Moon Landing Hoax? - Judge Yourself

reply to post by heineken


Yes, please comment further. You didn't seem to actually say anything. You seem awfully confused on this subject.

reply to post by davesidious


YOU BET IM CONFUSED...

here is how it started...



then i read that these tests were carried out to see how radiation will effect astronauts in space...

then i realized that they were ready to do anything...just to go to the moon

i still have those marcing soldiers in my mind all day long

i also dont believe moon travelling was not possible in 1969 and they hoaxed it just to be in time for JFK's ultimatum

reply to post by DataWraith

Slightly related but I'm curious, seeing as this thread is involving the lunar escape my question is this, flame aside , when the module 'took off' what was the 'G-Forces' the astronauts inside had to withstand?, I mean the take off itself was a bit drastic, 0-whatever really quickly, does anyone know?

As it happens I was just reading about it.

The figures given for the LM ascent of Apollo 11 were: After about 120 seconds, or so, they were travelling at 3000 fps.

Now, when you figure that acceleration due to gravity on Earth (One G) is 32ft/sec/sec, it is obvious that the liftoff had an acceleration of just under One G. Perfectly tolerable, and makes sense since the Astronauts were standing in the module....no seats.

I thought we went over this. They brought stuff back from the moon that they never left with.

reply to post by heineken
We also went over the fact that radiation from an atomic bomb is completely different from radiation in space. Radiation from that bomb test would kill you fairly quickly, where Astronauts stay in space for months with very few adverse effects (one of the biggest is related to bone density from zero G).

Stupid phone.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by heineken

Skeptics pointed out that no flames were visible when the lunar module left the moon...and erm...they were right..there were NO flames..

Obviously you did not know that when a 1:1 mixture of methyl hydrazine, H3CNHNH2, and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, (H3C)2NNH2, with liquid dinitrogen tetroxide, N2O4 is mixed together it burns with no visible flame....

In other words...

Rockets designed to work (burn) in space carry their own oxidizer (which happens to burn with no visible flame).

reply to post by heineken

i also dont believe moon travelling was not possible in 1969 and they hoaxed it just to be in time for JFK's ultimatum

Merely another baseless assertion, promoted by those who wish the Moon landing "hoax" to be true. They've invested so much time...wasted is a better term...into it by now.

Frankly, had it not been for the Apollo 1 accident, and the program setback in terms of time lost, the first landing might likely have been achieved as much as year earlier than it was.

Also, the Russians were very close --- they only lacked a reliable heavy-lift rocket. They were catching up with NASA on orbital rendezvous maneuvers, 'space walk' practice (rendezvous critical for the 'LOR' type of mission objective, and 'space walks' for the potential of a resue, if needed).

The Russians' failure with their large rocket was their Achille's heel. AND, thier chief scientist (rocket) went in for routine hemmorhoid surgery, and died because the surgeon nicked a large blood vessel. (During his hemmorhoid Op a tumor was discovered. It was during the removal of the cancer that the other injury occurred).

The Russians never recovered from that setback. They were aggressive enough, and were doing even more risk-taking than NASA.

OK...that was a bit of history for you.

NOW...the "flame'.

The U.S.A.'s Saturn rocket, and its various stages and components, used various fuels. The big, more powerful thrust required for stage one was provided by a kerosene mixture (RP-1), with the LOX as an oxidizer. Hence, the flames. Also, as shown in the photo of stage separation you provided, dwon at the very edge of Earth's atmosphere, there were solid-fuel "ullage motors" to acomplish the separation. THOSE would produce a brief flame.

The other stages also used LOX, but it was combined with LH2, instead of the RP-1.

Of course, the LM itself, both the descent and ascent modules, used the hypergolic fuels, as did the attitude control thrusters.

For comparison, look at today's Space Shuttle. There is no flame visible from the three main engines, after the two solid-fuel rocket boosters are detached. (While in the atmosphere, there is of course a condensation trail. Because, you know what you get when you mix Oxygen and Hydrogen, right???)

