Did Man Set Foot On The Moon In The 60s, 70,s Or Ever?

@Thomas,

This explanation would be acceptable, if it weren't for Buzz Aldren telling his tale about the first flag being blown over by their departure. I would expect to see at least a faint ring around the landing zone. Anything with the force to blow a flag over can certainly blow dust and pebbles around as well.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Taking off would call for far far more thrust then a soft landing!!!!!!!!

Now to the subject of why you are strangely willing to give credit to the 1903 flyer flight but not to an event that have a million times more documentations?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Taking off would call for far far more thrust then a soft landing!!!!!!!!

I doubt that. It allegedly left considerably lighter than it landed.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

You question that you would normally used full power to takeoff but not in doing a softlanding?????

Have you even been around even normal aircrafts in your life?

Oh once more why are you not questioning the Wright brothers 1903 flight?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You question that you would normally used full power to takeoff but not in doing a softlanding?????

Have you even been around even normal aircrafts in your life?

A large portion of the apparatus allegedly never left the moon, you damned fool. Weight is the biggest factor in determining how much force is required, not takeoff or landing. Nothing about normal aircraft is applicable here. Stop trying to sound authoritative about things you know nothing about.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/moon_missions/posts/post_1247856772115.html
OOPs, I got all posting and forgot to include the photos of the moon bases. You can see the dust ejetion filed around the one lunar lander.

ANYWAY. there is an engineering formula for sediment transport, and its called the "Hjulstrom diagram" Its a mesured filed set that shows that as the plarticles get smaller (beyond dust and clay) its actually takes way more energy to move them laterally by wind or water.Thats why clay banks build up in channels at energy highs.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Taking off would call for far far more thrust then a soft landing!!!!!!!!

Weight or more important mass is a factor and at landing you are only using enough thrust to not even balance the force of the moon gravity which happen to be 1/6 of the earth.

You are landing as softly as possible with only a few MPH closing speed and on takeoff you wish to burn as must fuel as fast as you can to reach moon orbit. You do not wish to leave the moon surface at a few MPH!

In one case a small fraction of the total possible thrust of the landing engines are being used and in the other case the very maximum thrust you can get away with is being used.

When taking off any aircraft you normally used full power and on landing you used just enough power to maintain control of the craft.

This is similar in some ways to the moon landing/takeoff however with a rocket ship in a vacuum the best used of fuel on takeoff is the fasted burn you can get so the fuel is burn as near to the surface as possible. You do not wish to carry any of the fuel any higher in the moon gravity field then you need to.

Of course I can see why anyone who question the moon landings would also not have such a basic understanding of the situation.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Stop trying to sound authoritative about things you know nothing about

.

LOL this is from a man who does not understand that any rocket taking off in a vacuum would be design to burn all it fuel as near to the surface as possible so as not to be carrying part of it fuel up the gravity well.

Maximum possible thrust on takeoff, minimum thrust on landing at least near the surface.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Occom Bill wrote:

This explanation would be acceptable, if it weren't for Buzz Aldren telling his tale about the first flag being blown over by their departure.

Unless the flag was firmly anchored in the ground, you could have nudged it over with a negligible amount of force.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

My mother never believed man set foot on the moon.

No, but some men did set "boot" on the moon.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Once more you are using minimum thrust in a hover over the moon surface and a full out maximum possible burn on takeoff and the mass difference between take off mass and landing mass is not the main consideration in thrust levels in those two cases.

0 Replies

Mark I think is just pulling our legs at least to a large degree Occom Bill however seem far more of the type of person who think that a plane did not hit the Pentagon or that the holocaust never occur or that it was a naval missile that hit the passenger jet off New York City or……………

Ones wonder what other crazy theories he happen to hold dear in his mind or is this the only one?

For myself I was rolling on the floor in front of my computer when he commented that he did not question the Wright Brothers 1903 flights as I had details in others posting there is far more room to question that flight then to question the 1969 moon landing. Far far more room, as a matter of fact for the reasons I had already given.

Now this is a comment directed at future researchers on the subject of irrational beliefs of the past.

I can only hope that your society no longer had such people as Mr. Occom Bill as you had found some combination of early education and mental health treatments to prevent this condition from occurring.

They are not as completely harmless as might be supposed and I refer you to the Holocaust deniers as a case in point.

