We landed on Mars... again? [Mod note post #1]

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can we take it that zero evidence is going to be provided for the fake landings on Mars? 200 posts in and not a single shred of evidence or proof has even been offered up for discussion by the conspiracy theorists. As such I'm struggling to see the conspiracy here.

Not much motivation offered either. Some people rely on conspiracy theories to make sense of a world they're incapable of understanding.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can we take it that zero evidence is going to be provided for the fake landings on Mars? 200 posts in and not a single shred of evidence or proof has even been offered up for discussion by the conspiracy theorists. As such I'm struggling to see the conspiracy here.

I'm sure we're going to be told that the only reason we're not getting proof is because we're meanies who didn't ask nice enough.

Ger Roe

For conspiracy theorists who like a good story... look up the film Capricorn One, made in 1977. A faked mars landing mission that has OJ Simpson in a starring role.

It doesn't get more far fetched than that.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

namloc1980

Are we to take it no evidence or proof of basically anything is going to be presented to support the the "fake" Mars landing conspiracy?

ShatterAlan

kirving wrote: »

You obviously don't understand the technology in the slightest. It's not the camera that's low quality - they're within the most highly engineered cameras ever created.

Transmitting these images in high resolution is what takes time. Getting anything back from over 200 million kilometers away is an incredible achievement. Wait, and the high resolution pictures and data will come.

Well it should only take about 16 minutes for the images to reach Earth from 200million km away.

Hotblack Desiato

The poster was referring to the data rates available, not the speed of light, duh.

robinph

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well it should only take about 16 minutes for the images to reach Earth from 200million km away.

You have that time delay, plus add in that the amount of data that can be transmitted per second is about the same as you'd get if lucky over an analogue phone line 20 years ago, but the pictures being transmitted are high definition now. So they are trying to transfer modern high quality images over a connection about the same as what used to be frustratingly slow just dealing with the early Internet.

https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/communications/#:~:text=The data rate direct-to,2 million bits per second.

ShatterAlan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The poster was referring to the data rates available, not the speed of light, duh.

Don't be smarmy.


The poster also said getting anything back from 200 million km away is a great achievement. Is it? In this day and age?


"Duh?" How cutesy.

ShatterAlan

Wibbs wrote: »

Let's take this angle and say yep that's what the Americans did, they shot it all in a studio. OK. Now these days we're used to incredible special effects, computer generated mostly and high definition video etc. Slight problem, none of that existed in the 1960's. Not even close. They had film tech well established and down to a fine art and very high def, but herein lays the problem; TV and video footage.

To film the moon footage you need well, film cameras and they have rolls that that last around ten minutes of shooting before they have to be swapped out, even less if as suggested they were shooting the moon walks in slow motion(you have to speed up the camera). Now you could maybe double that time if you shoot at slower frame rates(like the onboard film cameras did during the LM decent stage), but that would totally screw up your slow motion bouncing on the moon stuff.

But OK let's say you get around that problem. Now you have to transfer many many hours of developed film onto videotape of the day(we'll ignore the developing film delay). So like in the old days of going to the cinema you'd need the NASA projectionist swapping rolls live on the fly throughout this process, while at the same time making it look live with near constant video feeds on the later missions for many hours at a time and sync it all to the live faked audio of the guys on the moon set and the guys on the ground including backroom scientists all reading from the exact same script. All that without any mistakes. And you'd have to feed that through a transmitter on or near the actual moon to keep the signal telemetry that the world, including America's enemies were monitoring, and do that for mission, after mission, after mission.

Never mind that even with the best of Hollywood cinema special effects technology today, we still can't make TV and Movie Apollo sequences look "real". Look at that Armstrong biopic First Man from 2018. Huge budget with the top professionals at the top of their game using all the tech available from model shots to CGI and usually both. The launch sequences look pretty convincing, the descent to the moon looks pretty good too(if over the top, cos Hollywood), right until the part where the moon itself is shown and then it looks wrong. The EVA moonwalk parts look fake as feck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1CgNrjVHBU

In essence in the late 1960's it was actually technically easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it.

