40 Years on. Man on the moon. Truth or a Hoax ??

**buggerlugs** · 20-07-2009, 06:34 PM

http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23...019120,00.html
Interesting comments. What do you reckon, did they land on the moon or was it a set up ??

tufLTD · 20-07-2009, 06:49 PM

I find it strange that 40 years on, they can't put a man back on the moon. The technology in 1969 was totally prehistoric compared to today, so why can't they do it now.
The Russians knew it couldn't be done due to the huge amounts of radiation that the astronauts would have been exposed to. It would have killed them within minutes!
Totally bogus.

prydey · 20-07-2009, 06:56 PM

personally i think its fact.

buickman · 20-07-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

personally i think its fact.

As do I and remember watching it at High school in Form 3 (Year 9 )
Below the legends of the 20th century

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Bad Bird · 20-07-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tufLTD

I find it strange that 40 years on, they can't put a man back on the moon.

Uh, it isn't because they can't. It's because there is no point... There are plenty of people in space right now...

fordAU · 21-07-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tufLTD

I find it strange that 40 years on, they can't put a man back on the moon. The technology in 1969 was totally prehistoric compared to today, so why can't they do it now.

Not sure what you mean by this ?

There have been 6 successful manned moon landings.

Manned Moon landings :

Apollo 11 Eagle 20 July 1969
Apollo 12 Intrepid 19 November 1969
Apollo 14 Antares 5 February 1971
Apollo 15 Falcon 30 July 1971
Apollo 16 Orion 21 April 1972
Apollo 17 Challenger 11 December 1972

bathurst77 · 22-07-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tufLTD

The Russians knew it couldn't be done due to the huge amounts of radiation that the astronauts would have been exposed to. It would have killed them within minutes!
Totally bogus.

Is this the same radiation that kills all the skylab, MIR and space shuttle crews?

Can you give us your university qualifications in physics or cosmology, before you state this fact? As I have heard and read 1000s of experienced internationally respected experts saying that this is not so. I will be very interested to see your expertise in this field and your empirical evidence.

flappist · 22-07-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Is this the same radiation that kills all the skylab, MIR and space shuttle crews?

Can you give us your university qualifications in physics or cosmology, before you state this fact? As I have heard and read 1000s of experienced internationally respected experts saying that this is not so. I will be very interested to see your expertise in this field and your empirical evidence.

Well the lower van allen belt is about 3000 km above the ground whereas the space shuttle etc are all between 250 and 500km.

NASA have enormous amounts of documentation on this available online.

Wally · 22-07-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Is this the same radiation that kills all the skylab, MIR and space shuttle crews?

Can you give us your university qualifications in physics or cosmology, before you state this fact? As I have heard and read 1000s of experienced internationally respected experts saying that this is not so. I will be very interested to see your expertise in this field and your empirical evidence.

I guess the fatality count from space radiation speaks for itself. :voldar02:

As far as i know, NASA and private enterprise are still developing an instrument (microdosimeter) that can measure space radiation to ascertain if there is any real danger and what exposure period is unacceptable.

I suspect there is more danger of getting the bends from a one hour dive than getting radiation sickness after a few weeks vacationing on the moon.

.

Rodp · 22-07-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

I guess the fatality count from space radiation speaks for itself. :voldar02:

As far as i know, NASA and private enterprise are still developing an instrument (microdosimeter) that can measure space radiation to ascertain if there is any real danger and what exposure period is unacceptable.

I suspect there is more danger of getting the bends from a one hour dive than getting radiation sickness after a few weeks vacationing on the moon.

.

All but a couple of the astronauts that have passed through the Van Allen belts have developed cataracts... one known cause of cataracts, a sufficient dose of radiation.

I had read that due to the speed and the craft, the dose of radiation received while passing through the belts was equivalent to the dose you would receive in a year of living at sea level on Earth.

metalmania · 22-07-2009, 10:15 PM

Interesting read

http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/..._the_moon.html

Wally · 22-07-2009, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

All but a couple of the astronauts that have passed through the Van Allen belts have developed cataracts... one known cause of cataracts, a sufficient dose of radiation.

I had read that due to the speed and the craft, the dose of radiation received while passing through the belts was equivalent to the dose you would receive in a year of living at sea level on Earth.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/531868

needaXYGT · 20-07-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

The Russians knew it couldn't be done

Because of their lack of funds!

tufLTD · 20-07-2009, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by needaXYGT

Because of their lack of funds!

Are you serious?
They could afford to build 1000's of nuclear bombs but couldn't afford to go to the moon?

used:

**Falcon Coupe** · 20-07-2009, 07:50 PM

All true in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tufLTD

Are you serious?
They could afford to build 1000's of nuclear bombs but couldn't afford to go to the moon?

used:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/space...ned_lunar.html

Quote:

As Soviet Union mastered manned space flight in a series of early orbital missions, the Moon quickly became a key goal of the manned space program. In May 1961, President Kennedy proclaimed a manned landing on the surface of the Moon before 1970, as the main goal of the US space program.

However, it took more than three years after Kennedy's challenge for the cash-strapped Soviet government to commit needed resources for the Moon Race. "Do not leave the Moon to the Americans," Nikita Khrushchev reportedly told leaders of the Soviet rocket industry, "Anything you need in order to do it, will be provided." On Aug. 3, 1964, the Soviet government finally gave full go ahead to the lunar landing effort.

