Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[sts60]

Bet you didn't see any five foot jumps!

Wrong. Neil Armstrong, for one, jumped up to the 3rd rung on the ladder, a height of roughly five feet.

I think they orbited the moon and crashed the lander on the moon.

Again, exactly what evidence do you have for this claim?

I think the 'landing' was filmed at area 51.

Again, exactly what evidence do you have for this claim?

Also again, Nevada doesn't look like the Moon.

I simply don't think they had the technology for a landing back then.

Again, what relevant credentials do you wish to cite to back up your personal opinion?

And what exactly was inadequate for the task, and why?

Heck, even recently NASA crashed a Mars probe that was supposed to land with retro rockets.

Again, not "recently", and the last three landers were all successful.

And that used computers that were in some ways a million times more powerful.

Again, not more powerful than the computers the crewmen carried in their heads.

the fact that the lunar rocks were similar to volcanic rocks found here on earth.

"Similar" does not equal "the same as". Lunar samples retrieved in situ are uniquely distinct not only from Earth rocks, but also from meteorites of lunar origin.

The more I investigated the landings on my own, the less I believed we landed.

So what kind of "investigation" have you performed? You started off with a factual error; five-foot jumps (in heavy, restrictive EVA suits) were made.

 

[sts60]

Have you ever tried the old lunar lander program in which you control the throttle and try to set the lunar lander on the surface of the moon? It's almost impossible! I played it for days and never was able to make two perfect landings in a row!

And your inability to master an old computer game is relevant how?

I acknowledge that they had a computer with a ferrite bead memory and a whopping 1K of memory.

Wrong.

Instead of a floppy disk, they had a paper tape reader.

Wrong.

It wasn't sufficient to run a program to do the real time calculations necessary to land.

Wrong. However, feel free to specify what exactly would have been sufficient, and why.

Yes, they more or less recently

Moving of goalposts noted.

...crashed a lander on Mars because some jerk didn't convert from the metric to the english system (ft & pounds) or vice versa [look it up and give the link].

I thought you did all sorts of extensive research? Find your own link, if you need one. I don't need it; I already know what happened. This is my line of work.

They had the rockets and a bunch of cool algorithms and a lot of great engineers and scientists that could use a slide rule faster than people can use a calculator today.

And yet somehow they couldn't solve the landing problem, using human pilots? Why, exactly?
Bonus clue: The US had already soft-landed robotic craft on the Moon before A11. I suggest you read about the Surveyor program.

However, they couldn't/didn't practice the landing in 1/6 th gravity

Wildly wrong.

and therefore could not perfect the technology to land, blast off and dock.

Wrong in multiple ways.

 

[sts60]

The training vehicle used for simulating the lunar lander crashed before the first moon landing and almost killed the astronaut that was practicing his landings. They never practiced after that.

Wildly wrong. The LLRV/LLTVs flew hundreds of flights with a success rate of over 98%.

ETA: And were not the only landing simulators anyway, but they were crucial to the training, as the crews themselves said.

I really suggest you pause, take a deep breath, and read up on the program, before you continue down this path. You're way below the Mendoza line, and your average is still dropping. If you really want to learn about the program, I and others here will be happy to answer questions or suggest resources.

 

[dafydd]

When I watched the lunar landing I thought to myself that the environment didn't at all seem like 1/6 th gravity. All my life I had heard stories of how, if on the moon, I could jump twenty feet! The video of the astronauts looked like people wearing 150 lunar suits in earth's gravity. I was stunned!

However, I was so caught up in the moment and the national pride that I dismissed the moon pictures and the fact that the lunar rocks were similar to volcanic rocks found here on earth. Like other Americans, I celebrated our superiority in space and never doubted the landing until I saw a documentary in the late 1990's.

After the documentary, I no longer was certain the lunar landings were real. I knew we had the rocket to get to the moon, but after that, I didn't believe we landed on the moon, or could land on the moon. The more I investigated the landings on my own, the less I believed we landed.

