Is it even possible to go to the Moon?

reply to post by DJW001

Yes, I believe it is possible for us to go to the moon.
We have an orbitting space station. Maybe bit by bits, payload by payload, a craft designed to do such a thing is being built. Conservation of fuel and energy by not having to worry about escape velocity, just blast off from the atmosphere with less drag on you to worry about (so to speak).
Just a thought. I'm no scientist, but if I can think up such a ridiculous idea, I'm sure NASA/globally elite scientists somewhere with huge IQ's have considered and researched it (if not achieved and perfected it).

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

No, it's a secret space station that is orbiting the moon.

President George W. Bush authorized it.

The Canadians complained about it.

I would ask you where you got this impression, but it would be way off topic.

It was an old article in a Canadian newspaper.
Apparently, Area 51 is for real. Going to the moon is easy.

I believe we went to the moon, and I believe we will again in the future.

It has already been stated that future missions to Mars would be cheaper if launched from the moon, so it is inevitable that bases will be built, eventually.

As for the original question, of course it is possible, for one it's obviously been done, plus there are people up there now in the ISS, so the long term in space thing is sorted, and if we can send probes and rovers to Mars, then we can get to the moon.

I also believe this is within the capabilities of the private sector for a fraction of the price NASA seems to say it costs.

reply to post by woogleuk

It has already been stated that future missions to Mars would be cheaper if launched from the moon, so it is inevitable that bases will be built, eventually.

That's a myth.

If you ship all the parts to the Moon you then have to assemble them in harsh conditions and make them work.
If you build it there you have to ship the factory there and make it work first.

Nothing on the Moon will be cheaper than on Earth.

reply to post by samkent


No it's not a myth, launching a rocket from the Moon would be easier than from Earth due to the Moon's lower gravity requiring a lower escape velocity.

The other proposed method was to build the craft in low Earth orbit.

Originally posted by MushroomWig
Mythbusters has wiped the floor with this conspiracy and yet people STILL question it.

Yes, I encounter this same self-enforced ignorance over in the 9/11 conspiracy channel. the Apollo program was one of the most well documented events in history, to the point where the public even knew what radio frequencies the astronauts used to communicate with ground control. The problem is, hordes of con artists ranging from crackpots to outright snake oil peddlers are putting out all this junk science, paranoia, deliberate manipulation, and outright lies, in order to sucker people into believing what they want peopel to believe, all so they can make a quick buck from their books and web sites. Theese people believe in these conspiracies for the simple reason that they WANT to believe in them.

Such people are easy to spot- tell them that twelve real live living people walked on the moon, and they'll say the astronauts are in on the conspiracy. Tell them that foreign governments like Russia were spying on our missions, and they'll say the Soviet Union was in on it. Tell them we collected moon rocks that geologists are still mystifying geologists with their weird properties, and they'll tell you the geologists are in on it. Whatever proof you show them, from eyewitness testimony to physical evidence to independent corroboration by other countries, they'll ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS make up more accusations of conspiracy to justify their prior accusations of conspiracy in circular logic.

Even when you do give them the proof they demand (I.E. why there's no independent corroboration of the moon landings and showing them the Japanese satellite photos of the Apollo landing sites) they're simply turn around and denounce the proof and demand some other thing. They keep insisting that radiation would be lethal, but when it's pointed out the only lethal radiation they'd experience in space would be from solar eruptions and there weren't any solar eruptions during any of the Apollo missions, they'll simply ignore it and insist "radiation would be lethal" all over again.

It's now officially to the point where the lack of credibility ISN'T with the Apollo program. It's with these people who keep insisting the Apollo program was a hoax and who use the junk science, the paranoia, the deliberate manipulation, and the outright lies to back their false claims up.

reply to post by DJW001


I'm inclined to say yes, we have the means to go to the moon in this day and age yet I can't because we have not and do not go to the moon in this day and age, perhaps the only reason we don't is because we can't.

Strange post coming from you DJ but I like it.

Is it possible to send Humans to the moon? Of course, now whether we have the technology and know how to do so that is the question. I think we do, I also think that the black government or whatever you want to call it, wants us to think that they have technology that is out of this world. But I think in reality the technology is a bluff, it doesn't really exist, Its just fear tactics...

Since, in my opinion, the infamous radiation belt is the biggest obstacle when sending a man to the moon - without getting roasted - I would like to ask if someone has any empirical data collected from deep space probes or instrumentation onboard lunar probes regarding the various types as well as intensity of radiation surrounding the earth.

If high amounts of ionizing radiation do actually exist, one can calculate the amount of shielding necessary to keep humans out of harms way. The lunar orbiter was merely a tin can without any radiation shield plating whatsoever. So this would be a way to prove they could never have gone. Or evidence to the contrary.

reply to post by H1ght3chHippie

Since, in my opinion, the infamous radiation belt is the biggest obstacle when sending a man to the moon - without getting roasted - I would like to ask if someone has any empirical data collected from deep space probes or instrumentation onboard lunar probes regarding the various types as well as intensity of radiation surrounding the earth.

