If you believed they put a man on the moon....

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540061#Comment_119540061

Well you sound like you have a firm scientific foundation upon which your belief exists...

You sound like an old, die-hard patriotic Nixon fanatic "It happened because I saw it with my own two eyes on the television machine I did"

Speaking of Nixon - you'll have to forgive the retards and morons for having doubts about the phone conversation almost delay-free between Nixon in the White House and Armstrong in the 'Sea of Tranquility'

50 years on and I can barely scrape a single bar of network coverage to send a text to someone 2km away. But in 1969 - the technology they had back then, just incredible! Such regression in 50 years.

fran38

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540061#Comment_119540061

Get off the fence anyway dude 😁. Look, every ones got an opinion. Yours is just the same, an opinion, ok?

bad2thebone

https://youtu.be/zPwMdZOlPo8

Giant steps are we what you taking, walking on the moon..... some may say... wishing my day's away...

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540125#Comment_119540125

1. Mythbusters debunked nothing
2. What technology exactly? Are you saying mobile phones wouldn't exist without the moonlandings? I bet you don't have a single example of a technology that could back this up.
3. Unfortunately, we will never "go back" to the moon because we were never there to begin with. They will just keep cancelling like they did today and before long everyone will have forgotten about the 2025 target or they'll come up with some other spurious excuse for not going

sameoldname

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540300#Comment_119540300

So, not only did we lack the technology to land on the moon in the 60's, we also lack it today? Even though we've sent probes all over the solar system, have a permanently manned space station in earth orbit and on a clear night you don't need to wait more than 5 minutes before you'll see a satellite pass overhead?

The_Kew_Tour

We landed on the moon and earth is not flat (seems be popular too) but Buzz Aldrin comes across as a right prick though.

Just saying.

Squeeonline

We didn't land on the moon, there's no way way we had the technology for that in the 60's. Instead, they landed on the otherside of the flat earth. That's why the signal was clear and fast. It didn't have so far to travel.

/s because it's 2022.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540284#Comment_119540284

At least I can grasp basic science.

In 1915 the first human speech was carried by radio across the Atlantic. Good old fashioned radio waves. And you can hear the delays in Apollo transmissions. They even had the beep after each transmission between them to allow for this delay(and save both sides from saying “over” after every sentence). And your phone doesn't have an aerial like this:

If it did you could send a text to Pluto.

And the "television machine" is a very good proof of the flights. Today we're used to incredible special effects in film and TV and very clear digital and analogue video, but even with today's tech it would be incredibly difficult to fake the landings, in 1969 it would quite simply have been impossible.

So you want to shoot the landings in a film studio. OK so how? Video? In 69 video camera and storage tech was stone aged compared to today. The theory that they showed the astronauts in slow motion makes this even more difficult. To shoot slow motion, you have to speed up the camera which requires more and faster recording and storage. Until the mid 1970's slow motion video was restricted to about a minute of storage and playback.

Maybe we'll shoot it on film instead. OK, that makes things easier as film tech was advanced by then, but now other problems come along. Film cans hold about ten minutes, or 300 metres of exposable film and then you have to change them out, five minutes or less if you're running slow motion effects. Bigger cans with more film stock? Then you have to invent new cameras and film stock, because lengths like that start to get delicate and prone to breakage especially if you're running at double speed to capture slow motion. Then you have to develop all that film stock and then cut and edit it together and then transfer it to TV output without any mistakes or evidence of cuts and splices and dust in the film stock.

And then you have to do that for hour after hour of footage and do it six times for each landing and produce better and clearer footage with each mission* which would risk exposure and fake all the visuals and audio going there and back and fake all the transmissions back and forth so the Soviets and others buy the hoax and on top of all that fake all the thousands of photographs and audio too. Never mind moon rocks and observable from Earth tech left up there.