We can bounce lasers off the mirrors left on the Moon. How do you think they got there?

 

[dafydd]

The training vehicle used for simulating the lunar lander crashed before the first moon landing and almost killed the astronaut that was practicing his landings. They never practiced after that.

Evidence?

 

[TraneWreck]

Dumbest...thread...ever.

 

[Spindrift]

Six times? (There were six Apollo missions which landed on the Moon, remember: 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17.)





Six times? With each successive mission featuring a longer and more complex stay on the lunar surface than the one before it? (There were six Apollo missions which landed on the Moon, remember: 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. While Apollo 11 only had 2.5 hours' worth of moonwalks, Apollo 17 had 22 hours—nearly nine times as long.)


I strongly suggest you get yourself to a library, inside of which you will find shelves and shelves of books devoted to the topic of the Apollo missions, covering everything from the hardware to the experiences of the astronauts and much more. Even now you can buy new books on Apollo. For one site which has an extensive collection of books on space exploration, visit Apogee Books.

Here, I'll even help get you started with a just a partial list of the books that are available, presented in no particular order:

Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys (Michael Collins)
The Last Man on the Moon: Astronaut Eugene Cernan and America's Race in Space (Eugene Cernan, Donald A. Davis)
A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts (Andrew Chaikin)
Chariots For Apollo - A History of Manned Lunar spacecraft (Courtney G, Grimwood, James M., and Swenson, Loyd S. Brooks)
Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module (Thomas J. Kelly)
Journey to the Moon: The History of the Apollo Guidance Computer (Eldon C. Hall)
Team Moon: How 400,000 People Landed Apollo 11 on the Moon (Catherine Thimmesh)
Magnificent Desolation: The Long Journey Home from the Moon (Buzz Aldrin, Ken Abraham)
Exploring the Moon: The Apollo Expeditions (David M. Harland)
Apollo EECOM: Journey of a Lifetime (Sy Liebergot)
Apollo Moon Missions: The Unsung Heroes (Billy Watkins)
Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program (Donald A. Beattie)
Moon Launch! A History of the Saturn-Apollo Launch Operations (Charles D. Benson)
Moon Trip: A Personal Account of the Apollo Program and Its Science (Elbert A. King)
Earthbound Astronauts: The Builders of Apollo-Saturn (Beirne Lay, Jr.)
Apollo: The Race to the Moon (Charles Murray, Catherine Bly Cox)
Geology of the Apollo 16 Area, Central Lunar Highlands (George E. Ulrich, Carroll Ann Hodges, William R. Muehlberger)
Apollo 11 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 12 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 14 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 15 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 16 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 17 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)

I could easily add dozens of other titles, but that ought to be enough to get you started.

Now, are you seriously trying to suggest that all these many books, written by all these many different authors, published in many different years, are all part of and in the service of some giant nefarious conspiracy to hide the fact that no lunar landings actually took place?

Or is it more reasonable to suggest that you simply had no idea of the sheer amount of published documentary material that is available on the Apollo program which demonstrates unequivocally that the landings indeed took place.

The Apollo 17 - The NASA Mission Reports book, for instance, comes with a CD containing over eleven hours of video footage taken on the surface, along with thousands of the still photos taken. Do you really wish to claim that over eleven hours of video footage and thousands of still photos taken on just this one mission were all faked? Really?

Nice list! A few there I don't have, I will have to find them.

 

[Spindrift]

When I watched the lunar landing I thought to myself that the environment didn't at all seem like 1/6 th gravity. All my life I had heard stories of how, if on the moon, I could jump twenty feet! The video of the astronauts looked like people wearing 150 lunar suits in earth's gravity. I was stunned!

Twenty feet? On earth you have over a 3 foot vertical from a standing start? What's it like to slam dunk easily? That lunar suit is not a track suit.

