Was Neil Armstrong the first one on the moon?

@Rickoshay75,

Quote:

All NASA knew about the Moon was the gravity would be half as much, and if the landing bounced, LEM could have rolled over on it's side.

LOL if NSA knew that the moon surface gravity was half as must as on earth they was wrong by a factor of three as the moon surface gravity is around 16 percents of the earth field not 50 percents.

You know all you need to do is google such information and you would not seems to be such a fool.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
All NASA knew about the Moon was the gravity would be half as much, and if the landing bounced, LEM could have rolled over on it's side.

LOL if NSA knew that the moon surface gravity was half as must as on earth they was wrong by a factor of three as the moon surface gravity is around 16 percents of the earth field not 50 percents.

"A comparison of the diameters of the Earth and the Moon show the former has as diameter of 12,742 km (7,918 mi) and the latter has a diameter of only 3,476 km (2,160 mi).

http://planetfacts.org/how-big-is-the-moon-compared-to-earth/

Which equates into even less gravity pull and more reason to avoid a LEM imbalance of any kind.

2 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

Quote:

Which equates into even less gravity pull and more reason to avoid a LEM imbalance of any kind.

I can not understand why someone who have no knowledge of even elementary physic would posted such nonsense and by doing so label himself a fool.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I can not understand why someone who have no knowledge of even elementary physic would posted such nonsense and by doing so label himself a fool.

He is either "special" in some way or he is deliberately wasting our time, I can't decide which.

0 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

Rickoshay75 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Rickoshay75 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I saw the thing happening live and it was very well explained at the time. It was a camera attached to the lander. Aldrin was still inside the lander and Collins was in the mother ship orbiting the Moon.

Yes, you're the first person in history to recognize this proof that the whole thing happened on a sound stage. The millions of people watching as it happened missed it.

I'm not denying the landing, only the lack of A B C logistics. The off weight of the attachment could cause an imbalance in the landing....

May I see your calculations, please? You can bet that NASA did the calculation.

All NASA knew about the Moon was the gravity would be half as much, and if the landing bounced, LEM could have rolled over on it's side.

Well, that and the totality of physics, such as the lander's mass, moment of inertia about various axes, center of mass, etc. How do you think engineers determine the stability of airplanes? By the way, lunar gravity is 17% of Earth, not half.

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

Rickoshay75 wrote:

"A comparison of the diameters of the Earth and the Moon show the former has as diameter of 12,742 km (7,918 mi) and the latter has a diameter of only 3,476 km (2,160 mi).

http://planetfacts.org/how-big-is-the-moon-compared-to-earth/

Which equates into even less gravity pull and more reason to avoid a LEM imbalance of any kind.

If two spheres have the same density and radii in the ratio of 1/2, what is the ratio of their masses?

3 Replies

@Brandon9000,

The moon has been reported to be hollow......................

Ubell asks the question,

“If the Earth and moon were created at the same time, near each other, why has one body got all the iron and the other (the moon) not much? The differences suggest that earth and moon came into being far from each other, an idea that stumbles over the inability of astrophysicists to explain how exactly the moon became a satellite of the earth”.

(Ubell, p.173).

Despite the late Carl Sagan’s assurance in his 1966 book Intelligent Life in the Universe, that “a natural satellite cannot be a hollow object”, there is amazing evidence that the moon could indeed be hollow.

In 1969 the crew of Apollo Twelve, in an attempt to create an artificial moonquake sent the ascent stage of the lunar module crashing back down to the moon’s surface. To everyone’s surprise the highly sensitive seismic equipment recorded something totally unexpected.

For more than one hour, the moon continued to reverberate like a bell. Dr Frank Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) commented,

“None of us have seen anything like this on Earth. In all our experience, it is quite an extraordinary event. That this rather small impact ... produced a signal which lasted thirty minutes is quite beyond the range of our experience”.

( Marrs, p.6).

When Apollo Thirteen’s third stage was deliberately sent hurtling into the lunar surface by radio signal, crashing with the impact of eleven tons of TNT, NASA claimed that the moon, “reacted like a gong.” Seismic equipment as distant as one hundred and seventy-three kilometers from the crash site recorded reverberations lasting for three hours and twenty minutes and travelling to a depth of thirty-five to forty kilometers.

3 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

The moon has been reported to be hollow

so has the earth. We seem to have thee seismic gizmos that were part of the lunar program in the 70's. These kept collecting data till the late 70's when the ceased.
New discretized seismic modeling of the data has calculated a moon that has a partial liquid and solid core and mantle (sorta like a miniature earth)
Don't argue with me, I got no dog in the fight (with the exception of I KNOW how to read seismic shots and modeling).
SO, Ill go with the geologists. at NASA and JPL

0 Replies

John Quincy Adams was at least open to the idea of a hollow earth. Whether he actually believed in it is another question.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

If two spheres have the same density and radii in the ratio of 1/2, what is the ratio of their masses?

Do you think for a moment that the man is going to understand the exponent relationship that your question involve?

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

How do you think engineers determine the stability of airplanes?

footnote I almost killed myself once taking off an ultralight with it CG way out of balance.

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Carl Sagan was never an extraordinary scientist but a common less than average scientist. However, he was an excellent "show man" used by scientists because he was charismatic.

Still, I agree with him. There is not any indicative that because signals after an impact on the Moon surface lasted "thirty minutes" after a provoked moonquake will mean that is hollow.

There is a book written by a former NASA director, that narrates the story told by a few witness some centuries ago. According to these witness, they were sat watching the sky in a night when the Moon was partially illuminated. Suddenly, they saw a spark coming from the dark side of the Moon. And later a black cloud started to cover the Moon.