For what it's worth I don't think the Apollo Moon Landings were faked. But then I have no proof that they were authentic OR that they were faked. I'm happy enough to take their word for it. The Chinese landed on the far side of the Moon a few years ago and they were the first to do this. I'll take their word for it too despite the fact that many say "you can't believe a word they say".


The Chinese landed on the "Dark Side of the Moon" ... true or not? I believe it's true.


The Chinese only had 5000 Covid deaths.... true or not? I also believe that's true.


Anyway to get back to the issue at hand, i.e. moon landings. You state that it would have been impossible to fake the footage as the technology in 1968 didn't exist to mock up something like this. How many movies have you seen from the 60's that showed convincing footage? The 1958 movie A Night To Remember, with Kenneth Moore about the Titanic sinking looked pretty scary and real to me and it was 10 years before 1968. How many real birds were in Hitchcock's "The Birds" in 1963? Maybe 3 or 4 but I could have sworn there were thousands.


So, as I was saying, I don't believe the moon landings were faked but I don't believe your insistence either that the footage could not have been faked.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The poster also said getting anything back from 200 million km away is a great achievement. Is it? In this day and age?

From a tech point of view the whole mission is pretty amazing. Below is proper video footage from landing on another planet, the sky-crane flying off is like something out of a sci-fi film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czjS9h4Fpg

And here is an interesting video just on the mini-helicopter on board the Perseverance and the engineering challenges surrounding it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhsZUZmJvaM

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

For what it's worth I don't think the Apollo Moon Landings were faked. But then I have no proof that they were authentic OR that they were faked. I'm happy enough to take their word for it.

There is a huge amount of proof and evidence and witnesses that we landed on the moon. There is no credible proof or evidence that anything else occurred or that the missions were faked.

Keeping that in mind, the fact that you seem to be treating it like it's 50/50 means you either know very little about the missions or that you may have difficulty interpreting information properly.

JJayoo

Since I have not personally been on the moon I don't believe anyone else has. I also feel this way about every country I haven't been in.

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

For what it's worth I don't think the Apollo Moon Landings were faked. But then I have no proof that they were authentic OR that they were faked. .

What proof so you have that the Earth is round?

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Anyway to get back to the issue at hand, i.e. moon landings. You state that it would have been impossible to fake the footage as the technology in 1968 didn't exist to mock up something like this. How many movies have you seen from the 60's that showed convincing footage? The 1958 movie A Night To Remember, with Kenneth Moore about the Titanic sinking looked pretty scary and real to me and it was 10 years before 1968. How many real birds were in Hitchcock's "The Birds" in 1963? Maybe 3 or 4 but I could have sworn there were thousands.
.

We've shown multiple examples of how the footage is impossible to fake using 60s technology. We've show that it's not possible to create the hours of slow motion footage needed. We've shown that there are effects that are impossible to replicate.

Are you deliberately ignoring those points and lying about them or did you just not read them?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

From a tech point of view the whole mission is pretty amazing. Below is proper video footage from landing on another planet, the sky-crane flying off is like something out of a sci-fi film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czjS9h4Fpg

And here is an interesting video just on the mini-helicopter on board the Perseverance and the engineering challenges surrounding it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhsZUZmJvaM

Impressive stuff, indeed. Except We're talking about transmitting from 200m k away. Not building something or launching something, or landing something or controlling something. So please don't deflect.



I would imagine that instructions and navigational commands can be sent to these probes and various vehicles. That being the case why is it so hard to believe that information can not be returned?


Again, I have no desire to doubt or question planetary or lunar landings/explorations but somebody complained that the footage was grainy and weak and someone else chimed in saying "it takes time to get images back from Mars"


Maybe it does. But it's no huge "achievement" to transmit over 200 million km when Voyager has been doing so since the 80's.

robinph

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Impressive stuff, indeed. Except We're talking about transmitting from 200m k away. Not building something or launching something, or landing something or controlling something. So please don't deflect.



