Hoaxesssss innnnn Spaaaaaace

mickdw

You are nit picking.
Maybe our maths teacher was poor or the students were poor but the fact remains I wasn't poor even if faced with all those disadvantages so surely only strengthens my point. Anyway I went on to get a Civil Engineering degree where I dare say my maths were above average within that group of students too.

M5

M5 wrote: »

There's an attraction in all these theories. You know something that everyone accepts to be true, isn't. It makes you feel superior, woke.

Driving factor for the lot imo and why you see conspiracy theorists usually subscribe to several theories. Some lose this high and naturally progress to the bat**** ones.

Funny how the main conspiracy theorists on this thread ALL volunteer their claims that they are/have above average intelligence/qualifications.

Interesting how it ties in the the psychology of conspiracy theories I eluded to above.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

You are nit picking.
Maybe our maths teacher was poor or the students were poor but the fact remains I wasn't poor even if faced with all those disadvantages so surely only strengthens my point. Anyway I went on to get a Civil Engineering degree where I dare say my maths were above average within that group of students too.

Ok.
So any chance you'll be going back to address the points made to you?

Particularly, could you detail what about the navigation technology was impossible based on your research on the topic?
Perhaps you can explain the nature of your research? What documents did you read and what plans did you analyse?

Overheal

mickdw wrote: »

You are nit picking.
Maybe our maths teacher was poor or the students were poor but the fact remains I wasn't poor even if faced with all those disadvantages so surely only strengthens my point. Anyway I went on to get a Civil Engineering degree where I dare say my maths were above average within that group of students too.

This does nothing to contribute to the central debate though. Is the argument "trust me, the moon landings are fake because I was good at math in secondary school?"

The J Stands for Jay

Overheal wrote: »

This does nothing to contribute to the central debate though. Is the argument "trust me, the moon landings are fake because I was good at math in secondary school?"

I note there was no mention of the result of the exams, merely that they were sat at higher level.

tigerboon

M5 wrote: »

There's an attraction in all these theories. You know something that everyone accepts to be true, isn't. It makes you feel superior, woke.

Driving factor for the lot imo and why you see conspiracy theorists usually subscribe to several theories. Some lose this high and naturally progress to the bat**** ones.

It goes back a lot further than this current "woke " thing. Moon landing theories go back a long way and were possibly originated by the USSR to discredit US achievement. They spread the theories, in the 70s and 80s, through commie sympathiser left wing college educated "useful idiots" who, as you say, feel superior for knowing these things and not accepting what "the man" says. It's where the English Labour anti Semitic problem comes from originally. The old Jewish rulers of the world theories are so ingrained in the left psyche. It's all anti West propaganda originating in the Kremlin.

Westernyelp

tigerboon wrote:

It goes back a lot further than this current "woke " thing. Moon landing theories go back a long way and were possibly originated by the USSR to discredit US achievement. They spread the theories, in the 70s and 80s, through commie sympathiser left wing college educated "useful idiots" who, as you say, feel superior for knowing these things and not accepting what "the man" says. It's where the English Labour anti Semitic problem comes from originally. The old Jewish rulers of the world theories are so ingrained in the left psyche. It's all anti West propaganda originating in the Kremlin.

Do you not see the irony in your post?

tigerboon

Westernyelp wrote: »

Do you not see the irony in your post?

I do

CoBo55

Westernyelp wrote: »

Do you not see the irony in your post?

Woosh.




At the speed of light..

Westernyelp

CoBo55 wrote:

Woosh.

Doubt it

mickdw

Overheal wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

You are nit picking.
Maybe our maths teacher was poor or the students were poor but the fact remains I wasn't poor even if faced with all those disadvantages so surely only strengthens my point. Anyway I went on to get a Civil Engineering degree where I dare say my maths were above average within that group of students too.

This does nothing to contribute to the central debate though. Is the argument "trust me, the moon landings are fake because I was good at math in secondary school?"

To be fair, others were nit picking. I mad a simple and very much true comment and others have kept bringing it up. Going so far as pointing out that the students or teachers must be poor. When I pointed out that perhaps that might strengthen my argument re being about average at maths, I get silence.
For info, B2 was the result.

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

To be fair, others were nit picking. I mad a simple and very much true comment and others have kept bringing it up. Going so far as pointing out that the students or teachers must be poor. When I pointed out that perhaps that might strengthen my argument re being about average at maths, I get silence.
For info, B2 was the result.

You believe the moon landings were faked, correct?

Do you also believe that the ISS isn't manned?

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

To be fair, others were nit picking. I mad a simple and very much true comment and others have kept bringing it up. Going so far as pointing out that the students or teachers must be poor. When I pointed out that perhaps that might strengthen my argument re being about average at maths, I get silence.
For info, B2 was the result.

So in what way did your math skills allow you to deduce that the navigational systems in Apollo were inadequate?

mickdw

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You believe the moon landings were faked, correct?

Do you also believe that the ISS isn't manned?

