When will the Lunar landings be accepted?

kidneyfan

Overheal wrote: »

What were the specs of Luna's drill? that would communicate what the largest size fragment it could collect was; which is a fraction of the total drill size (it is limited to traveling up and around the corkscrew groove of the drill).

Great question. If we knew more about Luna we would be able to make some sort of informed guesses about the putative American unmanned drone that may (or may not) have landed on the moon in the early 1970s.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

What were the specs of Luna's drill? that would communicate what the largest size fragment it could collect was; which is a fraction of the total drill size (it is limited to traveling up and around the corkscrew groove of the drill).

I can't seem to find any easily available plans for the probes. But I did find some pictures of the samples returned:
http://oko-planet.su/fail/failphoto/page,3,16619-soviet-moon-images.html

http://mentallandscape.com/C_Luna20_Sample.jpg
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Luna20_Sample2.jpg

kidneyfan

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i can find the total weight returned (320g) but nothing on size.

That's not very much. Any hypothetical unmanned probe would have to be alot bigger than Luna (maybe not 70 times bigger but much bigger). One problem that those who don't accept the conventional 'lunar landing' narrative must address is the Russian reaction. Why didn't the Russians dismiss the 'American achievement'?

Have any Lunar satellites ever been able to photograph the American encampment?

DamagedTrax

kidneyfan wrote: »

That's not very much. Any hypothetical unmanned probe would have to be alot bigger than Luna (maybe not 70 times bigger but much bigger). One problem that those who don't accept the conventional 'lunar landing' narrative must address is the Russian reaction. Why didn't the Russians dismiss the 'American achievement'?

Have any Lunar satellites ever been able to photograph the American encampment?

the initial russian reaction.

the russians have piped up about it a few times since. vladimir markin wanted a full investigation into it.

either way ive not seen enough evidence to make me want to look into it. if we did get there then we are a species of wasters to wind it down.. and if we didnt get there then we're a bunch of idiots for believing. 2 crap options really.

King Mob

kidneyfan wrote: »

Have any Lunar satellites ever been able to photograph the American encampment?

The LRO did back in 2012
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-11.html

kidneyfan

King Mob wrote: »

The LRO did back in 2012
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-11.html

First of all thank you. That looks very promising.

kidneyfan

King Mob wrote: »

The LRO did back in 2012
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-11.html

Thanks King Mob. The difficulty with that set of shots (which I accept are real) is that if the Moon landing was faked (I don't believe they were) NASA is in on it and therefore can't be trusted as a source of verification. Within the logic of this conspiracy theory (which is quite resilient) that source of verification is unacceptable. I hope this is NOT seen as an assertion that you personally or you alter ego king mob are being dishonest in any way and I accept that this is the establishment of an absurd barrier of disproof (what are you supposed to do : learn Chinese or Russian (ESA is clearly also unacceptable)?

Of course the sheeple could respond that these images are open to scrutiny by experts in photoshop etc.

Anyway the clearest evidence that the Americans landed on the Moon is the fact that the Russians congratulated them on their achievement this is much classier than the American response to Gagarin. Suspiciously so!

What if the Russians were hiding the fact that Gagarin wasn't the first man in space but just the first man to land!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cosmonauts

Overheal

Major congressional legislation just passed, which will give the green light to commercial space exploration and exploitation - ie. resource mining. Planetary Resources, Incorporated, is in the game now. If you were wondering how hard it is to get a space rock

http://www.planetaryresources.com/

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Major congressional legislation just passed, which will give the green light to commercial space exploration and exploitation - ie. resource mining. Planetary Resources, Incorporated, is in the game now. If you were wondering how hard it is to get a space rock

http://www.planetaryresources.com/

Would be nice following the next flight to the moon live .....

ShowMeTheCash

kidneyfan wrote: »

Anyway the clearest evidence that the Americans landed on the Moon is the fact that the Russians congratulated them on their achievement this is much classier than the American response to Gagarin. Suspiciously so!

There is a conspiracy around this also, if Russia had evidence to suggest the American's faked it, it would of served them better to use this information for some other gain, financial, political who knows.