I would imagine that instructions and navigational commands can be sent to these probes and various vehicles. That being the case why is it so hard to believe that information can not be returned?


Again, I have no desire to doubt or question planetary or lunar landings/explorations but somebody complained that the footage was grainy and weak and someone else chimed in saying "it takes time to get images back from Mars"


Maybe it does. But it's no huge "achievement" to transmit over 200 million km when Voyager has been doing so since the 80's.

It is when you have to power that transmission using a couple of tiny batteries. Every bit of data that you send back is one less bit of energy you can use for something else to operate your craft, if that is Voyager or a Mars rover. The Mars rovers can get some recharge from solar panels, but a dust storm and you are screwed.

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Maybe it does. But it's no huge "achievement" to transmit over 200 million km when Voyager has been doing so since the 80's.

There's no maybe about it.

You've been offered several sources that explain that this is the case and why it's the case. You clearly have no interest in actually learning about the issue.

JJayoo

Is it true that NASA transmits porn into space?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Again, I have no desire to doubt or question planetary or lunar landings/explorations but somebody complained that the footage was grainy and weak and someone else chimed in saying "it takes time to get images back from Mars"

The footage isn't "grainy", as that comment was moot. As for time taken, depends on the size of the photo/video. Data takes from 5 to 20 mins to travel from Mars back to Earth, but due to the bandwidth, a large photo/video will take extra time. The larger the file, the longer it takes. We had black/white basic landing photos within hours, and we had quality video within days of landing.

Kunta Kinte

JJayoo wrote: »

Is it true that NASA transmits porn into space?

Does this count as porn?

namloc1980

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Impressive stuff, indeed. Except We're talking about transmitting from 200m k away. Not building something or launching something, or landing something or controlling something. So please don't deflect.



I would imagine that instructions and navigational commands can be sent to these probes and various vehicles. That being the case why is it so hard to believe that information can not be returned?


Again, I have no desire to doubt or question planetary or lunar landings/explorations but somebody complained that the footage was grainy and weak and someone else chimed in saying "it takes time to get images back from Mars"


Maybe it does. But it's no huge "achievement" to transmit over 200 million km when Voyager has been doing so since the 80's.

Voyager transmits at about 160 bits per second. At that speed it would take about 72 hours to download a single compressed low quality image file of 5MB. A high quality image would take weeks to transmit.

Now for Mars, this first "grainy" images came though minutes after landing via the rover talking to the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter which was orbiting overhead. It has a data rate of c.0.5 to 4MB/s so again the first low quality images were posted almost immediately and would take 30s-3 minutes each to transmit and download. Higher quality images and videos would need time to be transmitted and processed.

It's not like they have a multi gigabit fibre optic connection to work with.

Imagine being underwhelmed by humanity sending robots to Mars to check for signs of life.

Whatever generation this is, it's truly the worst.

robinph

namloc1980 wrote: »

Voyager transmits at about 160 bits per second. At that speed it would take about 72 hours to download a single compressed low quality image file of 5MB. A high quality image would take weeks to transmit.

Now for Mars, this first "grainy" images came though minutes after landing via the rover talking to the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter which was orbiting overhead. It has a data rate of c.0.5 to 4MB/s so again the first low quality images were posted almost immediately and would take 30s-3 minutes each to transmit and download. Higher quality images and videos would need time to be transmitted and processed.

It's not like they have a multi gigabit fibre optic connection to work with.

Each of those 160 bits being the equivalent of using a pea shooter to try and hit a coin spinning on its edge, on a spinning roundabout in a kids playground that is 10 miles away, and it only counts if you hit the coin on the heads side.

ohnonotgmail

JJayoo wrote: »

Since I have not personally been on the moon I don't believe anyone else has. I also feel this way about every country I haven't been in.

I'm not even convinced about the existence of countries I have been in. They could all just be a massive Truman show style ruse.

