The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked

it could provide a number of advantages, a jumping off point to mars for example.
we could launch a far greater payload from the moon than from earth.

one of the limiting factors for earth based telescopes is weight.
not only would the seeing be almost perfect we could build bigger telescopes.
yes, a moonscope would be fantastic.

in any "colonizing" period there's going to be accidents, some of them will result in deaths to the crew.
NASA decides to anticipate the bad rap and forgoes the "moonbase" scenario.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are plenty of reasons for not establishing permanent infrastructure on the moon. For starters, the Apollo missions were extemely expensive and dangerous. We still do not have a full understanding of the long-term effects on the human body from living in alternate gravity levels etc.

Also, before we look to space, we should be mending the cracks down here on Earth. To say that the moon-landing was faked to distract the public from the Vietnam war is utterly laughable. If such a distraction was desired, an assassination, political scandal, or some other similar event would be much less expensive and easier to orchestrate. Why would they go to such great lengths?

Moon-landing conspiracy theorists have a bad name, because they generally ignore scientific fact and would rather engage in pseudo-scientific discourse. Also, they tend to ignore sufficient debunking of certain theories and repeat them, regardless of their being proved ignorable. (i.e. US flag flapping).

As others have mentioned, robots are just as capable of documenting and photographing as a moon-base, or whatever would be. Sure, the costs of the US' recent wars have been extravagant and down-right ridiculous, but NASA is under (as others have mentioned) extreme pressure to cut spending. They even suffered public scrutiny for their landing of gear on mars -- imagine public reaction to a proposed moon-base... Space travel is more expensive than you might think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

only because of the large delta Vs that are required.
it takes all of the tonnage of the fully loaded saturn 5 just to get 50 tons to the moon.
all of that goes into overcoming earths gravity and acceleration.
then, when you get to the moon you must decelerate to get to the surface.
the cost of going there once in earth orbit is very small.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think NASA's decision had much to do with it. When Apollo funding got cut, they had to try and salvage what they could from their next plan, and after negotiating with Congress they managed to save a piece of it. What was just a small component of a grander dream became the Space Shuttle program.

 

There is no fuel on the Moon. Every ounce of fuel would have to be lifted from Earth - which makes launching from the Moon a far, far, far more expensive proposition.

Except things still have weight on the moon. And the dust is just plain nasty. Orbital telescopes make a lot more sense.

 

correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the shuttle initially designed as a passenger liner?

correct, there is no LOX, liquid H2, or RP-1 on the moon.
not all rocket engine are liquid.

maybe.
i believe a solid foundation has some merit.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz7cUP4o-ZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5taIxlNA_Lw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4w2MIYhC4

etc, etc.

Find and watch the correct episodes.

The Mythbusters addressed all Moonlanding being faked "reasons" given by conspirators and came up with a decent "No Hoax" verdict.

Worth watching if you buy into all the conspiratorial stuff.

 

If the Apollo moon missions were faked then what caused all those cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) that formed in the Coral sea off the Queensland Coast during that period? Global warming?

I can remember one year when we had around 9 cyclones and 4 came down to the southern half of the state and after the Apollo missions finished we had hardly any cyclones form let alone come down to the southern part of the state. That was until the Space Shuttle blew up.

If you follow the path of the 'cyclone' we are currently experiencing you will note that last week it was a large swirling storm cell over the land (not normal) that went directly north for 1,000kms to the gulf of Carpentaria where it formed into a cyclone. It then went east for a couple of hundred kms, stopped being a cyclone and then went down the Queensland coast where it is sitting and currently dumping much rain all the way from north to south.

So, as the Apollo missions weren't faked, and we have wierdly behaving cyclones roaming around in Queensland, I expect that it is one or more of (1) the Chinese space lab on a wierd orbit, (2) the US spy satellite following (1), (3) a third stage assosciated with a tradional (Apollo style) space program or (4) some other space junk coming in.

I have excluded the NEO space rock expected to pass under the geostationary orbit in about 3 weeks time as it would have to be orbiting to cause this type of weather. That NEO would be expected to pull geostationary satellites out of their orbits so It's likely that (1) or (2) or both are trying to minimise its impact.

meteorology
— n the study of the earth's atmosphere, esp of weather-forming processes and weather forecasting
[C17: from Greek meteorolōgia, from meteōron something aloft + -logia -logy . See meteor ]

 

James R, I have lived in the South East Queensland region for 50 years and the only time during that period when active cyclones or their 'remnants' came down as far as here were:-

(1) During the 60's and early to mid 70's
(2) After the space shuttle blew up on reentry, you kinda notice when you don't have one come down here for 15 years or so
(3) now, 2 weeks or so after the North Koreans launched a satellite

Number (3) is a real beauty because it started on the land around the QLD, NSW + NT borders, travelled directly north overland as a swirling storm that formed into cyclone Oswald in the Gulf of Carpentaria, it then turned east and headed inland until it started going down the inside of the Queensland coast, not over the ocean, wreaking havoc and dumping rain from Rockhampton all the way down to, it looks like Coffs Harbour, but it may keep going all the waydown to Tasmania. The rain is already down to the NSW and VIC Border.

 

Oh, yeah - we all know that rocket launches cause cyclones in Oz. Yeah. Right.

But wait... what about ALL those launches that have put satellites in orbit in the past 20 years? You know, all the GPS satellites and the ones for TV broadcasts, etc. Evidently you've forgotten them all when you devised this kooky idea of yours.

 

the rocket launches do effect the environment, but not in a way LaurieAG is saying they do. Rockets majorly pollute the area where their stages land and part of the fuel tanks as well, propellant such nitrogen tetroxide, hydrazine, MMH, and UDMH. The actual physical effects of rocket launches is not significant enough to somehow effect global weather such as creation of cyclones. However frequent rocket launches do effect local weather patterns mainly by creation of rain and etc.

 

Here's what a meteorologist said in todays Courier Mail newspaper.

It'll be off Tasmania tomorrow.

Rogue satellites, third stages doing multiple loops around the planet or anything else that is falling into the earth tend to cause disturbances in the upper atmosphere.

Fill a round mug with black coffee and add milk to just below the top. Take a paper clip and insert it into the coffee 1CM from the edge and 1CM deep. Rotate the paper clip in the liquid slowly around the inside edge of the mug maintaining its depth and distance from the edge and see how long it takes to get the contents of the mug spinning.

 

What about Newtons third law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay

If you look at the references at the bottom of the Wiki page above you get a PDF with the calcs and examples. The figures at the bottom are interesting.

 

And the 15,000 tons of meteors that hit the Earth's upper atmosphere every year don't? (They hit going a lot faster, too.)

Now do exactly the same experiment but use a paint stirrer, stick it in all the way and stir it as fast as you can. Is there more or less disturbance?

 

Woo woo.

 

You obviously didn't look at the PDF. The majority of the satellites etc that go rogue start with an elongated orbit then go into a reducing circular orbit as they come in. Read the bit on the diagram that says that these objects make many more circuits coming in than shown on the diagram.

Not much point discussing this with people who don't know the difference between the trajectories of things like man made objects jerked out of their parking orbits and those of space rocks as they come in.

 

Right. That's because they move a lot more slowly than meteors. Meteors = more mass hitting the planet going much faster = more disturbance in the atmosphere. Simple physics.

 

Considering that if a satellite is in orbit, it isn't really interacting with the atmosphere in any significant way....yeah, pretty simple.