All of the missions. I don't think we ever landed people on the moon. I don't think we ever walked on the surface of the moon.

If they faked all of they why did they keep going after the first fake?

It was still a great accomplishment to built a Saturn rocket and orbit the moon. It's certain that they did blast off in a Saturn rocket and leave the vicinity of earth where we could be observed with telescopes and radar.

Even though I voted for 'Tricky Dicky' and never blamed him for the Watergate fiasco, I still don't trust the guy and think he could have pulled off the cover-up of a faked lunar landing.

So you don't blame Nixon for the conspiracy everyone knows he is to blame for but you think he covered up the moon landings?

 

[roger]

Wow, so I guess if you couldn't learn it in a couple days, an astronaut with years of training couldn't either!

To be fair, Armstrong was merely a Navy combat pilot with carrier landing and nursing a damaged jet back to friendly terrority experience, an research test pilot, flier of rocket planes, holder of the record of the longest X-15 flight, hailed as the most technically capable in the X-15 program, an astronaut for over a decade, and only flew 50 or so different aircraft.

I would think a toy program fiddled with by an anonymous poster would trump that.

 

[matt.tansy]

Have you ever tried the old lunar lander program in which you control the throttle and try to set the lunar lander on the surface of the moon? It's almost impossible! I played it for days and never was able to make two perfect landings in a row! I would run out of fuel and drop a 1000 feet to the surface or not be able to slow down near the surface and damage the lander to the point that I couldn't take off.

I acknowledge that they had a computer with a ferrite bead memory and a whopping 1K of memory. Instead of a floppy disk, they had a paper tape reader. It wasn't sufficient to run a program to do the real time calculations necessary to land.

How many bytes does it take to land? About all the LM computer had to do was calculate pitch command and engine thrust based on input from the landing radar and the spacecraft's velocity. All of the heavy math was done at Mission Control then the data was relayed to the astronauts who entered it into their computer.

 

[X]

Have you ever tried the old lunar lander program in which you control the throttle and try to set the lunar lander on the surface of the moon? It's almost impossible! I played it for days and never was able to make two perfect landings in a row! I would run out of fuel and drop a 1000 feet to the surface or not be able to slow down near the surface and damage the lander to the point that I couldn't take off.

Seriously? Argument by video game? Seriously?

 

[Giggywig]

Seriously? Argument by video game? Seriously?

Actually, it's argument from personal lack of skill at video game.

 

[Andy_Ross]

the fact that the lunar rocks were similar to volcanic rocks found here on earth.

So all the worlds Geologists are in on it as well?

 

[Justinian2]

Questions aren't arguments.
Opinions aren't arguments.
Requests for sources aren't arguments.

I can't find sources for all of you. One need to do some of the work.

I'll answer/argue a sourced argument, but I'm never going to beat an opinion, even if it's wrong. It would be futile to argue any of your points as you've made up your minds.

OK, everything I've said is wrong. Does that make you feel better?

 

[MG1962]

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.

Neil Armstrong

 

[Spindrift]

Questions aren't arguments.
Opinions aren't arguments.
Requests for sources aren't arguments.

I can't find sources for all of you. One need to do some of the work.

I'll answer/argue a sourced argument, but I'm never going to beat an opinion, even if it's wrong. It would be futile to argue any of your points as you've made up your minds.

OK, everything I've said is wrong. Does that make you feel better?

Our work has already been done for us. Take a little time to check it out.
Try this: http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/

It's got everything you think people here are spouting as opinion sourced.

 

[Spindrift]

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.

Neil Armstrong

Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky - Neil Armstrong?

 

[sts60]

Questions aren't arguments.

No. They're intended to get you to think about your arguments.

Opinions aren't arguments.

Yet all you've offered is your opinions, which are demonstrably unsupported by any real knowledge of spaceflight in general or the Apollo program in particular. That, and a number of incorrect claims.