There exists tons of it. You can access it through NOAA.

If high amounts of ionizing radiation do actually exist, one can calculate the amount of shielding necessary to keep humans out of harms way. The lunar orbiter was merely a tin can without any radiation shield plating whatsoever. So this would be a way to prove they could never have gone. Or evidence to the contrary.

A few millimeters of aluminum will do the trick:

w3.tue.nl...

I agree with some that there is reason to fake it but that's not what bothers me, if the reason why you would do something so bloody dangerous with the untested knowledge of even the slightest error or danger up there. The calculations were done on hardware we would not use in a blender now, the actual exploration of what was beyond normal Earth orbiting ranges was little iirc, the lander was made of something a toddler could break these days.

All that worries me as IF you are indeed in a race to the Moon the chance of mistakes were enormous, just look at the Shuttle since the Apollo days, tiles and defects have cost people their lives just going into Earth orbit after all this tech yet Apollo did something mind blowing with pretty much negligible tech back then.

Was the price of failure of no consequence to the US, surely that was one of the most important political points of the mission, in fact the whole point of the mission, to do it first.

Ok, had the lander been damaged on its landing on the Moon the guys would have still done it and been heroes but what a price, we just don't do that sort of risk normally.

NASA and the US seem to have played GOD if you will..

Or did they?

Ok, we went to the moon back in the late 60's early 70's wow i am that old that seems so long ago.....why have we not been going back is what i wonder.....We have space stations....part of the moon issue is a mass leaving earth orbit....well we have moved on have we not....why bring the craft back to earth why not start from space.....I mean would make sense would it not...blast loads of small payloads to a place in orbit then proceed from there....you get the basic idea.....I mean back in the 60's this was supposed to be leading edge technology...so one would think we should have advanced so much further by now and going to the moon should almost be routine.

Now is it even possible to go to the moon.....of course it is.....the question should be more of "why are we not going there" IF it was possible back then well of course it is possible now......So if we go on history based fact then which shows not only was it possible but we should be doing it like we drive our cars today....heck in 100yrs we have have gone from flight to supersonic to space....so in 50yrs of space travel have we really accelerated to a degree that coincedes with mere flight.....you be the judges.

Could it also be the old theory we came ,we saw....and were told to F"£$ ££F i don't know....Just a bit weird to believe we went to the moon way back when....hate saying that makes me feel old since i watched the first moon landings.....and now with our more advanced technology we have no interest in going back.....With our natural human nature to habour an insatiable need to explore we are not exploring our closet neighbor vigoriously.

I am trying to answer the op in a way where i don't blurt out......"it was all a hoax and a con "...as far as exiting the earths atmosphere i would say most people are in agreement there....That part can be done.....Getting in and out of the van alan belt with little or no effect on the human body.....seems to be well documented and seems to work out.....man survivng to get to the moon and back seems do able.....landing the lunar lander well that is questionable as i remember watching the crashes when the testing of the lander was going on...but unsurmountable at this point in time....i think not.

I would also agree with another in here that mentioned Russia.....heck one would think theywould be able to send someone to the moon no problem.....they have been extremely successful in space yet why had they not vetured out further...I mean just because the states well we got there...would you ever for one second think that would be enough for them....Hell no it would make them more determine would it not.....I know when David thompson was exploring the thompson river system in Canada....after Simon frazer....do you think he said i give up on exploring the vast nation of Canada be Frazer was there.....or when columbus discovered America all other would be explorers just went....."oh my no point in going there anymore.

something does stink.....but one is not sure it it is the S%*& that stinks or if it could be the BullS£$% that stinks.

Something smeels of conspiracy....we either went there or we didn't ....but one would definately think we have the tech availible to making trips to the moon common place....and plus i want to go start building on the plot of land i have purchased there before i die.

Moon Estates

yours for just a measly £16.75 I mean if they can sell you a plot on the moon then obviously you will be able to get....I would have prefeered to walk the plot meself but the Realestate agent said he gets airsick.

but to me he was looking a bit green....could be the numerous trips through the Van Alan belts though.

just some info on the Saturn five rocket

Size: 111 m (363 ft)
Payload to orbit: 129,300 kg (285,000 lb)
Payload to Moon: 48,500 kg (107,000 lb)
Manufacturer: Boeing Co. (prime)
1st stage: five F-1 engines
Propellants: RP-1 (kerosene) and liquid oxygen
Total thrust: 33,360,000 newtons (7,500,000 lb)
Manufacturer: Rocketdyne
2nd stage: five J-2 engines
Propellants: liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen
Total thrust: 5,560,000 newtons (1,250,000 lb)
Manufacturer: Rocketdyne
3rd stage: one J-2 engine
Thrust: 1,112,000 newtons (250,000 lb)

you see by the time you get to third stage......your down to just 250,000lbs of thrust

so over coming the obstacles of earth and the fuel to weight ratio you dont need much to get to the moon....
It not only becomes feasible in weight ratio but it cost ratio's also.

still does not make sense why we as humans have not gone back there...forget the American crapola....but thinking about people through out the world.

