The Apollo Hoax

@Poseidon,

I wasn't going to post this but there is a programme that debunks all those points, I really cant be bothered to trawl the net for it and I dont know what it's called, (I saw it ages ago), but I think if you google it yourself you will find enough to counter all those points.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;77240 wrote:

Wasn't this thoroughly debunked when it was brought up a page ago?

From the same Telegraph webpage:

1 It doesn't wave - it is an effect of the video camera. It is held up by a bar. The flag only waves when the pole is still vibrating from having been touched.
it sure moves for a long time for pole just touched.
2 The range of the film /video can't capture both the brightness of midday sun and the dimness of the stars at the same time. A camera set up to photograph objects in daylight will not record stars. They are just too faint. Try it.
if they had technology to get to the moon, for such a historic event, maybe they should have taken better cameras. you know, you would at least think that you would see ONE star. the atmosphere is unpolluted and has no atmosphere, so, the stars should have been as bright as truck lights.
3 Why would there be one - some of the dust that was blown away by the rocket could have settled back in the same place. The landing was in 1/6 Earth gravity and was done very gently. The rocket thrust required was much less than that of a Harrier jet.
yes, but none settled back on the huge plate-like feet of the capsule. amazing, no?
4 The impression was filled by the feet of the lander.
you would see the sand raised around the feet. it is dead flat, aka, too flat.
5 There is no wind to mess them up.
try making foot prints in dry beach sand on a day that is windless.
6 Not all rocket exausts looks lke a flame
of course, because some look like pineapple donuts.
7 That's the same for scuba divers - it doesn't mean that they are all fake.
the slowdown is EXACTLY 50% from looking like earth gravity. it is too coincidental.
8 Marie Curie survived years of contact with Radium - a very radioactive metal. The astronauts crossed the Van Allen belts at 25000 mph. Their exposure was too short to do harm.
no, the radiation is nothing like marie curie's dinky radiation exposure in small doses. a russian died hitting the van allen belt. travelling at 2500mph would still leave the vehicle in the radiation for far too long to survive.
9 The ones in Antarctica may have been blown off the moon by an impact.
:sarcastic:
10 They didn't need to - the Russians gave up so they didn't have anything to prove.
:sarcastic:

................

@TurboLung,

wednesday 8pm uk time discovery science - theo kamecke's film of the first moon landing. thought lost for 35 years now remastered.

called "moonwalk One"

@pagan,

Ok lets try the maths. The two relevant equations of motion i will use are the velocity and position equations.

v(t) = at + vo

where vo represents the initial velocity.

x(t) = (a.t.t)/2 + vo.t + xo

where xo is the initial position.
A dot means multiply, thus t.t means t squared

lets consider positive x as up and positive vo as up.
Lets consider positive a as up.
Set our position coordinates such that xo = 0

Further consider a for the earth as ge and a for the moon as gm. Since both are down they are negative and constant for the purposes of close approximation.

Further lets call voe as the initial upward velocity for an earth jump and vom as the intial upward velocity as a moon jump

and likewise ve te and xe for earth and vm tm and xm for moon

ve(te) = -ge.te + voe
vm(tm) = -gm.tm + vom

xe(te) = (-ge.te.te)/2 + voe.te
xm(tm) = (-gm.tm.tm)/2 + vom.tm

these are the velocity and position equations for the earth and moon.

Now lets consider a special position xh which is the high point of the jumping object as it leaves the surface with intial velocity vo and is dragged back by -g.
let th be the time when that occurs.
For such a position v(th) = 0 because the object is stationary at that point in the trajectory. Substitute this into the velocity equations and

Thus 0 = -ge.the +voe
and 0 = -gm.thm + vom

or

the = voe/ge
thm = vom/gm

in other words the time to reach the highest point is equal to the initial velocity needed for the jump divided by the gravitational acceleration.

Lets define H as the height reached, which is of course x(th), the moment of time to reach the highest point, which we have just defined in terms of vo and g. namely th = vo/g

using the position equation therefore and substituting th for vo/g

He = (-ge.voe.voe)/(2.ge.ge) + voe.voe/ge
He = (voe.voe)/(2.ge)

and similarly of course

Hm = (vom.vom)/(2.gm)

which means that the height reached is the initial velocity of the jump squared divided by twice the gravitational acceleration.

Now lets compare equivalent jumps of height. Ie make Hm = He

this means that

(voe.voe)/(2.ge) = (vom.vom)/2.gm

but we know that ge = 6.gm because the gravitational pull of the earth is 6 times stronger

So

voe.voe = 6.vom.vom

for a jump of the same height. We can see that you need a greater initial velocity to get the same height on the earth compared to the moon, as expected.