*the conspiracy nuts usually point to Apollo 11 because that's the famous first one and the black and white video is crap, but by the sixth landing the quality had shot up and you have hour after hour of colour footage to look at in video and film.

Putting man on the moon was a dick waving contest with the USSR.

We didn't need to put a man on the moon then, it served no practical purpose. We didn't learn anything more than we would have with machines/robots. We had all the capable machines/robots back then, as we do now, to collect all the information we need about the moon.

This current 2025 aim is the next mickey waving contest as countries begin to assert their territorial claims for future exploitation of the moon's resources.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540320#Comment_119540320

Indeed.

These doors are nearly 2000 years old.

Today in the 21st century why isn't my front door made of bronze!! Fake!!

That's about the level of "thinking" involved. The all too common assumption by some that just because they don't understand something, or know how it can be done, they refuse to believe others can understand it and do it. The "How could they build the pyramids back then? Aliens!" principle.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540623#Comment_119540623

Kinda, though the robotic tech back then was massively inferior to the Mark 1 Human eyeball and hands. Just the first Apollo 11 landing found out more than all the probes they'd landed before and that was a get down quick, plant the flag, stay close, grab what we can and get the feck out of here mission. By Apollo 17 they were walking about for 22 hours on the surface over a few days and travelled far from the landing site.

Even today with far better remote tech having people on the ground as it were has many advantages. The disadvantages are huge though as the complexity and heavy lifting needed to get them there and back safely ramps up exponentially.

Mister Vain

As Neil Degrasse Tyson said, it would be a lot easier to go to the moon than it would be to fake it. There's no way everyone at NASA would keep quiet.

The real question is who has the better song, R.E.M or The Police? 🤣

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540320#Comment_119540320

This poster doesn't believe we have satellites and that we haven't sent probes all over space

Cluedo Monopoly

We put 12 men on the moon.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540853#Comment_119540853

Please tell me you're joking. Though...

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540733#Comment_119540733

R.E.M

bad2thebone

I love science fiction about the moon, the moon I think is so intriguing. I've powerful astronomical binoculars, looking at it from my platform near Poulnabrone Dolmen now and again. Especially during the lockdowns.

Do any of you realize how fast it goes, you get it in focus and you can actually see it move across your scope.

I love this kind of fiction

https://youtu.be/pKUVgIuQ4Nc

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540594#Comment_119540594

That it would be easier to go to the moon than it would be to fake it has to be the most idiotic argument in favour of the moonlanding there is. Sets a desperately low scientific bar too. If it was easier to go there than to fake it then we would have been back on the moon countless times already. Why hasn't SpaceX done it? Why the 2025 date, if it's so easy why not right now?

How do you explain the Van Allen radiation belts? When the astronauts were asked about this, some hadn't a clue what they were being asked about and others appeared to think it was pot-luck that they managed to find their way through it alive...

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540300#Comment_119540300

Oh Markus, do show us what the Earth looks like when you get a chance finally, you promised to show us a few years back.

Anyway, Markus mythbusters not debunked myth debunked by mythbusters (you can do this in your tin foil protected basement if you wish with your single fluorescent tube light source):

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119539911#Comment_119539911

Not really. Before they went there it was actually a concern that the surface of the moon was dust and that the rocket engine would blast a crater that the lander would end up in, or that the lander might sink down into it. Hence the big circular pads to distribute the weight and the procedure was to kill the rocket above the surface and fall the last few metres. Apollo 11 was the gentlest landing as Armstrong cut the engine the latest. In the later missions you can see them(onboard camera) fall more of a distance and with more of a thump. Some landings kicked up quite a bit of dust, some didn't.

As it turned out the surface was indeed covered with a fine dust but it was quite "solid" and in most places solid bedrock was very near the surface and the legs of the landers didn't compress to the degree they expected. This is why Armstrong and those following had to jump the last metre down from the ladder to the pad. The first words of Apollo 12 were Pete Conrad's "it might have been a small step for Neil but it's a big one for me!"(Pete was a shorter lad).