Sadly, however I will bet that human nature is still human nature and such people as Occom Bill is still with you.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Mark I think is just pulling our legs at least to a large degree Occom Bill however seem far more of the type of person who think that a plane did not hit the Pentagon or that the holocaust never occur or that it was a naval missile that hit the passenger jet off New York City or……………

Ones wonder what other crazy theories he happen to hold dear in his mind or is this the only one?

For myself I was rolling on the floor in front of my computer when he commented that he did not question the Wright Brothers 1903 flights as I had details in others posting there is far more room to question that flight then to question the 1969 moon landing. Far far more room, as a matter of fact for the reasons I had already given.

Now this is a comment directed at future researchers on the subject of irrational beliefs of the past.

I can only hope that your society no longer had such people as Mr. Occom Bill as you had found some combination of early education and mental health treatments to prevent this condition from occurring.

They are not as completely harmless as might be supposed and I refer you to the Holocaust deniers as a case in point.

Sadly, however I will bet that human nature is still human nature and such people as Occom Bill is still with you.

How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you spout such crap as this. You have no way of knowing what anybody may or may not think about topics unrelated. You have no way of knowing whether anybody's "theories" are crazy or brilliant.

Only idiots roll on the floor in front of their computers. You appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing. I would not, however, speculate that to be entirely true even given your ability to make this obvious.

Your last sentence does not even deserve a response from a rational person.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Quote:

How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you spout such crap as this. You have no way of knowing what anybody may or may not think about topics unrelated. You have no way of knowing whether anybody's "theories" are crazy or brilliant. How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you spout such crap as this. You have no way of knowing what anybody may or may not think about topics unrelated. You have no way of knowing whether anybody's "theories" are crazy or brilliant.

Rolling on the floor in front of my computer once more.

Thanks for another laugh.....

Yes anyone who have a theory that 6 millions humans did not die in death camps during the 30s and 40s is crazy not brilliant.

Anyone who claimed that a missile hit the Pentagon during 911 and that it was high explosives that somehow were wire into the twin towers without anyone taking note and without leaving any evidence remaining, is crazy and not brilliant.

Anyone who think that a naval ship with hundreds of men and women aboard could had launch a missile that took down a jet liner leaving New York City and all the crew would had remain silent is crazy not brilliant.

Anyone who can look at the mountain of evidence of the most well documented program in the history of the human race and come up with a claim that it is all a fake is crazy not brilliant.

Also it is highly amusing that one of the lunar landing never happen gentleman can then state that one photo and a few witnesses is enough for proof of the 1903 Wright Brothers flight but that a millions pictures/films and tens of thousands of people in the know and a few hundred pounds of moon rocks is not enough to prove that we had landed on the moon is beyond crazy.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Perhaps you are the crazy one? I am not sure who you purport to have made these claims, but the fact that you disagree with someone does not make them crazy and you sane. Based on your record of postings, I would assume the opposite. However, I will leave it to others to make any judgement on you.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Sorry anyone who buy into any of the theories I had name is not looking at the real universe in any sane way IE they are indeed crazy.

Now of the list I had posted what one of them do you go along with?

Is it the moon landing fake nonsense or is it one of the many 911 crazy theories or is it the holocaust never happen or the jet off New York City being shot down?

Come clean which of those theories are you buying into?

0 Replies

hello

I don't think that man has been on the moon either. Ive seen flags waving about and there is no air there. how is this?

2 Replies

@mikemike,

Simple physics. The flag is being turned by a person so it ripples. When the top of the flag starts to move it takes a short while for the force to move to the bottom. A body at rest tends to stay at rest. The bottom of the flag takes longer to start moving. It appears to wave but it is just simple physics.

1 Reply

How many moon landings have there been...?? do you know? check it out and then tell me why they would fake so many and include thousands of ground workers in the most bizarre charade humanity had ever conceived. Can you imagine the embarrassment if it was faked?..get real folks pleaseeee..o pleaseeee

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Simple physics. The flag is being turned by a person so it ripples. When the top of the flag starts to move it takes a short while for the force to move to the bottom. A body at rest tends to stay at rest. The bottom of the flag takes longer to start moving. It appears to wave but it is just simple physics.

Plus, there's no air on the moon to attenuate the ripples. With only the flag's internal friction to do the attenuating, its waving motion takes a lot longer to peter out.

0 Replies

Did Man Set Foot On The Moon In The 60s, 70,s Or Ever?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know