But now lets compare the time it takes to reach that same height. Remember that the time to reach the highest point is equal to the initial velocity needed for the jump divided by the gravitational acceleration.

the = voe/ge
thm = vom/gm

lets compare them as a ratio
thm/the = (vom.ge)/(voe.gm)

but again ge = 6.gm

so

thm/the = 6.vom/voe

but we also have for the same position

voe.voe = 6.vom.vom

or
voe = vom.(square root of 6)

thus by substitution

thm/the = (6.vom)/(vom.(square root of 6)) = square root of 6 = 2.45

Further, by symmetry, the return fall to the surface will take the same time as reaching the greatest height in each case and thus the proportional comparison of thm/the will remain the same.
To confirm this take the original position equation and solve for x=o (the surface)
One solution is t=0 and the other is t = 2.vo/a which is exactly twice the time to reach the highest point which was th = vo/a.

A jump looks like time has slowed down by a factor of 2.45 when comparing the times off the surface.

I enjoyed that! Smile

@Poseidon,

The ruskies tracked them all the way to the moon. I think they might have let the world know if it had all been a big wind-up!

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;79004 wrote:

The ruskies tracked them all the way to the moon. I think they might have let the world know if it had all been a big wind-up!

the ruskies in fact did not track them. without knowing the course, it would be like locating a grain of sand in an olympic swimming pool.

@Poseidon,

Well, Whether we went to the moon or not is, at this point, moot. We now have the technology to do it and are doing so. The biggest thing to consider is that, whether or not we made it, this was the biggest event in man kinds history. If it was a hoax, it still showed us new possibilities and pushed our technology and drive for the stars faster and farther than it had even been.

@Icon,

Other than nationalist rah-rah, what is the point in sending manned space craft to the moon or anywhere else, for that matter?

@Didymos Thomas,

After we terraform Mars, we will have to send up the space buses.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;80572 wrote:

Other than nationalist rah-rah, what is the point in sending manned space craft to the moon or anywhere else, for that matter?

Well, I imagine that one of the reasons it hasn't been a popular destination since the first visits was that it was obvious after having a look that there wasn't really anything there to make much use of.

@Dave Allen,

I thought there was lots of green cheese?

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;80789 wrote:

Well, I imagine that one of the reasons it hasn't been a popular destination since the first visits was that it was obvious after having a look that there wasn't really anything there to make much use of.

My question isn't just about the moon, but about manned space travel altogether. Why send humans? Robots do not complain of freezing temperatures, do not have the psychological problems of being confined and sent on missions that last extended periods of time. Robotic exploration just seems much more practical.

@Poseidon,

Well, I can think up a few reasons.

One is that I don't think sending a robot is as satisifying in a ego sense as sending a human explorer. A sense of endeavor is imparted by a manned mission that isn't by an unmanned one (voyager has undoubtably done more for space exploration than Neil Armstrong, but humans just don't think of their tools in the same emotional way as they do their peers). I think it makes no "real" difference myself - but clearly there's no shortage of volunteers despite the physical and psychological risks involved (and procedures to reduce these risks are obviously being developed and improved upon given the chance).

Secondly I think that even the most sophisticated robot is limited in scope to making interesting or important observations compared to a human. Humans come with sophisticated information gathering equipment - such as arms and eyes and legs - for free and they are easier to maintain over the short term.

So as a pioneer - a living human is a much better instrument for exploration and gathering materials than a robot, and the prestige that goes with such exploration seems to outweigh the risks for certain people to devote their lives to the chance of doing so. Indeed, whilst I would consider it a frightening and wasteful proposition, I'd certainly be tempted by an offer of travelling to space "simply to see".

@Dave Allen,

I heard one of the old guard mention that it would be four times cheaper to send someone to mars and resupply them rather than recover them.What a nightmare, to think you would never see your loved ones again.I would have thought initially robots could be just as good and then as advances take place, send humans.Those robots that are like virtual reality,they mimic the human body movements and the operator feels he is there.

@xris,

well we did the robotic thing on mars. I suppose the real question is as to what else might we gain of surface research from the moon. We don't need it for telecopes and other deep space observations, or study of the sun. It seems that the main reason would be to analyse the rocks. seismology and stuff. Geology really. Is it worth the effort?

The manned missions were different. They were heroic (and political) as well as bringing back first round information. If that information doesn't really give exciting new possibilities, then whats the point of going back? There needs to be a potential scientific pay off.

The only other thing i can potentially think of is energy storage. But what for? Our electronics run on very little energy now and solar power is abundant away from the surface.

@pagan,

pagan;81069 wrote:

well we did the robotic thing on mars. I suppose the real question is as to what else might we gain of surface research from the moon. We don't need it for telecopes and other deep space observations, or study of the sun. It seems that the main reason would be to analyse the rocks. seismology and stuff. Geology really. Is it worth the effort?

The manned missions were different. They were heroic (and political) as well as bringing back first round information. If that information doesn't really give exciting new possibilities, then whats the point of going back? There needs to be a potential scientific pay off.

The only other thing i can potentially think of is energy storage. But what for? Our electronics run on very little energy now and solar power is abundant away from the surface.

I dont really know enough,i thought it was initialy to be used as a base for further exploration.I think our efforts are unspecified.Till we can master a better means of space flight we will be just knocking on the door of space.

Philosophy Forum

The Apollo Hoax

Quick Links

My Account

able2know