Hotblack Desiato

Maybe Boards is just an increasingly nightmarish figment of my imagination :P


"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

From a tech point of view the whole mission is pretty amazing. Below is proper video footage from landing on another planet, the sky-crane flying off is like something out of a sci-fi film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czjS9h4Fpg

And here is an interesting video just on the mini-helicopter on board the Perseverance and the engineering challenges surrounding it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhsZUZmJvaM

We're not talking about the entire project. So please stop trying to complicate the issue.



I think everyone is in agreement that getting something, anything, to land intact on a planet or natural satellite is in fact an amazing achievement.



Getting data back is hardly as amazing as the OP claimed.


If the probe can be controlled from this end (200 million km away) then it's hardly magic that a static transmitter sending data back in the other direction is some kind of scientific miracle.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is a huge amount of proof and evidence and witnesses that we landed on the moon. There is no credible proof or evidence that anything else occurred or that the missions were faked.

Keeping that in mind, the fact that you seem to be treating it like it's 50/50 means you either know very little about the missions or that you may have difficulty interpreting information properly.

I'm not treating it as 50/50. Those are your words.


So again please stop trying to paint me into a corner with your games. I have no reason whatsoever to believe moon landings and Mars landings were faked but once again you are trying to insist I be "all or nothing", "with you or against you", per se.


The argument isn't on my part that extra-terretrial explorations were faked, it is that I am disputing yours and others assertions that the technology didn't exist to conduct such fakery.


So please try to take that on board.


I don't believe fairiies exist yet there was a very convincing photograph from maybe 100 years ago that showed them at the bottom of someone's garden.


So again, my stance is that I do not doubt lunar landings or the veracity of any other exploratory expedition beyond the "surly bonds" of Earth and I certainly am not vulgar as to accuse someone who has their doubts as someone who thinks the Earth is flat.


The technology exists to fake these images. And that's a fact. I don't want to hear anything about "why?" because I don't care. It has been stated that the technology does NOT exist. And that's my argument.

ShatterAlan

• robinph wrote: »

  It is when you have to power that transmission using a couple of tiny batteries. Every bit of data that you send back is one less bit of energy you can use for something else to operate your craft, if that is Voyager or a Mars rover. The Mars rovers can get some recharge from solar panels, but a dust storm and you are screwed.

Isn't Voyager still sending data back from beyond the outer reaches of the Solar System and it was sent on it's way in the 70's?

ohnonotgmail

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Isn't Voyager still sending data back from beyond the outer reaches of the Solar System and it was sent on it's way in the 70's?

the voyager craft used nuclear power.

ShatterAlan

namloc1980 wrote: »

Voyager transmits at about 160 bits per second. At that speed it would take about 72 hours to download a single compressed low quality image file of 5MB. A high quality image would take weeks to transmit.

Now for Mars, this first "grainy" images came though minutes after landing via the rover talking to the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter which was orbiting overhead. It has a data rate of c.0.5 to 4MB/s so again the first low quality images were posted almost immediately and would take 30s-3 minutes each to transmit and download. Higher quality images and videos would need time to be transmitted and processed.

It's not like they have a multi gigabit fibre optic connection to work with.

I'm not doubting your telecom/datacom breakdown. I'm a microelectronics engineer though I've never really given a toss about communications and latency and and crap like that.


Live pictures came back from the Moon 50 years ago. I know, it's a lot closer than Mars, but the transmission technology was also medieval back then compared to now...or maybe I'm wrong.


Maybe they're still using the 9v battery and a transmitter the size of a tea cup..


With that in mind, we can expect Hi-Def coloured images soon? Yes?

ShatterAlan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the voyager craft used nuclear power.

So does a luminous watch.


What's your point?

ohnonotgmail

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So does a luminous watch.


What's your point?

are you capable of civil discussion?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I'm not treating it as 50/50. Those are your words.