The ISS is there and is manned, no doubt. There is a hell of a difference between going to the moon and going to the space station.
The space station is within touching distance compared to the moon. Are you aware of the distances involved?
Nasa have lost 2 shuttles in my memory just going to space.
Im no expert but for them to be able to fly a primitive rocket 1000 times past the space station distance, navigate it into moons orbit, do a controlled landing with all the unknowns that go with it, be able to blast off the moon again, hook up with the main craft and take it all back to earth, well it just seems many steps beyond what they would have been capable off IN MY OPINION.

With a now established space station, I would have thought that this would be a help in planning a journey to the moon but nope, it seems harder than ever to get there. That doesn't sit right with me.

Could America afford to fail back in 69? I don't think so.
Could they afford to fail so publicly in front of every man woman and child in the country if not the world? Certainly not. For that reason, there is a certain
sense in faking the landings.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

The ISS is there and is manned, no doubt. There is a hell of a difference between going to the moon and going to the space station.
The space station is within touching distance compared to the moon. Are you aware of the distances involved

Why would the distance be the factor that makes it impossible?

mickdw wrote: »

Nasa have lost 2 shuttles in my memory just going to space

Neither of which were due to navigational issues and neither of which were due to anything applicable to the Apollo missions.
Also one was lost on launch, and you had discounted the Apollo 1 fire as it wasnt in space. Bit hypocritical there...

mickdw wrote: »

Im no expert but for them to be able to fly a primitive rocket 1000 times past the space station distance, navigate it into moons orbit, do a controlled landing with all the unknowns that go with it, be able to blast off the moon again, hook up with the main craft and take it all back to earth, well it just seems many steps beyond what they would have been capable off IN MY OPINION

And what is this opinion based on? What research on Apollos navigation methods did you do?

mickdw wrote: »

With a now established space station, I would have thought that this would be a help in planning a journey to the moon but nope, it seems harder than ever to get there. That doesn't sit right with me.

As opposed to the Moon which changes it orbit randomly?

mickdw wrote: »

Could America afford to fail back in 69? I don't think so.
Could they afford to fail so publicly in front of every man woman and child in the country if not the world? Certainly not. For that reason, there is a certain
sense in faking the landings.

Why didnt the Russians blow the hoax then?

Overheal

Let's roll back to the original subplot of how we got stuck on your credentials, and set that aside,

mickdw wrote: »

I didn't say impossible just not with 1960s tech.
Why completely stop going there if they could manage it so readily in the 1960s?
Surely we would have constructed a station on the moon if it is accessible like you believe.

I mentioned to you privately, there is a big difference in the dynamic systems math that a computer today uses to automatically control things that happen autonomously, vs. many of the things that these Air Force yahoos did with heavy reliance on manual control and ridiculous schedules of practice. Take for example, the Harrier Jet.

The Harrier Jet made its first flight in 1967, and it entered deployment a few months after Apollo 11. Development started in 1957 with the prototype P.1127 - which started hovering in tests as early as 1961.

These are real aircraft, they hover on thrust vectoring, and they had relatively limited computer control to do that at the time; most of it was pilot finesse, often those assigned to it were seasoned helicopter pilots and the like. That's largely why the Harrier line on principle runs on a 4-point hover: it's easier to control manually (though still a bitch, which you'll hear about in most documentaries). The F-35B in contrast uses a hella modern fly by wire computer control system to only over on 2 points: the rear vectored thrust and a vertical turbofan behind the cockpit. No that's impressive. Spared no expense.

Now, maybe I'm shooting from the hip here, but if a Brit can land a jump jet in 1969, maybe a Yank can land a lunar module on the moon in 1969, too. Buzz didn't have to deal with atmospheric disturbance, either.

It's not that we don't 'have the technology' to build a moon base - it's that we fundamentally lack the resources or the purpose. Play some Kerbal Space Program, they get you into the mindset fairly ****ing RIGHT. See how hard it is just to get to the moon, vs. orbit, much less build a base there, and how much rocket power you need. In short, getting to earth orbit is much less energy intensive than to get to the moon, and for all the extra thrust you need, you need extra fuel, and extra weight, and it's a compounding nightmare of logistics. That's not to say we're not going back but I'll get to that in a minute.

We just say Soros is gonna fund the whole thing, spare no expense, POOF, moonbase, let's pretend we do all the steps in between, and we wrench up a base on the moon, and we fill it with air, and potatoes - what do we accomplish up there right now? Without water, and lots of it, the mission's ****ed. And lunar water is to this day (heck, extra-terrestrial water in general) still a massive engineering bugbear: how do we get to it, extract it, and how much energy do you require to even get to the point of electrolysis where you can a) continue to supply oxygen to your crew and b) extract enough hydrogen as a fuel source to fulfill the purpose any moonbase would need to fulfill. And c) how the **** do you guarantee a steady stream of import/export to your moonbase for non-renewable supplies and crew transfers?