Some even argue the acceptance from Russia was too easy which suggests a deal was done.

ScumLord

Overheal wrote: »

Major congressional legislation just passed, which will give the green light to commercial space exploration and exploitation - ie. resource mining. Planetary Resources, Incorporated, is in the game now. If you were wondering how hard it is to get a space rock

http://www.planetaryresources.com/

This is when things get interesting.


I just don't see how we can go from economy of rarity on earth, to an economy of abundance in space. There's the potential that there's more gold floating around the asteroid belt than there is easily accessible on earth's surface. The problem is the minute they start mining it and sending it back to earth the value goes down. Mining these resources could devalue them to the point they're not worth mining in the first place.

The fact mining something could devalue it means it's pointless even fighting over the resources. It makes more economic sense to scrape every last resource off the planet and charge well for it, than go to space and have loads of something that's not worth much.

There is a hump there, it's a large financial and ideological hump that we need to get over. I guess there's the essentials like metals and other elements we're running low on, but the people that control economies have no reason to promote space mining.

Overheal

Well you don't necessarily devalue it given the cost to extract it. Even though it is largely done by drone/probe networking. The key target for the company starting out is platinum and while their delivery method is a bit sketchy (dropping platinum-foam balls from space into the desert, the airspace clearance would have to be a nightmare) it will definitely increase the supply of the material but in turn that will open up a lot more novel uses of the material. Like today, compared to the iron age when iron was available but not so readily abundant that you could just nab some willy nilly, nobody was making buildings out of the stuff. By the same token if we started bringing in quantities of material that were previously unheard of, we could do unheard of things with it. The economics would continue as the uses for it expanded. Getting a little OT though.

darkdubh

Case closed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiG1jLage0k

KenjiOdo

ScumLord wrote: »

This is when things get interesting.


I just don't see how we can go from economy of rarity on earth, to an economy of abundance in space. There's the potential that there's more gold floating around the asteroid belt than there is easily accessible on earth's surface. The problem is the minute they start mining it and sending it back to earth the value goes down. Mining these resources could devalue them to the point they're not worth mining in the first place.

The fact mining something could devalue it means it's pointless even fighting over the resources. It makes more economic sense to scrape every last resource off the planet and charge well for it, than go to space and have loads of something that's not worth much.

There is a hump there, it's a large financial and ideological hump that we need to get over. I guess there's the essentials like metals and other elements we're running low on, but the people that control economies have no reason to promote space mining.

I can see your point of supply vs. demand - but I don't agree with 100%

Unless light-speed travel is achievable to distant galaxies where abundant resources reside, the time frame to gather these resources will be a very long time, decades maybe. Even with light-speed spacecraft may have high operating costs. So its unimaginable that "Space Minining Corp" is going to flood the market with cheap "Space Gold", considering the expenses they will incur any time soon.

Also considering a lot of gold today is sold when it doesn't exist yet is something to factor into the equation. When prices of gold do start to lower due to space mining I'm sure the masses will pick up the slack (Which by then 20B people on earth?).

Understandably gold is only one of many elements which could be mined in space, I'd guess we'd see more control over space mined elements distribution. "They" (Space mining companies) will control the markets much like de beers who control the diamond market. Unless of course we will all have our own galaxy class cruiser and by then who needs Earth??

KenjiOdo

Side question about those mirrors on the moon..

How can you bounce a laser off them?? 8 minutes away by light and receive a reply another 8 minutes later on return journey??

Do these mirrors exist? or a myth?

Anyone know how they work exactly if real?

ScumLord

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Unless light-speed travel is achievable to distant galaxies where abundant resources reside,

Why would we need to go to distant galaxies? There's an abundance of material in our own solar system. A lot of easily accessible material is in the asteroid belt just floating there waiting to be mined. Once that's gone we have an entire galaxy of our own to pillage before we start looking at other galaxies.

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Side question about those mirrors on the moon..

How can you bounce a laser off them?? 8 minutes away by light and receive a reply another 8 minutes later on return journey??

Do these mirrors exist? or a myth?

Anyone know how they work exactly if real?