Requests for sources aren't arguments. I can't find sources for all of you. One need to do some of the work.

You're making the claim. You provide the evidence. Hint: none of your claims are new. Hint 2: A number of us are reasonably familiar with the Apollo record.

I'll answer/argue a sourced argument,

First, none of your arguments have been properly sourced.
Second, you haven't addressed any of the rebuttals to your opinions, nor to your numerous errors of fact.
Third, before I go explaining why all your errors are errors, you need to show that you've done at least a little research - your very first claim about "no five foot jumps" was dead wrong.

but I'm never going to beat an opinion, even if it's wrong.

Your opinions are directly at odd with not only the record, but also with opinions that can be reasonably classifed as knowledgeable. Hint: I can back up my opinions.

it would be futile to argue any of your points as you've made up your minds.

Not so. You could provide actual evidence to refute those points.

Anyway, your reaction to being challenged - to having your mistakes pointed out and reasoning vigorously explored - was to dig in and become defensive. Who's already got their mind made up? Are you willing to learn?

OK, everything I've said is wrong. Does that make you feel better?

No. I'm not interested in scoring points on an anonymous Internet forum. I'd "feel better" if you took away something useful from this exchange.

 

[excaza]

I can't find sources for all of you. One need to do some of the work.

Sorry, that's not how it works. If you spout something off, you should be able to back it up. For the most part, you've failed thus far to do so.

OK, everything I've said is wrong. Does that make you feel better?

At least you're starting to be honest. An improvement from the blatant lies you've been posting as 'fact.'

At least you managed to get the descent times correctly. Basic physics isn't lost after all.

 

[Justinian2]

Our work has already been done for us. Take a little time to check it out.
Try this: http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/

It's got everything you think people here are spouting as opinion sourced.

Here's the one I was discussing the most.

http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html

From your 'source':

Many people confuse weight with mass. The former is affected by gravity and the latter is not. But things like momentum and inertia are a function of mass. Consider a 175-pound (80-kg)astronaut wearing 120 pounds (55 kg)of equipment for a total of some 300 pounds (136 kg) on earth. On the moon he would weigh only one-sixth that amount, 50 pounds (23 kg). But he would still have 300 pounds (136 kg) of mass.

Your source is correct and actually helps my argument.

muscular energy earth = muscular energy moon
mgh (earth) = mgh (moon)

The difference is that g on the moon is 1/6 g on the earth and that m on the moon is 2 times the m on earth (the suits)

Consequently, for the equation to balance, h on the moon has to be three times h on the earth. In other words, a 20 inch jump on earth would have been 60 inches on the moon because the suits weighed 120 pounds.

Why don't the astronauts jump any higher than they would be able to on earth? Who says they couldn't? Just because they generally didn't doesn't mean they weren't able to.
Neil Armstrong reported that he was able to jump to the third step of the lunar module ladder, which he estimated to be five or six feet from the lunar surface [Reports11b, 89]. "I did some fairly high jumps," said Armstrong, "and found that there was a tendency to tip over backward on a high jump. One time I came close to falling and decided that was enough of that" [Ibid., 76]. Falling over backward would risk damaging the PLSS.

That's your 'evidence'. However, if the astronauts were not telling the truth about the landing, then they wouldn't tell the truth about that 'jump' either.

The truth is: I never saw any jump > 15 inches or so. I certainly never saw a 60 inch jump.

As far as the other arguments on that site, I never used them as the basis of my belief that we faked the lunar landing; they are not the strongest arguments. They are 'straw men'.

Furthermore, if you visit the Kennedy Space center you can see a movie which talks about the hoax and shows a re-filming of all the important video shots in the 'landings'. They even show the wires attached to the astronauts to simulate the 'jump' to the moon's surface. NASA's explaination was that the old footage was too grainy and they had to re-shoot the footage.

If they were able to reshoot the footage, why weren't they able to shoot the footage the first time decades ago?