The witness compared the shaking of the Moon to such an impact, as the shake of a snake, and that lasted for a little while.

Perhaps the Moon missions were to investigate the possible sites where the meteorite made the impact, who knows.

If the Moon was hollow, such a tremendous impact should show a hole

The point is that even our planet -as solid as it is- is affected by earthquakes, to the point of moving itself more than one second the degree of its tilted position in reference to the Sun, as it was noticed after a past earthquake in Chile.

We must remember that the oceans practically "absorb" the quake signals and the force is translated into the motion of the waters, sometime causing tsunamis.

This, my personal opinion can be taken as a valid explanation for the difference of signal lasting of seismic phenomena between the Moon and the Earth, that the Oceans presence absorbs the land shaking effect transforming it into water waves.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Hey, I just reposted something from an ancient aliens type page, of which it strikes me as fairly odd, that Sagan's name could rationally and correctly be found there. Do you have any ideas as to why the moon is seemingly older than the Earth.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

Hey, I just reposted something from an ancient aliens type page, of which it strikes me as fairly odd, that Sagan's name could rationally and correctly be found there. Do you have any ideas as to why the moon is seemingly older than the Earth.

I could say lots of things but I think that you better tell me in what aspect(s) the Moon appears to be older than Earth.

But, let me give you a wild answer.

This is not what you will read anywhere about age of planets and similar. As the opinion given before, that "waters" (over and under ground) absorbing the land vibration in an earthquake, with respect to the age of Earth and Moon my opinion is "the container".

Allow me to explain.

You have orange juice. You pour the juice into two containers. One of them is a jar, over a table open to the air and is left to the ambient temperature.

You pour the other part of the juice into another container with a top cover and is put inside the refrigerator.

After a week, the status of the two juices is different. The one put over the table is rotten while the one inside the refrigerator still is good for drinking.

You have a planet Earth with a different container (atmosphere) than the Moon's, which atmosphere is not even notorious. The elements in both will decay differently, because the Earth's container (atmosphere) might be slowing the decay of elements, while the elements of the Moon are wild exposed to the cosmos in general.

Again, this is an opinion of mine, and I think that the comparison made with the juice containers is fair and can be accepted as an explanation.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Thus, the oldest material from the surface of the Moon is almost as old as we believe the Solar System to be. This is more than a billion years older than the oldest Earth rocks that have been found. Thus, the material brought back from the Moon by the Apollo missions gives us a window on the very early history of our Solar System that would be difficult the find on the Earth, which is geologically active and has consequently has obliterated its early geological history. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_surface.html

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

Thus, the oldest material from the surface of the Moon is almost as old as we believe the Solar System to be. This is more than a billion years older than the oldest Earth rocks that have been found.

If what you say is correct, then Venus is indeed a brand new planet. We could say that Mars is older than Earth and dried up, that our planet is currently in its "mature age", and that planet Venus is in diapers. A few thousands years from now, Venus should have formed water enough to become an Earth alike planet.

All the above is assumptions similar to yours.

On the other hand...

The "container" effect in each planet might change your radiometric data results.

And, unfortunately for us, this "container effect" (mentioned by me in a former message right above) must be verified at least one thousand years from now. The way to do it is very simple. Just by sending another mission to the Moon a thousand years from now, and bring lunar stones.

A radiometric measurement is made between the new stones brought from the Moon, and a new radiometric test is made with the lunar stones which are in storage on Earth for a millennia.

If there is a difference of data between the stones, showing that the stones which were on Earth appear to be "younger" than the stones brought recently from the Moon, then the "container effect" should have been proved correct.

The bad news is that the radiometric test has never been verified for its accuracy. Every method of testing must be verified using a different method of testing against the first. If the results agree or disagree, then the first has been "verified" as correct or invalid.

The radiometric test can't be trusted until you use a different method of measurement against it. For example, the Carbon 14 test has been verified when a tree branch gave 2,800 years of age, and counting the tree rings gave 2,786 rings, meaning 2,786 years of age. This close result between an acceptable tolerance can give green light to this Carbon 14 test to be "credible", even when in several cases this method has gave irrational data.

The radiometric method used for stones has not been verified at all, and regardless of how sophisticated the method itself can be, without verification this radiometric method can't be credible and less be trusted.

The scientific method requires a verification of data, and no one can evade this requisite.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

I didn't say a word, what I did was repost stuff from the internet, from one place, to here.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Rickoshay75 wrote:
"A comparison of the diameters of the Earth and the Moon show the former has as diameter of 12,742 km (7,918 mi) and the latter has a diameter of only 3,476 km (2,160 mi).

http://planetfacts.org/how-big-is-the-moon-compared-to-earth/

Which equates into even less gravity pull and more reason to avoid a LEM imbalance of any kind.

If two spheres have the same density and radii in the ratio of 1/2, what is the ratio of their masses?

Our only way to find out the weight difference is to weigh one earth pound on the moon - actually observe the difference, not calculate or equate it..

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

The moon has been reported to be hollow......................

Ubell asks the question,

“If the Earth and moon were created at the same time, near each other, why has one body got all the iron and the other (the moon) not much? The differences suggest that earth and moon came into being far from each other, an idea that stumbles over the inability of astrophysicists to explain how exactly the moon became a satellite of the earth”.

(Ubell, p.173).

That doesn't explain why we only see one side of the moon. One possibility is they were joined in some way, and centrifugal force drove them apart.

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

Quote:

That doesn't explain why we only see one side of the moon. One possibility is they were joined in some way, and centrifugal force drove them apart.

Lord tidal locking of a moon by it planet is not a mystery.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Tidal_locking.html

0 Replies

Was Neil Armstrong the first one on the moon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know