Did US Astronaut land on the moon for real?

[HighVoltage]

I think it is impossible for us to find out if the USA put an astronout on the moon.
Me and my scientific friends here in Germany are about 50/50 on it.
And now it comes out, that even the Russians do NOT know.

About a month ago, the Russian space agency announced, it will look in to the facts.

Russia space agency promises to check whether US moon landings really happened
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/russia-space-agency-nasa-us-moon-landing-mission-a8650056.html

[Bicurico]

I don't have doubts that astronauts landed on the moon.

I watched documentaries, read about it and actual witnessed one of the landings as a kid watching the live news.

But what amazes me amongst all other obstacles, is the precision of the trajectories. I studied at university and am familiar with math and physics. But I would never ever even know how to start calculating orbits, angles, etc.

How did they know the gravity on the surface of the moon with enough precision so that the lunar lander would have enough trust to get back in orbit? How did they calculate the correct moment for it, so that the lunar lander would meet the Apollo capsule and attach to it?

Not to mention the launch itself with so many spins around the Earth to then activate some trust that propells the capsule heading to the moon. I mean this is not some aproximate calculation where you just assume some constants and ignore some facts: it had to be precise!

How did they do it? How did they know how to calculate all of this? Did they make constant corrections on their way to the moon?

I know that there are many more challenges like materials, oxigen, water, waste disposal, radiation, communication, batteries/electricity, enough fuel, etc.

But calculating the orbits is to me the biggest mystery! Also, how did they manage to not "forget" anything? Like compensating for something that influences the math? How did they know which parameters to take into account?

Indeed, putting a man on the moon is without question man's biggest feat (close to nuclear fission/fusion and being able to f### up the whole planet in less than 100 years).

Was it of any particular use? I don't think so, apart from already mentioned marketing reasons.

I don't believe in space exploration: once we have completely wasted our planet, we're doomed. Or, else, when the sun burns down. Space is simply to big for any useful space exploration. And it is less challenging to do something to prevent destroying our planet than to colonize another one.

Even Mars is completely off to us: it does not feature an iron core and hence does not provide a shield against cosmic radiation.

Regards,
Vitor

[tautech]

@Vitor
About the calculus involved, watch the movie Hidden Figures about the ‘brains’ behind the trajectory paths.

[KJDS]

@Vitor
About the calculus involved, watch the movie Hidden Figures about the ‘brains’ behind the trajectory paths.

I was just about to suggest the same film.

[coppercone2]

most of what you are wondering about is a consequence of hyper cost effective engineering where you don't have any wiggle room.

It's like forgetting you can adjust something with a potentiometer.

how much different do you think just logically the moon would be? its reasonable to think about it being within an order of magnitude of what we have on earth ,its pretty close etc. its not like its in a different dimension or something. smart people made alot of good guesses when it came to the specification because they were good engineers and had an idea of how things generally behave with some knowledge of edge cases.

the stuff now is probobly a bit cheaper and a bit more precisely engineered.

[tautech]

@Vitor
About the calculus involved, watch the movie Hidden Figures about the ‘brains’ behind the trajectory paths.

I was just about to suggest the same film.

Good watch eh ?
Only recently seen it and walked away thinking; who would’ve thought ! 

[coppercone2]

and they did plenty of experiments with plenty of sensor data.

how did they get stuff like seismic data from lunar mortar charges?

if you believe the theoretical knowledge got more precise, then compare it to the sensor data they published and you might find a discrepancy if it is falsified. Maybe you can do a comparison between the lunar sounding seismic experiments and the recent lunar kinetic energy seismic study that was conducted with the rocket.

and what about all those people that got into the rocket? what did they do land some where in secret?

there is too many holes in this shit. it would be the most rupe goldberg thing ever. and what put this here, a robot?
https://www.space.com/16798-american-flags-moon-apollo-photos.html

what did it do after, bury itself? fly off into the sun?

[Nusa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Never mind the stories of the 12 people who actually walked on the moon and the third crew on each mission who stayed in moon orbit but watched them land and return with moon samples. Also a cast of thousands who were personally involved in training, getting the Apollo missions off the ground and supporting them during the trip. Also thousands on aircraft carriers involved in recovering the crews and capsules after splashdown. Many of whom are still alive...all of this was less than 50 years ago.

[Simon]

They certainly went and it's certainly doable but very expensive and risky.

[Kilrah]

Do they never went back to the moon? Not even once?

They did, 5 times... Did you even look it up?

[Jr460]

Never mind the stories of the 12 people who actually walked on the moon and the third crew on each mission who stayed in moon orbit but watched them land and return with moon samples.

About 15 years ago, I had the chance to met the first, second and last man on the moon at an event.  Is it and the stories I heard that night a formal proof, no.  Do we have plenty of hard fact that we put them on the moon, yes.   Have all the claims fo it being faked busted, yes.

[A Hellene]

A! The so-called 'manned' moon-landings is one of my favourite subject matters, dear zucca!

Please excuse the following repetition my myself:

So, we did actually "walk on the Moon"...

Well, it's a shame that there are people out there that cannot share that enthusiasm, since they cannot accept that notion above because of the following:
1. Part 1 (24/07/2009): Heroes NEVER die | The "Shooting Stars" | Dimona reactor: The reason why.
2. Part 2 (24/02/2011): The "magic" air-conditioning unit, that was keeping the temperature at 25°C (either the ship temperature was at +125°C under the direct sunlight, or at -170°C under the Sun's shadow, when it was outside the Earth's protective atmosphere); and that this very specific technology monster (that "magic" air-conditioning unit) was able to be running on the ship's batteries for days! Yea, sure...!
3. Part 3 (26/08/2012): The minimum required time of 2.50 seconds for a radio signal to cover the very specific distance of Earth-Moon-Earth!
4. Part 4 (28/08/2012): A few facts regarding Neil Armstrong.