They're not a myth, scientists have been measuring the distance to the moon for decades using the mirrors. Bad news, the moon's slowly leaving us. They work simply by pointing a laser at them, pulling the trigger and counting how long it takes for the light to return to the emitter. It's pretty straight forward. Although I'm sure in practice it's more complicated but that's the general idea.

KenjiOdo

ScumLord wrote: »

Why would we need to go to distant galaxies? There's an abundance of material in our own solar system. A lot of easily accessible material is in the asteroid belt just floating there waiting to be mined. Once that's gone we have an entire galaxy of our own to pillage before we start looking at other galaxies.

They're not a myth, scientists have been measuring the distance to the moon for decades using the mirrors. Bad news, the moon's slowly leaving us. They work simply by pointing a laser at them, pulling the trigger and counting how long it takes for the light to return to the emitter. It's pretty straight forward. Although I'm sure in practice it's more complicated but that's the general idea.

Voyager 2 took about twelve years to reach Neptune - 24 Year round trip and thats in our own solar system, how far is it to these asteroid belt you speak of?

What other elements are abundant in our solar system and easily accessible? I'd guess some planets are off limits i.e. Mercury

Sorry on mirror myth got my facts wrong.. 1.28s to moon I was confused with the Sun (8minutes for light to reach us). 2.56s round trip sounds very achievable. Can you imagine the timing needed if it took 8 minutes there and back, if at all the reflection would hit Earth?

ScumLord

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Voyager 2 took about twelve years to reach Neptune - 24 Year round trip and thats in our own solar system, how far is it to these asteroid belt you speak of?

The asteroid belt that I speak of? It's just past mars. So not that far.

What other elements are abundant in our solar system and easily accessible?

Pretty much all of them. The asteroid belts is made from the same stuff as the rest of the planets in our solar system.

Overheal

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Side question about those mirrors on the moon..

How can you bounce a laser off them?? 8 minutes away by light and receive a reply another 8 minutes later on return journey??

Do these mirrors exist? or a myth?

Anyone know how they work exactly if real?

EternalHope

Overheal wrote: »

I do not believe in moon hoax but the reflectors on the moon prove nothing either way as they could have been put there by an unmanned craft. It shows there is man made material on the moon but not how it got there. It does not prove man was on the moon as they video claims

King Mob

EternalHope wrote: »

I do not believe in moon hoax but the reflectors on the moon prove nothing either way as they could have been put there by an unmanned craft. It shows there is man made material on the moon but not how it got there. It does not prove man was on the moon as they video claims

Your position sounds reasonable until you actually think on the implications.
If you are holding that it's possible for the retro reflectors to be placed there by unmanned craft, you have to assume that it's possible they had a secret program to develop and launch such craft.
This would require thousands of people to be in on the plot. Not to mention the thousands of people after who worked on projects like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

So it's disingenuous to present it simply as either a manned mission put it there or they just had an unmanned mission.

It's more like:
A) a manned mission put it there.
Or.
a super secret research and development program made and launched a robotic lander, put it on the moon and deployed the reflectors, then somehow managed to keep it all quiet from the Russians and the press, then also somehow managed to bribe/control all lunar exploration from every country for the next 40 years.

And all that was just so they could put a retro-reflector there... for some reason?

EternalHope

King Mob wrote: »

Your position sounds reasonable until you actually think on the implications.
If you are holding that it's possible for the retro reflectors to be placed there by unmanned craft, you have to assume that it's possible they had a secret program to develop and launch such craft.
This would require thousands of people to be in on the plot. Not to mention the thousands of people after who worked on projects like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

So it's disingenuous to present it simply as either a manned mission put it there or they just had an unmanned mission.

It's more like:
A) a manned mission put it there.
Or.
a super secret research and development program made and launched a robotic lander, put it on the moon and deployed the reflectors, then somehow managed to keep it all quiet from the Russians and the press, then also somehow managed to bribe/control all lunar exploration from every country for the next 40 years.

And all that was just so they could put a retro-reflector there... for some reason?

weren't there unmanned missions to collect samples? Anyway all i said was the reflectors in and of themselves prove nothing and should nbot be used as a proof. I do believe they went to the moon

King Mob

EternalHope wrote: »

weren't there unmanned missions to collect samples?