To date, that's a much, much bigger problem than most people give it credit for. Not helped by the fact that world priorities have changed, and you're talking about something that would be a hugely expensive undertaking: maybe if we didn't have a massive nuclear proliferation, and Korea, and Vietnam, etc., maybe people would have felt justified in spending what today would be trillions of dollars to send a dozen people to the moon to extract paltry amounts of fuel to send missions further out into the solar system - which would be much the only objective we have at the moment, is proofing out prolonged life in space, and onset missions. Except we learned rather quick that as you alluded to, advanced in computers made it possible to develop missions in the 80s that launched in the 90s that got us to Mars and Jupiter and Saturn etc. using Probes instead of people - MUCH more cost effectively. Curiosity is a blockbuster success, but not the first mission to Mars, and those were not all successful (thanks, metric system). But the thing is: as far as NASA in the 1970s was concerned, the moon was a ball of dust, there isn't anything there to leverage for survival/base building. And there was just dwindling justification and/or willpower to send people back, when as we mentioned disaster could be around every corner like Apollo 13, all for the sake of another bag of rocks.

Don't forget though: we still had no data about the long term effects of living in space - the answer of course culminated in over a decade of design, and construction, of the ISS, which we've gotten some heckin science out of since. But the first space station - also happened in 1969, Soyuz. Reagan greenlit development in 1984. And now, we of course know a lot more...

Oh, and the other other politics: Energy. Electrolysis in the 70s, right. You'd only be doing that with nuclear power. I don't know if Irish people recall the Cassini Probe, or the hysteria leading up to its launch, but I lived in Florida at the time, and I do: people were freaked the hell out that the probe is equipped with an RTG - 'holy **** that's nuclear' 'if it explodes on the way up on the launch we're talking nuclear winter folks' - the public would have lost their ever loving **** if we tried to launch an actual nuclear reactor to the moon to power the mission up there. Solar efficiency 40 years ago, can you imagine how bad it was compared to todays panels? Woof.

This all said: we're going back.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1155967/nasa-lunar-base-orbiting-moon-lunar-orbital-platform-gateway-space-news

Some genius ****ers who were, in all honesty probably playing Kerbal Space Program, came up with how we're going to build basically another ISS in orbit above the moon: It's going to have a crazy off-center orbit, that will allow it to send and receive materiel to/from the surface and to high orbit to send/receive materiel to/from Earth, without requiring tons of waste delta-V to transition from orbital to surface exchanges. Keep in mind now: this is not a moon 'base', it's a space station. Now that the ISS has been in orbit for 20 years, and we've been learning something new from it everyday, we now are seemingly ready to take the next step, which is move an ISS like structure to the Moon and start to do things like, hopefully, build science habitats on the moon. The station will also by design have the distinct honor of being the fueling/kitting and launching point for a Mars transition vehicle that will one day, likely decades from now, send scientists to Mars with the knowledge we've replicated at the lunar gateway and the knowledge we learn from figuring out how to live on the surface of the moon.

So the tl;dr of why we didn't build a moon: It's enormously expensive, the long term risks/rewards were entirely unknown, and we've been doing more economical science in the intervening decades that has graduated us to the point where learning to do long term survival on another stellar body is becoming the next crucial step.

Beast4mdaeast

The truth is out there !!!

Overheal

mickdw wrote: »

The ISS is there and is manned, no doubt. There is a hell of a difference between going to the moon and going to the space station.
The space station is within touching distance compared to the moon. Are you aware of the distances involved?
Nasa have lost 2 shuttles in my memory just going to space.
Im no expert but for them to be able to fly a primitive rocket 1000 times past the space station distance, navigate it into moons orbit, do a controlled landing with all the unknowns that go with it, be able to blast off the moon again, hook up with the main craft and take it all back to earth, well it just seems many steps beyond what they would have been capable off IN MY OPINION.

The math, while complicated, not infeasible at all. Just requires precise burns of thrust at precise times, which they coordinated with mission control, and the navigation was good enough to tell them where they pointed.

Once Apollo was in orbit around the moon, getting the lander crew back to it is a matter of MC calculating when exactly they need to do their ascent maneuvers to get back the same orbit as the command module. Then it's just manual control once you're close. You'll see it if you try to dock something in KSP, just a loooot of patience and tapping the RCS thrusters to get you back together. Mission control could calculate the burns/maneuvers they need to get back in the ballpark of one another.

The shuttle disasters are unrelated to any of that: one was related to an O-ring seal on the liquid boosters, which wasn't rated for the cold temperature of the launch day, but they were under political pressure to push the launch. The other was the result of unforseen damage to the heat shield from ice that broke off the primary booster during launch. Neither of them had to do with 'math'.

With a now established space station, I would have thought that this would be a help in planning a journey to the moon but nope, it seems harder than ever to get there. That doesn't sit right with me.

Could America afford to fail back in 69? I don't think so.
Could they afford to fail so publicly in front of every man woman and child in the country if not the world? Certainly not. For that reason, there is a certain
sense in faking the landings.

See my above post, now that we have decades more actual knowledge yes we're going back to the moon with a lunar station. It's a matter of time. The ISS indeed helped get space travel to this point. The only thing that's harder today is as someone mentioned earlier in the thread this isn't merely the Air Force with pocket protectors, this is rocket scientists, and not just the culture at NASA has changed but science in general has changed, safety considerations have changed, and only grown dramatically, systems have only grown in complexity along with their capability, the less simple you make something the more overhead there is for it. As you alluded to: when people died in those space shuttles, it puts a chill on progress. You have to stop and do a thorough postmortem, think about your thinking, think about your program from the ground up, and now that they're designing Orion and beyond it's all under the microscope, every contingency, everything that's been learned in the last half century, and even before that.