However, the development of a heavy-lifting launcher, needed for the lunar expedition, was plagued with political and technical problems. Powerful captains of the Soviet rocket industry fought for the leadership and influence in the program, stretching the project's already limited resources, while the Soviet military, which financed rocket development, had always remained skeptical about the prospects of giant space launchers.

The fall of Khrushchev in 1964, further delayed the program, which continued suffering from the lack of funds and resources. In 1966, the Soviet lunar program recieved another blow with the death of its legendary leader, Sergei Korolev.

The N1 moon rocket had not reached the launch pad until 1969, and its first and three subsequent test missions ended in catastrophic failures, revealing serious technical flaws in the design of the booster. The program was finally abandoned in 1974 and its leader Vasily Mishin was ousted as a head of the industrial conglomerate responsible for the project.

xtremerus · 20-07-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by needaXYGT

Because of their lack of funds!

And they couldn't build a decent rocket to get them there.

metalmania · 21-07-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtremerus

And they couldn't build a decent rocket to get them there.

Maybe you better do some research.Who was first in space? The Russians build the best rockets.Their rockets are used to carry most of the parts to build the current space station. The space shuttle's payload is f......l compared to what the Russian rocket misssions carry. They have always built better rockets.

On the subject of whether man went to the moon or not. Well i would have thought it should be quite easy to go there now, 40 years on and not as NASA have stated ( to send a man back to the moon by 2020). There in might lie the answer. Don't you think it would be a relatively easy to send a man to the moon now with all the technology we have compared to what was around the first time ? It should not take 10 years of planning!!!

XR Martin · 21-07-2009, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalmania

Maybe you better do some research.Who was first in space? The Russians build the best rockets.Their rockets are used to carry most of the parts to build the current space station. The space shuttle's payload is f......l compared to what the Russian rocket misssions carry. They have always built better rockets.

On the subject of whether man went to the moon or not. Well i would have thought it should be quite easy to go there now, 40 years on and not as NASA have stated ( to send a man back to the moon by 2020). There in might lie the answer. Don't you think it would be a relatively easy to send a man to the moon now with all the technology we have compared to what was around the first time ? It should not take 10 years of planning!!!

Sorry the Saturn V rocket is the most powerful rocket ever built and successfully launched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_v

Technology has little to do with. Im not sure why people are obsessed by this fact? We'd also have trouble building the pyramids now which has little to do with technology.
Most of the 35000 Apollo program employees of Nasa are no longer with us, and little of the information was kept due to funding cuts in the 70s and 80s. Everything was stored on massive magnetic tapes (in comparison to the storage medium of today), which have long since been misplaced, erased, reused, degraded and discarded.
Basically Nasa has to start again, with way less percentage of funding.
If Obama put as much money into Nasa now as did Kennedy and Johnson did in the 60s we could get back there alot quicker.

JOSH · 20-07-2009, 06:58 PM

even mythbusters said it was confirmed!!

Windsor220 · 20-07-2009, 07:02 PM

One of my theories is they went on the moon but for some reason the footage may have been damaged/insufficient so faked some.

prydey · 20-07-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOSH

even mythbusters said it was confirmed!!

well that settles it then

yanknbank · 20-07-2009, 07:08 PM

http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro...11-images.html

And a bit of trivia.

An iconic image from the Apollo 11 mission. Noone realized it until after the mission was flown, but the this is the one and only high quality still photo of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon.
There's a twist to the pic. What is it?

Steve75 · 20-07-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yanknbank

http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro...11-images.html

And a bit of trivia.

An iconic image from the Apollo 11 mission. Noone realized it until after the mission was flown, but the this is the one and only high quality still photo of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon.
There's a twist to the pic. What is it?

The twist is that it is actually a photo of Buzz Aldrin!! Neil Armstrong appears in Aldrins's visor reflection!!!

Lukeyson · 20-07-2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yanknbank

There's a twist to the pic. What is it?

the thing always banged on about in that photo is something to do with shadows ? or am i thinking of diff pic?

**DJR-351** · 20-07-2009, 08:26 PM

Remember watching this live on tv from liftoff to splashdown, the landing on the moon would have to be the greatest feat in human endeavour....

One of the main reasons they stopped going to the moon was after the novelty wore off, the bean counters stepped in and decided it was a waste of money which would be better spent on healthcare etc etc....

gcg2503 · 20-07-2009, 07:15 PM

Isnt that because Neil Armstrong held the camera and took all of the shots?

Steve75 · 20-07-2009, 07:16 PM

Most likely

Road_Warrior · 20-07-2009, 07:21 PM

Ever seen the movie Capricorn One?

Auslandau · 20-07-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Ever seen the movie Capricorn One?

Great movie .... watched it again not long ago. Very 70's and would be great done again. Good story.

Of course its true. If it isn't, the fact it has been covered up by 10's of 1000's of people that would have to be involved or known ..... and still no proof after all these years it is a con ..... ? Surely someone by now would have come fourth with something.

| [/url] |

needaXYGT · 20-07-2009, 08:27 PM

Money being spent elsewhere, perhaps a reason?

Quote:

Because of their lack of funds!

Quote:

Are you serious?
They could afford to build 1000's of nuclear bombs but couldn't afford to go to the moon?

Quote:

The fall of Khrushchev in 1964, further delayed the program, which continued suffering from the lack of funds and resources. In 1966, the Soviet lunar program recieved another blow with the death of its legendary leader, Sergei Korolev.