Mythbusters did a whole show about this, they are all myths, we went to the moon

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

a few to get you started, more at youtube

reply to post by heineken


Strange thing about that blast off. I was tending to poo-poo this thread, but I remembered something I ran across recently in regard to the Moon's regolith, its surface matrial. It--or at least where some of the astronauts were--is very fine. Evidently, it is about as fine as cemet dust (what you buy in a bag and the not concrete mixstuff). The dust coming into the LEM on their suits caused problems by jamming equipment and blocking lenses and windows and getting inside the suits to chafe the guys. On one mission the guys reported that their suits were so contaminated that they would not be able to do another EVA.

This brings a question for me. What I've given above seems logical and is probaby true. So why didn't the LEM kick up a huge cloud of this stuff such as to be engulfed by it? Heck, you would see more dust than that if the thing had lifed off a city street! True, no atmosphere there, but with the low gravity those particles would have been slow (by our standards) to fall to the surface and probably traveled out to the camera.

One answer that comes readily to mind is that film is one of those manufactured to show what was going on. Faked in advance to show pretty much in real time--re-inacting--what was happening there.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Aliensun]

I think man did land on the moon back in 1969. I think it's entirely plausible there were other incentives to land on the moon and NASA will not present that publically. Richard Hoagland said in an interview that the Moon Hoax originated from NASA to distract people from the real purpose of the moon mission.

I think it's more important to investigate what was on the moon and why did Michael Collins report seeing a 7 story building while in orbit!? And why has this information never seen the light of day since it was originally broadcast live? That's what I want to know putting this distraction aside.

Originally posted by hlesterjerome

Rockets designed to work (burn) in space carry their own oxidizer (which happens to burn with no visible flame).

all rockets carry their own oxidiser, it depends on what fuel/oxidiser is used.

Some rockets, eg space shuttle main engines use hydrogen and oxygen, this does not produce much of a flame, just watch a shuttle launch
www.vidoemo.com...
or look at en.wikipedia.org...

The Apollo Saturn V engines used Oxygen and RP-1 (a highly refined form of kerosene) this produced a huge flame www.youtube.com...

Fuel used in the Apollo Lunar module did not produce much flame at all

Originally posted by Aliensun
So why didn't the LEM kick up a huge cloud of this stuff such as to be engulfed by it?

Have you even looked at a picture of the LM leaving the moon? If you had you would have seen the the ascent module rocket pushed against the descent module, not the ground, hence little dust

You seem to be right. In looking at a drawing of the equipment, there seems to be no pass through on the landing stage. Pus, I just realized that the descending engine would have blow dust away--however, said to be 1-5 meters in the plains, and it would have been a more powerful blast and rather sustained as it came down.

reply to post by Aliensun
When the LEM touched down, they were at approximately 10% thrust. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending.

Originally posted by heineken

Originally posted by Seiko
The rocket separation is taken in the upper stratosphere correct? I'm not sure that qualifies as space. The sun also does not qualify as space, it is in space, but it is not space. The sun is not a vacuum it has an environment.

you can try and breath over there...tell us if its fresh

I'll give it a go, if you go underwater and tell us if that environment smells fishy...

!

I also like this logic -

Topic - Moon Landing Hoax? - Judge Yourself

But unless you judge in favor of Heiny then

The Nasa Sheeple counter attacked with stating that no Flames were visible in space since there is no Oxygen

you're insulted.



It's like saying "You are free to have an opinion, but only if you agree with me!"

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
The initial fire pulse shot it up high enough for gravity to diminish and then NASA said "Kick over" meaning to start their own thrusters. Does this video go on longer? It seems it's cut off right at the time the fire of the thrusters would be visible.

I would like to point out that I don't have an overall say either way whether the U.S. went to the moon and my statement is only to do with this one video.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by Thermo Klein]

I saw that pulse, that was the initial thrust that gave it a blast into orbit and then the maneuvering thrusters where used to line up with the return ship.

reply to post by heineken


Did you REALLY just post a prison planet link and expect a valid response about it?

Too bad we imaged the landing sites, and left a laster reflector up there right.