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

Why would the distance be the factor that makes it impossible?

Neither of which were due to navigational issues and neither of which were due to anything applicable to the Apollo missions.
Also one was lost on launch, and you had discounted the Apollo 1 fire as it wasnt in space. Bit hypocritical there...

And what is this opinion based on? What research on Apollos navigation methods did you do?


As opposed to the Moon which changes it orbit randomly?

Why didnt the Russians blow the hoax then?

You don't think that the distance would be of any relevance? Can you tell me what study you have done to come to that conclusion?

Nasa still having rockets fail at launch and on re entry again not relevant in your book. Would they not have nailed this stuff down at that stage if they were successfully hopping onto the moon as they wished 30 years before?

What research on Apollos navigation have you done? Anyone can blindly spit out the official line. Have you an understanding of space flight, rocket flight and directional control? use of navigational correctional aids in flight etc.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

You don't think that the distance would be of any relevance? Can you tell me what study you have done to come to that conclusion?

I didnt say that it was of no relevance. I asked you why it made the problem impossible for Apollo.
You didn't answer that question, please try again.

mickdw wrote: »

Nasa still having rockets fail at launch and on re entry again not relevant in your book. Would they not have nailed this stuff down at that stage if they were successfully hopping onto the moon as they wished 30 years before?

I didnt say that either.
And again the shuttle accidents were due to thing that were not applicable to the Apollo missions.
Also, comparing the failure rate of Apollo missions: 2 out of 12.
To the failure rate of shuttle missions: 2 out of 135. (140 including test flights).
I'm sure you can put that into a percentage.

So yea the shuttle was far more reliable.

mickdw wrote: »

What research on Apollos navigation have you done? Anyone can blindly spit out the official line. Have you an understanding of space flight, rocket flight and directional control? use of navigational correctional aids in flight etc.

None, beyond watching a bunch of documentaries. I'm not an engineer.
Could you answer the question directly please?

Also could you explain why the Russians didnt expose the hoax?

Could you just answer the questions directly without being chased down on them?

facehugger99

firemansam4 wrote: »

It would be nice to see a good documentary doing just that, involving experts and maybe people who worked on the moon landings.

If you're into Podcasts, Our Fake History are currently in the middle of a 3-episode series looking at moon landing conspiracy theories and comparing to the actual evidence.

It also looks at the genesis and evolution of the theories and how they flourished in a post-watergate landscape.

Worth a listen.

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

What research on Apollos navigation have you done? Anyone can blindly spit out the official line. Have you an understanding of space flight, rocket flight and directional control? use of navigational correctional aids in flight etc.

You think it's impossible because you can't believe it and you can't grasp the maths involved. Argument based on incredulity and your limited understanding. It's a common fallacy and it has no substance.

Do you have any evidence that man didn't land on the moon 6 times?

i.e. if man didn't land on the moon, then something else happened, what exactly happened each of those times? (with evidence)

What happened to Apollo 13?

If you don't have an answer to those questions, then that logically means you will entertain something that has absolutely no evidence, based purely on your own incredulity

Like my analogy "I don't understand how Neutron stars work, ergo they don't exist"

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Like my analogy "I don't understand how Neutron stars work, ergo they don't exist"

Or: "I don't know how you can make a super sonic passenger jet. We don't have one now. Therefore Concorde was obviously a hoax."

cdeb

Or "I don't understand how mickdw can believe something so silly, so he obviously doesn't exist"

storker

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so what specifically about 1960s technolgy made it impossible?

The technology of the time was more capable of actually going to the moon than it was of faking going to the moon.

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

You don't think that the distance would be of any relevance? Can you tell me what study you have done to come to that conclusion?

I didnt say that it was of no relevance. I asked you why it made the problem impossible for Apollo.
You didn't answer that question, please try again.

mickdw wrote: »

Nasa still having rockets fail at launch and on re entry again not relevant in your book. Would they not have nailed this stuff down at that stage if they were successfully hopping onto the moon as they wished 30 years before?

I didnt say that either.
And again the shuttle accidents were due to thing that were not applicable to the Apollo missions.
Also, comparing the failure rate of Apollo missions: 2 out of 12.
To the failure rate of shuttle missions: 2 out of 135. (140 including test flights).
I'm sure you can put that into a percentage.

So yea the shuttle was far more reliable.

mickdw wrote: »

What research on Apollos navigation have you done? Anyone can blindly spit out the official line. Have you an understanding of space flight, rocket flight and directional control? use of navigational correctional aids in flight etc.

None, beyond watching a bunch of documentaries. I'm not an engineer.
Could you answer the question directly please?

Also could you explain why the Russians didnt expose the hoax?

Could you just answer the questions directly without being chased down on them?

I purposely replied in a style something like your own and you don't appear to like it.
It's all too easy for you to say prove it to everything you don't agree with.