The dust did cause problems, but nothing to do with getting into the suits. The EVA suits were fully sealed and no way could any dust get into them on the moon's surface. The problem came after they got back into the lander where the fine dust was very irritating to the lungs and nose. Long term the dust is seen as a concern as because it was formed in a vacuum with no weathering it's extremely sharp and will wear down components like joints in spacesuits and you wouldn't want it getting into delicate equipment(never mind your airways). Ironically it was less of an issue back then compared to now as the engineering and techy stuff was mostly analogue and quite "big" and less delicate. Much more actual switches and wires, rather than the highly complex IT stuff of today. EG with Apollo 11, after they had walked on the moon and gotten back into the lander to leave, when they were taking off their bulky suits and backpacks one of them knocked against and broke off the switch for the main engine's circuit breaker. Without that they couldn't fire the return engine. Aldrin used his pen and jammed it into the empty hole to complete the circuit. If that had been an LCD touchscreen that failed the fix would have been a lot more complex, if even possible.

ohnonotgmail

Why is this crap not in the CT forum?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540956#Comment_119540956

This is the explanation:

Firmament - Wikipedia

(I actually think this would be cool if true, but we still wouldn't be on a flat earth, just in someone else's lab on a round planet, a bit like this)

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540956#Comment_119540956

Not joking at all. They are also convinced that Newton got his physics wrong. They also said that newton got the shape of the earth wrong and that lead to the deaths of 1000's of sailors.

TheIrishGrover

Yes, man walked on the moon. No, it was not staged. I rate Moon Landing Deniers up there with Flat Earthers - attention seeking morons. EVERY... SINGLE... "argument" has been debunked many MANY times over the years. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. There is absolutely no way to convince these people. If NASA goes now and takes super-high-rez images of the landing areas SHOWING them in superduper clarity, they would just declare them as fake.

And I believe man should go back. Big science leads to innovation and inspiration. Could money be spent elsewhere? Of course. However, mankind also needs to be inspired to live. And it can't be left to the Musks and Bezos' of the world. Yes, they have their place but Space shouldn't be a playground and property of the obscenely rich. Sure, Musk's technology is amazing. Those launches and especially those landings, are spectacular. But then we have him polluting the sky with his thousands of micro-satellites and other vanity projects.

Sure, the Race to The Moon was of course politically motivated and a missed opportunity but the world needs to look to the future again. There is a pessimism and growing tendency to look backwards to some mythical golden past. One only has to look at how America is currently eating itself alive. Will sending up some big-ass rockets bring world peace and solve world hunger? Of course not. But will it inspire people? Will it help develop new technologies? Will it help lead to a more optimistic future? I believe so.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119541386#Comment_119541386

That it would be easier to go to the moon than it would be to fake it has to be the most idiotic argument in favour of the moonlanding there is.

So completely ignore the actual provable facts of 1960's and early 70's video and film technology? In 1969 a slow motion video camera didn't even exist. Up until tne mid 1970's video playback on video tape was limited to 90 seconds. But yet NASA had high speed video cameras and the capacity to record and play back hundreds of hours of video in real time over six missions that landed decades before everyone else?

Sets a desperately low scientific bar too. If it was easier to go there than to fake it then we would have been back on the moon countless times already. Why hasn't SpaceX done it? Why the 2025 date, if it's so easy why not right now?

The Pyramids of Giza were built nearly 5000 years ago, by people who hadn't made it out of the bronze age and were the tallest buildings on Earth until a couple of centuries ago. Why didn't we keep making them? Why don't we make them today with all our science and engineering? Answer: like Apollo they cost an absolute fortune, were built for a specific reason that stopped mattering after a while, by a nation at its peak to show off.