And, yes, that arthrographer under the screen name  "Giorgos_K" is yours truly, having a very hard time swallowing such televised only "facts" coming from yet another PRIVATE CORPORATION under the corporate name of "NASA" that has No Legal Obligation to reveal their Owners & Shareholders (exactly just like the infamous "FED")!

P.S.: I quoted the above with the hyperlinks fixed, since the free-for-all to visit 'legacy.avrfreaks.net' domain seems to have been obliterated; so I redirected links to the current live domain of the AVRFreaks site (which restricts anonymous access to the Off-Topic section...).
I'm sorry for that. Yet, I could copy my posts to an html file, in order to keep the links information, and attach it over here.

Well, let's enjoy a screenshot of some footage that it is no longer available online (this mp4 video file attached below as *.mp4.mp3: please rename it to *.mp4 after downloading):


Coffee break!

Now, regarding the mocumentary in memory of Stanley Kubrick called 'Dark side of the Moon (2002)', I think that the third line of the following screenshot of the end-titles explains perfectly whom where they mocking at:


End-titles screenshot

-George

[A Hellene]

Please, have another of those rare footages!


An accident...

-George

[A Hellene]

...and, maybe, another couple of screenshots:


No wheel-prints for the Moon Rover (1)


No wheel-prints for the Moon Rover (2)

-Geirge

[coppercone2]

the astronaut is almost as heavy as the buggy and on two legs that walk while the buggy rolls on 4 tires and perhaps they drove it along side of them because its probably scary to experiment with motorcross in lunar gravity on a experimental vehicle?
its clearly leaving a mark too... just small

it also probably drove slow to avoid dust and dangerous rocks

[HighVoltage]

I have a serious question please?

Why did they place a parabolic antenna on the moon rover?

[coppice]

I have a serious question please?

Why did they place a parabolic antenna on the moon rover?

How else would we have seen them live?

[Simon]

I think the rover was left behind and was used to film the take off when they returned. It also sent the transmission back to earth.

[coppice]

I think the rover was left behind and was used to film the take off when they returned. It also sent the transmission back to earth.

They showed the take off live just because they could, although they might have been interested in observing it for engineering reasons. The comms on the rover was basically put there for live comms with Earth. Their suit comms could not reach Earth, and the lander went well far out of sight. They relied on the relay on the rover.

[A Hellene]

As promised above, here is a copy of my related posts in the AVRFreaks.net Off-Topic forum:
You can download the *.htm.txt file below (being built in notepad!), rename it to *.htm and enjoy my (substantiated or not!) rants on the subject matter!

For the bolder ones (who are not afraid of the Greek language!) here is even more on that, in much more (rational or documented) detail:
Part 1 and Part 2.

-George

[bsfeechannel]

I've done my own independent research and found new evidence. You're welcome.

The problem with those proofs is that they prove that there are tracks on the moon, they prove that there is a landing module there, they prove that a mirror was left behind. They prove the photos match. But they do not prove that someone set foot on its surface 50 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that it would be difficult, as Kennedy said, but not impossible to get there and come back alive with the technology of the late sixties and early seventies.

However, the moon is like the Holy of Holies. A place where admittance is so restricted that one could say that God lives there. Even if you show a frozen turd dumped by Neil Armstrong on the moon, there will always be a margin for doubt.

Is it worth billions of dollars to placate a handful of nut jobs who wouldn't be convinced if you physically took them to the moon? I don't think so, they'd come up with some new conspiracy. Let the conspiracy theorists party away, they're not really hurting anything. That sort of person will *always* latch onto a conspiracy theory about something. I suspect it's similar to a religious belief, you can't change the mind of a person who believes by using evidence and facts.

We cannot prove they've been there. They didn't invite an independent observer.  The only thing we could prove is the plausibility of the endeavor considering the technology of the era. But, alas, we do not have the plans, the blueprints, the calculations, to reconstruct the equipment and retry the mission. It's all classified.

Zucca is right. If we could not prove that Columbus crossed the Atlantic and found a new continent, at least we could, and we still can, repeat the feat countless times with the technology available in 1492.

So forever believers and skeptics, in the case of the landing of people on the moon 50 years ago, will deem each other naïve fools and attribute names and other predicates.

[georges80]

No wheel prints? Well, consider how much moon dust/dirt is being flipped up and without an atmosphere it pretty well drops right back down again - covering the 'tracks'. Walking is different since you are imprinting the ground.



Pretty clear just how the moon dust/dirt is just dropping right back down to cover the buggy's tracks. Only in the softest areas where the wheels have sunk down is there any more obvious imprints left.

cheers,
george.

[RandallMcRee]

Here is a serious debunking of the whole moon hoax thing.  Apparently Steph Curry is also confused.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/12/12/heres-your-proof-that-we-landed-on-the-moon-steph-curry/amp/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xrunner]

Now I'm starting to wonder if George Washington was really the first president of the United States. 

[HighVoltage]

I have a serious question please?

Why did they place a parabolic antenna on the moon rover?

How else would we have seen them live?

I thought the transmission originated from the lunar module and not the rover.
It does not make any sense to me that they would install a parabolic antenna on a moving vehicle.
Especially since the rover only had two batteries as a power supply that you would need manly to drive the 4 electric motors.