So you agree that the distance would have made things more difficult and so a much more demanding task? That's a start at least. So can we drop the idea that a manned ISS is somehow equal to a man on the moon.
I think if you asked 1000 people in the street, 99 percent of them would be of the opinion that the ISS is basically near the moon. I think that suits everyone involved in space exploration.
If the people in the street were made aware that the ISS is 400 km away yet the moon is 400000 km away and we now only manage the 400 km as opposed to the 400000 back in the 60s, there might be more questions asked.
Re navigating and it being impossible, I believe they had gyroscopic systems that had inaccuracies yet needed supreme accuracy to make the mission work. They were then relying on old fashioned techniques to apply corrections to their navigation. I'm aware of the various systems we are told they had such as full control of orientation of the craft in space however if a sextant is being used to measure position and correct navigational inaccuracies periodically on the journey, that must be their most accurate navigation tool. Thousands of men helping them plot their course but a crude sextant measurement being used to cross check and correct it.
How accurate could these measurements be, was there a danger of inaccurate readings putting them further off course,
At best they would have been flying a coiled path, some distance off the ideal path. Would this have proved accurate enough to complete the mission. That is the question I guess.

storker

mickdw wrote: »

Why completely stop going there if they could manage it so readily in the 1960s?
.

(a) Because of cost
(b) Because they'd already "won" by beating the Soviets to it.

SlowBlowin

mickdw wrote: »

I purposely replied in a style something like your own and you don't appear to like it.
It's all too easy for you to say prove it to everything you don't agree with.

So you agree that the distance would have made things more difficult and so a much more demanding task? That's a start at least. So can we drop the idea that a manned ISS is somehow equal to a man on the moon.
I think if you asked 1000 people in the street, 99 percent of them would be of the opinion that the ISS is basically near the moon. I think that suits everyone involved in space exploration.
If the people in the street were made aware that the ISS is 400 km away yet the moon is 400000 km away and we now only manage the 400 km as opposed to the 400000 back in the 60s, there might be more questions asked.
Re navigating and it being impossible, I believe they had gyroscopic systems that had inaccuracies yet needed supreme accuracy to make the mission work. They were then relying on old fashioned techniques to apply corrections to their navigation. I'm aware of the various systems we are told they had such as full control of orientation of the craft in space however if a sextant is being used to measure position and correct navigational inaccuracies periodically on the journey, that must be their most accurate navigation tool. Thousands of men helping them plot their course but a crude sextant measurement being used to cross check and correct it.
How accurate could these measurements be, was there a danger of inaccurate readings putting them further off course,
At best they would have been flying a coiled path, some distance off the ideal path. Would this have proved accurate enough to complete the mission. That is the question I guess.

Hi MickW

A few pages back I posted a link to the guys who have resurrected one of the original Apollo flight computers. If you go to their YT page you will find that now they have progressed a bit further.

They have hooked it up so it provides the control inputs to a full moon landing mission in Kerbal space sim.

I think this is the exact proof you are seeking, have a look.

Congrats on rescuing this thread by the way.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

I purposely replied in a style something like your own and you don't appear to like it.
It's all too easy for you to say prove it to everything you don't agree with.

Well, no I directly answer questions in a clear fashion on the first post.
It's not difficult.

You however have not actually answered mine once again.
What research have you done into Apollo's navigational systems.
Please list the books you've read and point to the plans you looked over.

If you haven't actually looked at any plans or read any books on the matter, just say so.

mickdw wrote: »

So you agree that the distance would have made things more difficult and so a much more demanding task? That's a start at least.

So can we drop the idea that a manned ISS is somehow equal to a man on the moon.

Never claimed either of these things.
No one else did either...

mickdw wrote: »

I think if you asked 1000 people in the street, 99 percent of them would be of the opinion that the ISS is basically near the moon. I think that suits everyone involved in space exploration.
If the people in the street were made aware that the ISS is 400 km away yet the moon is 400000 km away and we now only manage the 400 km as opposed to the 400000 back in the 60s, there might be more questions asked.

Lol what relevance does this have?
The orbit of the ISS is incredibly easy to find out. The people "involved in space exploration" will readily tell people this and to my knowledge mention it all the time when they are describing the ISS.

You are not saying they are trying to pretend that the ISS is further away than it is to trick people into thinking the moon landings are real.
That's silly Mick. It's very very silly.

mickdw wrote: »

Re navigating and it being impossible, I believe they had gyroscopic systems that had inaccuracies yet needed supreme accuracy to make the mission work. They were then relying on old fashioned techniques to apply corrections to their navigation. I'm aware of the various systems we are told they had such as full control of orientation of the craft in space however if a sextant is being used to measure position and correct navigational inaccuracies periodically on the journey, that must be their most accurate navigation tool. Thousands of men helping them plot their course but a crude sextant measurement being used to cross check and correct it.

There's a lot of "I believes..." and assumptions in there.

mickdw wrote: »

How accurate could these measurements be, was there a danger of inaccurate readings putting them further off course,

You tell us. You're the one who's declaring it impossible.
How accurate were they and how accurate would they need to be?

mickdw wrote: »

At best they would have been flying a coiled path, some distance off the ideal path. Would this have proved accurate enough to complete the mission. That is the question I guess.