The money ran out. As did public interest, which is an issue in a democracy. Apollo 13 got interest again, but it faded away shortly after. There was a huge and valid concern that they'd lose a crew if they kept going which would have really hit the bottom line. Look how the Challenger accident held up the Shuttle programme and the Columbia accident closed it down. There was more strategic value seen in near Earth orbit missions. One reason the shuttle's bay was that size was to insert and recover spy satellites of the time. The Shuttle was thought to be more reusable and cheaper, but turned out to be not quite and not. Space stations ditto.

Going beyond and indeed coming back from near Earth orbit is significantly easier(and cheaper) to do than going beyond near Earth orbit. The latter needs significantly more sheer grunt to get to the Moon in a human friendly time frame. Then the speeds you're coming back to Earth at are another issue. Apollo 10 came roaring back to Earth's atmosphere at nearly 40,000 kph. By comparison the Shuttle came back in at 25,000 kph. Compare and contrast. So when scifi flics and TV imagine sending a Shuttle to the Moon they're very wrong. You could fuel up a Shuttle to make the TLI burn, but it would take a lot longer to get to the moon and when it finally returned it would burn up like a match.

How do you explain the Van Allen radiation belts? When the astronauts were asked about this, some hadn't a clue what they were being asked about and others appeared to think it was pot-luck that they managed to find their way through it alive...

Sadly for you Van Allen himself, y'know the guy who discovered them, had zero problem with Apollo passing through them. They went through them "backwards" with the lander and her engines as a partial sheild. Never mind that alpha and beta radiation is easily stopped by the metal skin of the craft. Your skin can stop beta radiation. Alpha can only make it through a couple of centimetres of air. Gamma has got way more umph to it, as do X rays, but again they were shielded by their craft and passed through the highest concentration of the belts very quickly. Interestingly the Apollo guys did suffer more than background average with cataracts in the eyes as the aged and the extra radiation they picked up on their travels might have had something to do with that.

Ham_Sandwich

people starving and there wasting money on this, americans are mad

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119541461#Comment_119541461

Good jaysus...

Newton had bugger all to do with notions of the shape of the Earth anyway. Outside of isolated religious bronze age goat herders the ancients figured out the Earth was a globe quite early on(oddly enough not the Chinese, who came late to that party). In latin one name for the world is "orbis", not "planus" or anything like it. One ancient Greek lad living in Egypt even measured it. He noticed that a gnomon(the stick bit of a sun dial) cast a different length shadow at noon in the north of Egypt compaed to the south. So he paid another lad to pace out the distance between a place in the south and north. This gave him the distance between the two gnomons and the shadows gave him the angle to the sun, so with some basic maths going on was able to measure the size of the Earth(and the distance to the sun). Problem was - and I think it was Ptolemy - later on the figure was mistranslated and the Earth was downsized. And that's why Columbus expected to and thought he'd landed in the Indies and not bumped into a whole new continent and massive ocean beyond it. And he and anyone else only went looking in that direction after Constantinople fell to the Turks and they now controlled the silk road and prices on it. So back to economics and national pride and competition. They built and sailed into the unknown, not unlike Apollo. If Constantinople hadn't fallen, the chances of Europe "discovering" the Americas would have been a lot lower and would have taken a few more centuries.

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119541582#Comment_119541582

I never get this argument. It's not like they have a big bonfire where they have a front loader dumping bucketloads of $100 "bills" onto the flames in order to pay for the rocket launch. Loads of people earn a wage out of this, people who might even be starving if there was no space programme.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119541640#Comment_119541640

I'm trying to remember his argument but it was so ridiculous my mind has refused to store it. It wasn't that the earth was a globe it was that it bulged in the middle. They said that newton got this wrong and said it didn't bulge in the middle. because of this land at the equator wasnt where it was supposed to be so ships crashed into the land there and sailors drowned. I wish I was making this up.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119541582#Comment_119541582

I know what you mean, spending billions to gather dust and a few pebbles. Supposedly it's for the good of all mankind.

There was a time when leftism would protest this, but now it's being encouraged.