Yes, I believe it's possible and has been demonstrated.
I also believe it's terribly unsafe, or has been terribly unsafe.
So maybe they are still evaluating the data and working on the safety.

Just FYI, logically speaking it is not possible to prove a negative statement, such as "it is impossible to travel to the moon." It can be doubted and opined to be impossible though, and I personally have my doubts about legitimacy of the moon landing. In fact I have my doubts about most claims made by the US government, especially NASA. There was certainly the means, motivation and opportunity to have faked the early moon missions. However I also think "we" have been to the moon, even if the first missions were faked.

Originally posted by wagnificent
Just FYI, logically speaking it is not possible to prove a negative statement, such as "it is impossible to travel to the moon." It can be doubted and opined to be impossible though, and I personally have my doubts about legitimacy of the moon landing. In fact I have my doubts about most claims made by the US government, especially NASA. There was certainly the means, motivation and opportunity to have faked the early moon missions. However I also think "we" have been to the moon, even if the first missions were faked.

...and here is definitive proof:

reply to post by Arbitrageur


If you would like to test out any hypothesis concerning crew modules vs. Launch vehicle ratios for lunar orbital injection, I can tell you how, no need to theorize when you can fly it yourself with real world physics. It is called "orbiter space flight simulator" it is available free online @ orbiterspaceflightsim.com. along with many other mirror sights. This is all open source, designed by a former nasa scientist, very good, real world physics, many interchangable launch vehicles, both real life and experimental. Been flying lunar insertions for years.

Sry back on topic, I would have to say that it is obviously in the range of the possible, however I would say it is highly improbable given what we know about radiation. In l.e.o. astronauts see sparks whe they close their eyes from high energy charged particles interacting with the optic nerve inside a space suit inside a space craft inside the van alan belts.

It would only be prudent to assume that with that much getting in through the belts, ship, suit and biological material between the radiation source and the optc nerve, that taking away any single layer of protection would cause a factor increase in radiation intensity. Thus leaving us with cooked astronauts post haste.

Although, I do agree that the jury is out for debunking this idea, that doesn't mean improbabilty equals impossibilty.

Originally posted by reddwhite
Sry back on topic, I would have to say that it is obviously in the range of the possible, however I would say it is highly improbable given what we know about radiation. In l.e.o. astronauts see sparks whe they close their eyes from high energy charged particles interacting with the optic nerve inside a space suit inside a space craft inside the van alan belts.

You got it all wrong. There is no way ionizing radiation can directly stimulate nerve endings. What happens in reality is Cherenkov light radiated in the vitreous body of the eye, and you don't need particularly high energies of incoming particles to achieve that.

It's also remarkable that some people automatically assume that the radiation belts or any radiation at all is deadly. This is just silly. There are ways to measure the dose, and there are data that show what dosage is acceptable. We get irradiated when we fly to our favorite vacation spot, because radiation levels are higher in the upper atmosphere. Does it mean that powered flight is impossible?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by reddwhite
Sry back on topic, I would have to say that it is obviously in the range of the possible, however I would say it is highly improbable given what we know about radiation. In l.e.o. astronauts see sparks whe they close their eyes from high energy charged particles interacting with the optic nerve inside a space suit inside a space craft inside the van alan belts.

You got it all wrong. There is no way ionizing radiation can directly stimulate nerve endings. What happens in reality is Cherenkov light radiated in the vitreous body of the eye, and you don't need particularly high energies of incoming particles to achieve that.

It's also remarkable that some people automatically assume that the radiation belts or any radiation at all is deadly. This is just silly. There are ways to measure the dose, and there are data that show what dosage is acceptable. We get irradiated when we fly to our favorite vacation spot, because radiation levels are higher in the upper atmosphere. Does it mean that powered flight is impossible?

No, I think you not only misunderstand my statement but the physics involved. Cherenkov radiation is a form of high energy charged particle radiation, and it is hypothysized by the top nasa scientists on the matter that they not only interact with nerves ( nerves = electrical cables, fact high energy charged particles do interfere with any and all electrical signals when they interact with them. ) but effect the actual visual centers of the brain, that consist of what? That's right, nerve clusters.


There is a huge difference between radiation experienced at any level of our atmosphere vs hard vacuum. It is not only a gross mistatment on your part but out right ignorance to compare leaving the earths magnetic field with high altitude flight. They aren't even comparable levels of radiation intensity. A solar flare aimed right at earth can and does knock out entire regional electric grids, yet when compared with leaving the magnetic field around earth on a instance of very minor solar activity the average radiation gradient will be orders of magnitude higher just from background cosmic radiation alone. This conversation isn't apples and oranges comparison, it is apples and limestone.

This is of course not a fact, as it is still just the leading hypothesis at the current time. The truth is none of us actually know what is causing it. So arguing it is pure conjecture, and arguing at present unprovable theorise, while fun to pass the time is the equivelant of beating your head against a wall.

editby]edit on 13-1-2012 by reddwhite because: forgot to type last pararaph lulz