Yes, but none would have been able to return the samples returned by Apollo. And at the time, Nasa did not have a lander designed to deploy a reflector.

Even still, they would have had to launch it at some point or hidden it as a supposed manned launch.
All of this would require massive, impossible to hide logistics.

EternalHope wrote: »

Anyway all i said was the reflectors in and of themselves prove nothing and should nbot be used as a proof. I do believe they went to the moon

I understand that you are not denying that.
But the reflectors do prove the missions happened because it's patently ridiculous to suggest that the could have been planted by a secret unmanned mission.
To entertain that possibility, you have to then also entertain all of those other things I listed.

Overheal

You'd have to assume that an unmanned mission planted the reflectors there - somewhat big - and positioned them at the correct angle to reflect back to earth, without getting any moondust on the reflector, without any evidence of a mission that did it, meaning no launch litter left on the moon, or in orbit around either the earth or the moon.

Remember that the russians and any other country with a telescope would be able to see and track any objects traveling between the earth and moon that were of any significant size for mission purposes. Anything traveling to the moon also wouldnt do so quickly. And there is no evidence that i am aware of where anyone claims to have seen objects other than the apollo mission heading toward the moon.

EternalHope

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, but none would have been able to return the samples returned by Apollo. And at the time, Nasa did not have a lander designed to deploy a reflector.

Even still, they would have had to launch it at some point or hidden it as a supposed manned launch.
All of this would require massive, impossible to hide logistics.


I understand that you are not denying that.
But the reflectors do prove the missions happened because it's patently ridiculous to suggest that the could have been planted by a secret unmanned mission.
To entertain that possibility, you have to then also entertain all of those other things I listed.

Ok fair enough. i never gave much thought to the fact it would have to be a special unmanned flight or the sample collecting flights could not just drop them off.

Steve012

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Was following the annual twitter lunar landings are fake tweets to Prof Brian Cox and Al Murray the comedian, such is the eclectic nature of my twitter account.

To be honest I had thought that this CT had been firmly debunked, but no; some people for (to me) unbelievable reasons still claim that the landings never happened. From the radiation would have killed them once they ventured beyond a certain point, to incorrect shadows been cast, to no stars in the pictures and my favorite how Stanley Kubrick's widow admitted that he had confessed on his death bed to been involved in the filming of the fake landing TV feed.

Brian Cox and Buzz Aldrin sum it up nicely in this tweet



So considering it's been over two years since it was discussed here, do any CT regulars think they all were faked, some were faked or they didn't happen as we are been led to believe.

The same feeds claiming they are fake seem to be young earth creationists because to accept that we can travel to other worlds might involve us finding non terrestrial life particularly on Mars which would mean no more earth created in six days. Hence the Mars landings are also faked.

Coming in late on this one.

From what I have heard over the years. They certainly did land on the moon, "But" Some of the footage was shot in the USA desert somewhere. No idea why, but that's where a lot of confusion came in originally.
I'm sure other peeps have said this, didn't read the whole thread.

EternalHope

Steve012 wrote: »

Coming in late on this one.

From what I have heard over the years. They certainly did land on the moon, "But" Some of the footage was shot in the USA desert somewhere. No idea why, but that's where a lot of confusion came in originally.
I'm sure other peeps have said this, didn't read the whole thread.

There is a claim it was because there were aliens on the moon watching them. Here is a photo of a t shirt i saw last week

Steve012

EternalHope wrote: »

There is a claim it was because there were aliens on the moon watching them. Here is a photo of a t shirt i saw last week

That's the claim I heard too, plus there is apparently audio to back it up.
Cool t shirt :P

ScumLord

Steve012 wrote: »

Coming in late on this one.

From what I have heard over the years. They certainly did land on the moon, "But" Some of the footage was shot in the USA desert somewhere. No idea why, but that's where a lot of confusion came in originally.
I'm sure other peeps have said this, didn't read the whole thread.

I think there were "sets" and areas set up before hand for testing. Just like modern astronauts spend time in underwater tanks to do zero g testing.