Quote:
Quote by: Plasma Snake[D]  As you all know, there are several conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landing. I never took them seriously until now. I thought about what it would realistically take in order to land on the moon, and it got me thinkning that perhaps the technology available in 1969 wasnt capable of succesfully landing humans on the moon. For one thing, how would they take off from the moon? I know that the moon isnt as large as the Earth, so it would take less force to escape its gravity, but the implications of it are conflicting. In order to take off from the Earth we need these huge towers to help the spaceship along, but landing on the moon and then succesfully taking of in the FIRST attempt seems impossible to me. I mean think about it. We barely even got into space before we supposedly landed on the moon. And why is it that we havent gone back ever since then? Im sure if it was that easy we would have gone back many times with our new and improved technology. |
I will echo what others have said. first off, the big towers are not needed to guide the rocket up away from earth but to suppot its massive structure. Most of the weight of the rocket was fuel burned up in the launch.
The earths gravity is 9.8m/sē the moons gravity is 1.6m/sē
The earth's escape velocity is 11.2km/s and the moons is 2.4km/s A smaller escape velocity. require less effort.
Planetary Fact Sheet Quote:
Quote by: Plasma Snake[D] The moon lower gravity and lack of atmosphere would make a take off easier, but what I am wondering is that this was the first attempt, and they got it right. I mean, we are talking about landing on a big rock thats in motion and whos surface is littered with craters. Im not an engineer, I know, but it just seems to me like this
journey would take a lot more research than what was available in 1969. |
Astro physics. We know the paths of solar system objects thousands of years into the past and thousands of years into the future. How do you think they plan missions to Pluto and Mars?