What do you mean by "coiled path" exactly?
And again, since you have declared that it can't be accurate enough, thus is impossible you must know how accurate it was and how accurate it needs to be.
Please supply the figures for these accuracies and explain how you arrived at them.

You've also once again ignored a question I asked.
Could you please explain why Russia didn't just expose the hoax?

Wibbs

mickdw wrote: »

Re navigating and it being impossible, I believe they had gyroscopic systems that had inaccuracies yet needed supreme accuracy to make the mission work.

What "inaccuracies"? Where do you come by this information, because it's decidedly bogus. Inertial navigation systems were in play early on in the rocket/missile age and had test flown on airliners too. By the early 1960's they were pretty accurate and were made more accurate by the time Apollo came along. And they were systems without human interaction after launch.

They were then relying on old fashioned techniques to apply corrections to their navigation. I'm aware of the various systems we are told they had such as full control of orientation of the craft in space however if a sextant is being used to measure position and correct navigational inaccuracies periodically on the journey, that must be their most accurate navigation tool. Thousands of men helping them plot their course but a crude sextant measurement being used to cross check and correct it.
How accurate could these measurements be, was there a danger of inaccurate readings putting them further off course,

Extremely accurate. The sextant setup was a sophisticated bit of kit and was used in concert with the guidance computer and ground based telemetry.

At best they would have been flying a coiled path, some distance off the ideal path.

Utter supposition and again a good example of you not understanding the basics and because you don't understand them you then reach the conclusion it can't be done or is questionable.

SlowBlowin

Surly we have moved past this point ????

They must have got to the moon (so the navigation worked) to plant the laser reflector, and make the tracks that the Japanese space craft imaged.

Is it not just a question of if its manned or are the Japanese images fake too ? The Chinese claim to have images of the sites too.

Heres a link to the best NASA images: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

firemansam4

storker wrote:

(a) Because of cost (b) Because they'd already "won" by beating the Soviets to it.

This is exactly the reason, and hoaxers don't get it.

The time of the moon landings was massive, huge amounts of money poured into a venture to be the first man on moon, I seen a graph some pages back showing the difference on what is spent by NASA now compared to back then.

There is no real will on putting man on the moon again as its already been done and there is no major scientific benefits to spending that kind of money again when robotic probes can do the job for a fraction of the cost.
And I'm sure they are not going to just do it just to prove the conspiracy theorists wrong...

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

Thousands of men helping them plot their course but a crude sextant measurement being used to cross check and correct it.
How accurate could these measurements be, was there a danger of inaccurate readings putting them further off course,
At best they would have been flying a coiled path, some distance off the ideal path. Would this have proved accurate enough to complete the mission. That is the question I guess.

Here's some videos on the topic. Though I'm sure you're more than well versed and know way more than these people...

Dohnjoe

firemansam4 wrote: »

This is exactly the reason, and hoaxers don't get it.

The time of the moon landings was massive, huge amounts of money poured into a venture to be the first man on moon, I seen a graph some pages back showing the difference on what is spent by NASA now compared to back then.

There is no real will on putting man on the moon again as its already been done and there is no major scientific benefits to spending that kind of money again when robotic probes can do the job for a fraction of the cost.
And I'm sure they are not going to just do it just to prove the conspiracy theorists wrong...

All the evidence in the world means nothing to people who don't base their views on evidence

storker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

All the evidence in the world means nothing to people who don't base their views on evidence

Or put another way, you can't use logic to argue someone out of a position they didn't use logic to argue themselves into.

cdeb

mickdw wrote: »

I think if you asked 1000 people in the street, 99 percent of them would be of the opinion that the ISS is basically near the moon.

I think you should put that theory to the test.

Let us know how you get on

(Because I think it's utter nonsense)

firemansam4

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think there's any full length documentaries like you're describing, but there's bits and pieces on youtube addressing parts of the conspiracy:
Vintage Space has a few videos on the conspiracy theories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r45Q-MT2vfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxoSnXZTtr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdfSoWb6W54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyH4Zaz3mEE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEylTGOlQ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLtgS2_qxJk

And she has a few addressing the concerns of some of our resident conspiracy theorists regarding navigation and computers.
The difference being that she actually knows what she's talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-O3Uu4DuLw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8S_T772H1c

She also just does great videos on different aspects of the space program in general.

There's also this great primer from Curious Droid who also does great ones on engineering and aerospace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT3ferYrmgU

This one was posted earlier, but it's worth posting again as it's one of the few debunks that directly proves part of the conspiracy theory is impossible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYFMU7XfyzE
With the follow up where he addresses a response from a well known moon hoax youtuber:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TelJ75pzP4

The Mythbusters also did an episode on it, and while it's fun and accurate, I don't think it would be convincing to most conspiracy theorists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPj60sy9Cfw

Had a chance to look through these, some very interesting stuff in it, some of the conspiracy theory's are just plain silly, like the one where you cant see any stars in the pictures at the landing site, anyone should know if you take a picture in a lit up area at night that a camera will not be able to expose for the stars and the lit up foreground.

I really like the one where Collins explains how the conspiracy would have been impossible to film, and his reply video to that youtuber great...

