...
YouTube - SHOCK! Stanley Kubrick Filmed Fake Moon Landing Footage !!!
The worst party I ever went to was on the moon... there was no atmosphere!
😀
I'll NEVER go back for a party to the Moon ! The damn Aliens downed all the booze ! The ...drunkards ! Hic.....
No wonder they are ashamed to show their face on Earth.😉

No wonder they are ashamed to show their face on Earth.😉
I saw one of the lunar rovers up close( Could touch it) on display at the EXPO 74 in Washington State.....as it was 1974( I was seventeen) there wasn't very many people looking at it. Moon landings by then were boring old hat stuff. You could see the technology incorporated....this thing looked VERY light...I would bet I could have tipped the thing clean over if I wanted to!
If you can see the machinery up close as I did, you really come to appreciate the immense engineering that went into it.
There was never any consideration of costs all thru the "Space race"...NASA had an unlimited budget back then....Money concerns only started after the Apollo 11 accomplished its' mission. There were to be a few more Apollos....18,19 that never flew.....budgets by then reared their ugly heads.
I say let the Chinese go for the moon and the Americans set their sights for Mars.
__________________________________________________________Rick....
If you can see the machinery up close as I did, you really come to appreciate the immense engineering that went into it.
There was never any consideration of costs all thru the "Space race"...NASA had an unlimited budget back then....Money concerns only started after the Apollo 11 accomplished its' mission. There were to be a few more Apollos....18,19 that never flew.....budgets by then reared their ugly heads.
I say let the Chinese go for the moon and the Americans set their sights for Mars.
__________________________________________________________Rick....
I don't know. Those two trailer guys - it's hard not to respect their authority. You don't send man where you haven't sent the monkey.😀
John
Last edited:
Original landing footage ....
YouTube - First Moon Landing 1969
Items were left on the moon , I'm sure we have telescopes available to even the avg person that can view such objects if they were really left behind .. there such be no issues in verifying such ...
YouTube - First Moon Landing 1969
Items were left on the moon , I'm sure we have telescopes available to even the avg person that can view such objects if they were really left behind .. there such be no issues in verifying such ...
Last edited:
This Apollo moon landing conspiracy is nothing more than cynical anti American / goverment propaganda spewed by those with other agendas, and perhaps Area 51 UFO chasing nuts. The whole subject craps on the acomplishments of all those that made the program possible. It's not worthy of disscussion much less investigation. Time would be better spent learning to play a musical instrument.
Last edited:
I say let the Chinese go for the moon and the Americans set their sights for Mars.
To be honest there is little point in shooting for Mars until we develop new engine technology. We need a completely new propulsion system... bend gravity, or ride light, or whatever it turns out to be. Going with a rocket (combustion / reaction) engine that has to carry both the fuel and reactant is just going to proove how limited (and slow) the technology really is.
Likewise sitting on top of a rocket composed of a million separate parts is also a receipe for disaster in long distance space travel. We need new coherent / blended materials that interweave and form structures almost organically and have the ability to self repair. Just bolting bits together as we do now is fine for cars, refridgerators and the occasional trip to the moon but it's no way to reach for the stars.
Personally I vote for unmanned exploration of areas of our solar system where there is hydrogen + oxygen + carbon and vast bodies of water. Although life might exist in many forms we know for sure that it does exist in water based hydro-carbon form, so it's worth surveying those locations first. Finding life elsewhere would be fantastic. Let's point out technology at Europa!
I say let the Chinese go for the moon and the Americans set their sights for Mars.
Going to the moon at this point is just a waste of energy.
We should be doing everything we can to get a permanent foorhold outside of the gravity well.
Low Earth orbit should be expanded, geosyncronous orbit should be colonized. The point of going to the moon has a couple of solid reasons.
0/ gravity
1/ it should be relativily easy to make safely habitable, much easier to shield from cosmic rays than any space-based facility.
2/ the far side of the moon will make a fabtastic astronomic observatory
3/ it is the best place to mine materials for a precence at L4 or L5 which are the logical place for construction of vehciles & the starting point for exploration and colonisation further out. n feet of moon dust makes a good cosmic radiation shield and a bullet proof vest for micrometeorites.
It should be an international co-operative effort. It is too expensive & brain intensive to try to do without that co-operation.
dave
altrnatively, we could spend the cash doing some housekeeping on the rock we already live on. Proposing that we colonise other locations to mine and expand our population is kinda like looking around your house, peering through the grime and wading past the feral kids thinking "****, this is a dump - wonder where else I can mess up?"
Not true & shortsighted.
Getting off the planet so that we can access the huge quantity of resources out there and move many power hungry & polluting industries off the rock is very important.
Getting into space in a big way is both important to cleaning up the earth and when they can be made self-sustaining an insurance policy for the human species.
Establishing ourselves in space will pay HUGE dividends and provide great wealth to pay for what needs doing on earth.
dave
Getting off the planet so that we can access the huge quantity of resources out there and move many power hungry & polluting industries off the rock is very important.
Getting into space in a big way is both important to cleaning up the earth and when they can be made self-sustaining an insurance policy for the human species.
Establishing ourselves in space will pay HUGE dividends and provide great wealth to pay for what needs doing on earth.
dave
Establishing ourselves in space will pay HUGE dividends and provide great wealth to pay for what needs doing on earth.
You ever read the Gateway series by Frederik Pohl?
Jeff
www.diyaudio.com..... for all your AUDIO interests.
I cant believe beginners threads get ignored but borat still gets a look in.
Dean
I cant believe beginners threads get ignored but borat still gets a look in.
Dean
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Apollo Moon Landings - explain the Technology