Moon Landing

[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.

[Jack]

how would they take off from the moon?

Lower gravity and no atmosphere.

And why is it that we havent gone back ever since then?

Lack of money due to public disinterest. Many feel if we can't stake a claim to the moon and exploit it then it isn't worth the effort.

[PatrickHenry]

Is there a "moon treaty?"

[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.

[Compugasm]

Hmm, but the motion of the moon is predictable, and even though the surface is uneven, it's not a rolling surface like an ocean. Someone in a parachute can land safely without the aide of a computer. So I suspect that the actual landing of any craft is more "feel" than calculation.

[Scribbler1]

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.

It was, but barely, as it turns out. They almost crashed on the Moon's surface when the lander's shitty little computer gave out.

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.

The Saturn V had to lift a LOT more than what landed on the Moon. The lander was a flimsy thing and didn't have the mass of the Command and Service modules (there were a total of THREE modules that went to the moon). And don't forget, the Saturn had to lift the three modules AND all three of it's stages as well. And, although it may seem odd, the rocket needs to lift all of its own fuel too. And all of this from a standing start with Earth gravity, which is a LOT more than the Moon.

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.

We don't go back because we've been there and done that. The Moon isn't that interesting and it costs a ton of money to put stuff in space. The shuttle costs $450 Million just to launch it so you can figure a Moon shot would need to be around the same.

[Scribbler1]

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.

Actually, the whole thing is simpler than you think. First, you know the relative distance from the Earth to the Moon so you know how much time it will take for the spacecraft to reach the Moon, and since you know how the moon orbits Earth you just shoot the spacecraft at the point in space where the Moon will BE by the time Apollo gets there. And don't forget the Moon doesn't spin, so the best landing spots should be easy to figure out.

[Jack]

It was, but barely, as it turns out. They almost crashed on the Moon's surface when the lander's shitty little computer gave out.

Lifting off from the moon had its own problems.
From Wikipedia;

At the end of the Apollo 11 moon landing, while discarding some of the equipment from the LEM, the switch used to ignite the motors was broken off. To improvise, they used the casing from one of their space pens to turn the switch and start the motor. This wouldn't have been possible if they had been using pencils.

[Nono]

Anyone who knows modern aircraft and peeks in the window at the control panel of the Apollo craft on display at the Smithsonian will immediately grasp how damn lucky they were to make it at all, as Scribbler suggests.

They knew what they were doing, they just had precious few resources to deal with anything going wrong (see Apollo 13).

As for conspiracy theories, why bother? What they accomplished is not at all implausible, and they did it. They also brought back plenty of rocks that would have been impossible to fake. Now that would have been an interesting conspiracy.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Plus, if you really want just go visit the moon and see all the junk. Wait, that might be difficult.

[PatrickHenry]

I have seen the moon rocks. Could you fake rocks from another planetary body so that the scientists couldn't tell?

[Gods_Mercenary]

That would be difficult, but someone as paranoid as those who believe this would just say that the scientists that verify it are part of the Man or whatever they call it now.

[PatrickHenry]

GM, I hold a lot of controversial views. Some would label me a CT loonie...But what is the compelling evidence for a no_moon_landing theory?

Most of my controversial views have stacks of evidence...

[Gods_Mercenary]

There is none, I'm arguing against it, just like I do with most half baked CT's.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary There is none, I'm arguing against it, just like I do with most half baked CT's.

Yeah, but how about the thoroughly baked CT's? heh.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Don't know, never seen one.

[Chris]

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/s² the moons gravity is 1.6m/s²

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 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?

[Plasma Snake[D]]

"How do you think they plan missions to Pluto and Mars?"
Yeah, but these missions involve machines that dont require as much nurturing in order to survive as humans do. PLus they dont need to come back in order to share information.

Another thing is the look of the flag in the videos. They look a little fake, not at all what I would picture a flag acting in the vacuum of space.

[Jack]

They look a little fake, not at all what I would picture a flag acting in the vacuum of space.

There haven't been all that many. What would you expect it to do? Have you seen the movement of hoses and cables outside the space shuttle? Notice how they all sort of behave the same way? I've never noticed anything strange about the flags on the moon.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Isherwood There haven't been all that many. What would you expect it to do? Have you seen the movement of hoses and cables outside the space shuttle? Notice how they all sort of behave the same way? I've never noticed anything strange about the flags on the moon.

My understanding is that the flag was folded up for the trip (naturally) and when unfolded doesn't simply snap back into a flat surface. I believe the folds cause the wavy effect. The only time it looked strange was when the MTV logo kept flashing all over it. Can't explain that one.