Cheerful Spring2

storker wrote: »

The technology of the time was more capable of actually going to the moon than it was of faking going to the moon.

Advancement with technologies is more accurate. Nasa was engineering and designing brand new systems to enable a successful moon launch. It generally considered a jump ahead.

valoren

I throw a bowling ball up vertically into the air. I need energy to do that but strangely enough it seems to want to fall back to the ground. Even when I use a cannon to fire it, the same thing eventually happens. The ball hits the ground. Now suppose I throw the ball horizontally and I see that while it goes in a straight line initially it just eventually hits the ground as well. Now I think about standing on the tallest mountain on earth and do the same thing. I see the same result but obviously it takes longer to eventually hit the ground. I then imagine using a cannon to provide far more energy than my arm ever could. I see that it would travel much further but it still hits the ground eventually. Hmmm. All this is pretty intuitive. Now suppose I built a big fcuk-off cannon and performed the same experiment firing it from the mountain top. I can deduce that, given enough force, it would actually never hit the ground. Amazing! I imagine that if there were actually no atmosphere and if I did it precisely enough, were I to stand very still that ball could hit me on the back of my head. So we know what an orbit is now. Let's think of the bowling ball falling freely serenely and perpetually and call it a stationary orbit. Now suppose I engineer a cannon that could actually get up to a sufficient height of its own accord FROM THE GROUND and do much the same as the bowling ball and fall around the earth perpetually. Now imagine if I could engineer that cannon to have the ability to fire again WHILE it's in the process of falling freely. What might happen is that it's orbit will become much larger but it will still fall around the earth. An elliptical orbit has a nice ring to it. I could actually make my ellipse reach the moon IF I could engineer enough energy in the canon! Now imagine the cannon is the Saturn V rocket. Or more precisely, a cannon, on a cannon, on a cannon. The Apollo/Saturn spacecraft itself being a small cannon, on a smaller cannon, on a small cannon, on a big cannon, on a bigger cannon, on my FCUK-OFF cannon.

Now if I could propel this cannon contraption towards the moon then the very same principles apply in reverse i.e. firing my cannon pointing towards my direction of travel will reduce my orbit. If I could fire the cannon at a precise point and for enough time, I could go into free fall around the Moon itself. Now if I could engineer one of my small cannons to do the same reverse procedure then without enough precision I could "hit" the surface with enough deftness that I didn't do something stupid like get killed in a crash. Using another of my small cannons I could fire it vertically and with enough energy I could go back into orbit. Pretty easy with no stupid stuff like an atmosphere. If I spent YEARS practicing linking up cannons while in orbit to the point that I could do it in my sleep then landing on the moon is while dangerous perfectly possible and do-able. Apollo was all about falling. Falling around, falling up and falling down. I don't need to be an engineer to understand that. Even a dope like me has the common sense to see that the Apollo missions happened. I can't imagine what its like to be sufficiently clever enough to have helped but yet clever is what we are. The mechanics of the above were all established in the time of Newton. It wasn't until the 20th Century that we got very good at making the cannons required for reaching the moon and interestingly it was the pressing need to prevent us annihilating each other which drove the urgency to perfect their reliability. It was when the threat abated that we no longer pointed such cannons at each other and instead pointed them towards and back from the moon.

greenspurs

valoren wrote: »

I throw a bowling ball up vertically into the air. I need energy to do that but strangely enough it seems to want to fall back to the ground. Even when I use a cannon to fire it, the same thing eventually happens. The ball hits the ground. Now suppose I throw the ball horizontally and I see that while it goes in a straight line initially it just eventually hits the ground as well. Now I think about standing on the tallest mountain on earth and do the same thing. I see the same result but obviously it takes longer to eventually hit the ground. I then imagine using a cannon to provide far more energy than my arm ever could. I see that it would travel much further but it still hits the ground eventually. Hmmm. All this is pretty intuitive. Now suppose I built a big fcuk-off cannon and performed the same experiment firing it from the mountain top. I can deduce that, given enough force, it would actually never hit the ground. Amazing! I imagine that if there were actually no atmosphere and if I did it precisely enough, were I to stand very still that ball could hit me on the back of my head. So we know what an orbit is now. Let's think of the bowling ball falling freely serenely and perpetually and call it a stationary orbit. Now suppose I engineer a cannon that could actually get up to a sufficient height of its own accord FROM THE GROUND and do much the same as the bowling ball and fall around the earth perpetually. Now imagine if I could engineer that cannon to have the ability to fire again WHILE it's in the process of falling freely. What might happen is that it's orbit will become much larger but it will still fall around the earth. An elliptical orbit has a nice ring to it. I could actually make my ellipse reach the moon IF I could engineer enough energy in the canon! Now imagine the cannon is the Saturn V rocket. Or more precisely, a cannon, on a cannon, on a cannon. The Apollo/Saturn spacecraft itself being a small cannon, on a smaller cannon, on a small cannon, on a big cannon, on a bigger cannon, on my FCUK-OFF cannon.

