Is it even possible to go to the Moon?

here are the main obstacles as I see them, please feel free to add to it

build a rocket that can overcome earths gravity with a payload attached
navigate to a moving target
descend/land on moving target

build a craft that can survive the cold temps of space and heat of reentry
build space suits that can protect humans on the surface of the moon
provide oxygen and life support for about a week (i think)

reply to post by UB2120


The internet has spread more of what people with little education in matters the very thing their beliefs want to hear. It gives them references they don't analyze, or cross reference. The internet used by critical thinkers can be a useful tool, it's usually not used that way in forums. In professions it is.

There are no shadow anomalies from the lunar photos, just misunderstandings.

Things don't look the same on the moon as what you are used to seeing on earth in atmosphere. The movies even get it wrong, movies are fiction, made for entertainment impact.

Uneducated analyses of lunar photos is like me asking squirrels to paint my house.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
here are the main obstacles as I see them, please feel free to add to it

build a rocket that can overcome earths gravity with a payload attached
navigate to a moving target
descend/land on moving target

build a craft that can survive the cold temps of space and heat of reentry
build space suits that can protect humans on the surface of the moon
provide oxygen and life support for about a week (i think)

This has nothing to do with the admittedly futile topic of this thread. Sure, there are many obstacles in making a Lunar mission reality, but as I posted, there are also 1,000,000 obstacles in building a functional nuclear reactor what can produce energy for decades and is not too likely to blow up or vice versa actually stall indefinitely. Just trust me on this, this is tough tough tough business.

So?

reply to post by Illustronic


Education or not mate, we all have eyes.

Perhaps select a few of the widely available "shadow" videos on the net and.............discuss/explain.

Plus, in my view (not worth a lot to you, as I have a difference of opinion, you have gone for the education equivelent of a pre-dual glove face slap) I think it's laughable.

Answer this question oh worldly one, in detail please: Why have they or anyone else not gone "back" to the moon? At all, ever? Not even a little bit. Wouldn't you be interested in other parts of the moon? Just as I am interested in different parts of our planet. It's extremely ignorant to even suggest for one moment that "all the moon is the same" or "seen it done it". Who ever would say such a thing has a an extremely closed mind wouldn't you say?

People climb Mt Everest all the time because it's hard. It's in our human spirit to do these things, you don't see blokes saying "Nah mate, it's already been done" it's total rubbish!!

People trek to the south pole all the time because it's hard and no doubt costs them a load of cash, but you don't hear "nah mate, it's already been done"?

People dive deeper into our oceans and spend a sh4t load of cash developing new and exciting submarines to explore our earth depths, but you don't here "nah mate, it's been done"

Peoples argument that the only reason we have not been "back" to the moon because it's been done (not) and it cost a lot of cash is totaly flawed. If we (humans) had done it, every country with a desire to explore would have done it or would be still doing it, the moon is a awesome place to visit (i hope).

The argument is flawed and it's just bollox.

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
If we (humans) had done it, every country with a desire to explore would have done it or would be still doing it, the moon is a awesome place to visit (i hope).

This is just silly. Not every country is capable of as much as brewing good beer, despite understandable desire to have a good cold one. North Korea and Iran are doing their damnedest to get nukes, and results are mixed so far.

My neighbor drives a Ferrari, and I sure have a "desire" to get one too, somehow this ain't happening.

We went into space in the sixties. We currently have the ISS in Earth orbit. The answer would seem to be self evident.

Though the vehicle would need to be designed and built, the knowledge to do it is here, and has been since before I was born.

It's an interesting spin on the topic.

reply to post by seagull


Correct: Knowledge, and that 's it I'm affraid.

Knowledge not experience.

delete

reply to post by seagull

We currently have the ISS in Earth orbit.

Yeah at only 330 - 410 km orbit. That is a long way from the Moon.

reply to post by CaptainBeno

Yeah at only 330 - 410 km orbit. That is a long way from the Moon.

Granted, but it proves that it is possible to loft heavy payloads into space and provide a livable environment for human beings. It also proves that the risk from meteoroids is negligible and that human beings can thrive in micro-gravity for extended periods of time. All of these had been advanced as reasons a lunar mission would be impossible, right up until the late 1960's.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by UB2120

 

The internet has spread more of what people with little education in matters the very thing their beliefs want to hear. It gives them references they don't analyze, or cross reference. The internet used by critical thinkers can be a useful tool, it's usually not used that way in forums. In professions it is.

There are no shadow anomalies from the lunar photos, just misunderstandings.

Things don't look the same on the moon as what you are used to seeing on earth in atmosphere. The movies even get it wrong, movies are fiction, made for entertainment impact.

Uneducated analyses of lunar photos is like me asking squirrels to paint my house.

Ok, if I am misunderstanding please explain how an Astronaut's shadow can get longer/shorter in length when only walking a few feet? The distance from the Sun to the Astronaut, relatively speaking, is constant and therefore his shadow should be constant. Just like here on Earth. If you are lighted by a source that is much closer, then your relative distance will change walking a few feet and your shadow will reflect that.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Eyes send a stimulus to the brain, if the brain is damaged, the interpretation is flawed. See?

reply to post by UB2120

Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon itself, as well as the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective effects come into play, particularly on rough or angled ground. This leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. And finally, the camera in use was fitted with a wide angle lens, which naturally resulted in subtle versions of "fish eye" distortion.

link

reply to post by UB2120


You talk a lot about things you aren't showing.

Has receding terrain ever entered your head?

I always wondered why the shadow of the chimney was so long on the roof and so short on the ground, Crazy bricks! Sometimes they look like aliens.

reply to post by Illustronic



tut tut tut! Now that's not very nice is it? Just like Buzz, it's getting a little personal ............what next?

reply to post by CaptainBeno


I believe you started off topic posts aimed at being incendiary if you are that clever as to which 'buttons to press'. Which I believe you are and are just having fun. So I treat any response to a post you make as such.

You want a serious exchange, enter a topical challenge. Try to back up a claim you make with a source we can decide its value. Something from Nature journal would be a good start, or another source we know is very discerning in what they publish.


If we are to regard opinions as having any value, then I would say opinions are like farts, everyone has em and they all stink.

Ok, here's some photo's for you......

You will have to excuse the grammar, I'm not sure of the author’s ethnicity.

But a nice collection of photo's never-the-less.

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

Farts.......come on now? You can do better than that.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


THAT website is ridiculous.

But, also THIS thread specifically asked to "ignore" Apollo.

reply to post by ProudBird

But, also THIS thread specifically asked to "ignore" Apollo.

What other examples to you have?, it's pretty hard to ignore when that is the "golden rule" so to speak?

Or shall we make one up..............just like NASA?

reply to post by CaptainBeno


POINT is.....Apollo WAS real

Deal with it please,