Now if I could propel this cannon contraption towards the moon then the very same principles apply in reverse i.e. firing my cannon pointing towards my direction of travel will reduce my orbit. If I could fire the cannon at a precise point and for enough time, I could go into free fall around the Moon itself. Now if I could engineer one of my small cannons to do the same reverse procedure then without enough precision I could "hit" the surface with enough deftness that I didn't do something stupid like get killed in a crash. Using another of my small cannons I could fire it vertically and with enough energy I could go back into orbit. Pretty easy with no stupid stuff like an atmosphere. If I spent YEARS practicing linking up cannons while in orbit to the point that I could do it in my sleep then landing on the moon is while dangerous perfectly possible and do-able. Apollo was all about falling. Falling around, falling up and falling down. I don't need to be an engineer to understand that. Even a dope like me has the common sense to see that the Apollo missions happened. I can't imagine what its like to be sufficiently clever enough to have helped but yet clever is what we are. The mechanics of the above were all established in the time of Newton. It wasn't until the 20th Century that we got very good at making the cannons required for reaching the moon and interestingly it was the pressing need to prevent us annihilating each other which drove the urgency to perfect their reliability. It was when the threat abated that we no longer pointed such cannons at each other and instead pointed them towards and back from the moon.

A very good way of describing it.

But, if it was that easy, Why hasn't anyone been back ?

(Im not trying to be a wise a$$)

sbsquarepants

greenspurs wrote: »

A very good way of describing it.

But, if it was that easy, Why hasn't anyone been back ?

(Im not trying to be a wise a$$)

A lot of things are misleadingly easy to describe, but much more difficult in practice.

All you need to do to play the violin is take a bow and rub it on the strings, you can change the sound by varying the speed and pressure and holding the strings in different places. There's only 4 strings, i mean how hard can it be, right?

greenspurs

greenspurs wrote: »

A very good way of describing it.

But, if it was that easy, Why hasn't anyone been back ?

(Im not trying to be a wise a$$)

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A lot of things are misleadingly easy to describe, but much more difficult in practice.

All you need to do to play the violin is take a bow and rub it on the strings, you can change the sound by varying the speed and pressure and holding the strings in different places. There's only 4 strings, i mean how hard can it be, right?

Why ?

King Mob

greenspurs wrote: »

A very good way of describing it.

But, if it was that easy, Why hasn't anyone been back ?

(Im not trying to be a wise a$$)

Lack of funding and political will. It's that simple.
How come we don't have any super sonic airliners anymore when Concorde was built in the 70s?
Is it reasonable to suggest that Concorde was an elaborate global hoax?

Dohnjoe

greenspurs wrote: »

A very good way of describing it.

But, if it was that easy, Why hasn't anyone been back ?

(Im not trying to be a wise a$$)

It's not easy, and it's highly expensive. At that time two of the world's superpowers, at ideological odds, were throwing everything they had to get to the moon first, once one side got there, the "race" was over

Despite the US returning 5 more times, the public lost interest and NASA's funding dropped significantly. Recently, other nations have only just started to put satellites up to the moon and land basic probes there.

banie01

greenspurs wrote: »

A very good way of describing it.

But, if it was that easy, Why hasn't anyone been back ?

(Im not trying to be a wise a$$)

Just because a concept is easily explained and understood.
It doesn't mean it's easily done.

As others have said, Political will, capital and national prestige played a huge role in the 1st flush of Space exploration and indeed in those flagship programmes of Nations.

From the days of the Blue Riband for the fastest Atlantic crossing thru to Concorde and the effort to be the fastest, the best and to rub it in.

There has often been a nationalist component to scientific endeavour associated with speed and exploration.
That lustre wore off during the 70's and it's only starting to really return now, coincidentally enough with a rise in nationalism in some quarters.

I really do believe some of humanities greatest hope for scientific advancement lies in space, be it LEO or beyond and am happy to see a growth in Space exploration again.

greenspurs

So money/cost basically stopped it ?


I suppose once you've been up there, and if theres nothing there, why go back ?

Dohnjoe

greenspurs wrote: »

So money/cost basically stopped it ?


I suppose once you've been up there, and if theres nothing there, why go back ?

If (when) humans do go back to the moon, from a NASA perspective it's likely to be something with bigger scope, such as putting a permanent base there. For private purposes (such as SpaceX) it would be tourism. And for other countries (India, Japan, China) it would be similar to just getting a man there to demonstrate their prowess and due to the growing competition between those particular powers

Dr. Bre

Same as why don’t we built pyramids anymore. we don’t need to build pyramids now . So some people say they mustn’t of been built by humans . I think these people are wrong. Sorry if I’ve gone a little bit of topic trying to compare

Westernyelp

This thread is going round in circles so fast it's making me dizzy

Beechwoodspark

Happened to randomly watch a yt clip yest evening which laughably said when the LM landed there was a period of time were the astros chatter was picked up by ham radio back on earth

And the Astros supposedly mentioned menacing huge alien ships watching them

And Yet ...yet....

They immediately climbed onto the lunar surface and did the moonwalk as was the original plan !

And also sent multiple missions back to the moon!

So we are supposed to believe that they saw the menacing alien ships but just completely ignored them?!?

Bunch of loons