Fair enough, it came across as you just went with their word on it and nothing else

The technology exists to fake these images. And that's a fact. I don't want to hear anything about "why?" because I don't care. It has been stated that the technology does NOT exist. And that's my argument.

There's a strong argument that the technology didn't exist to fake the footage of the original moon landings. As pointed out in the below video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

With that in mind, we can expect Hi-Def coloured images soon? Yes?

High definition images have been sent back.

In the time it took you to write that you could have looked this information up, takes seconds.

ShatterAlan

robinph wrote: »

It is when you have to power that transmission using a couple of tiny batteries. Every bit of data that you send back is one less bit of energy you can use for something else to operate your craft, if that is Voyager or a Mars rover. The Mars rovers can get some recharge from solar panels, but a dust storm and you are screwed.

I bet the thousands of physicists never thought of a dust storm.


Escape velocity, freezing temperatures, solar flare interference, capture orbit, descent, ....safe descent...gear is still working. Bang we're on the Red Planet.


Took account of all that...the acidity of the soil, the density of the rock. The thing landed in an open plain and the Earth-bound operators can see around in nearly real time to override the thing if it winds up on its back in a ravine or wedged between two rocks.


"Oh FUCK....a sandstrom. Mission OVER. Let's try again next year"

namloc1980

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I bet the thousands of physicists never thought of a dust storm.


Escape velocity, freezing temperatures, solar flare interference, capture orbit, descent, ....safe descent...gear is still working. Bang we're on the Red Planet.


Took account of all that...the acidity of the soil, the density of the rock. The thing landed in an open plain and the Earth-bound operators can see around in nearly real time to override the thing if it winds up on its back in a ravine or wedged between two rocks.


"Oh FUCK....a sandstrom. Mission OVER. Let's try again next year"

What are you talking about? Perseverance is powered by a radioisotope thermoelectrical generator, in essence nuclear powered. You're being absolutely ridiculous.

JJayoo

Is Matt Damon still up there?

Dr. Bre

JJayoo wrote: »

Is Matt Damon still up there?

Na he’s in Dalkey

Dohnjoe

namloc1980 wrote: »

Voyager transmits at about 160 bits per second. At that speed it would take about 72 hours to download a single compressed low quality image file of 5MB. A high quality image would take weeks to transmit.

Now for Mars, this first "grainy" images came though minutes after landing via the rover talking to the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter which was orbiting overhead. It has a data rate of c.0.5 to 4MB/s so again the first low quality images were posted almost immediately and would take 30s-3 minutes each to transmit and download. Higher quality images and videos would need time to be transmitted and processed.

It's not like they have a multi gigabit fibre optic connection to work with.

Also should also be mentioned that the Perseverance (or any rover) has countless checks to perform once it lands and in the subsequent days/weeks. It's not a race to get images back, there's a queue along with everything else that has to be done. That said, it's been quite rapid, we received some nice video footage within days of landing

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The thing landed in an open plain and the Earth-bound operators can see around in nearly real time to override the thing if it winds up on its back in a ravine or wedged between two rocks.

No, no Landers or probes could have "nearly real time" communication with mission control.
It takes up to 20 mins for signals to travel between Earth and Mars. When they are watching the feeds from the landings they are watching something that's already happened 20 minutes ago.
This is by no definition "real time".

Additionally in landings like Curiosity and Perservence, mission control can't intervene. The landings are entirely automatic and computer controlled. The computers are programmed and designed to find a good landing site.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

"Oh FUCK....a sandstrom. Mission OVER. Let's try again next year"

The Opportunity rover was designed to last 90 days on Mars. It lasted for 14 years.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Let's take this angle and say yep that's what the Americans did, they shot it all in a studio. OK. Now these days we're used to incredible special effects, computer generated mostly and high definition video etc. Slight problem, none of that existed in the 1960's. Not even close. They had film tech well established and down to a fine art and very high def, but herein lays the problem; TV and video footage.

To film the moon footage you need well, film cameras and they have rolls that that last around ten minutes of shooting before they have to be swapped out, even less if as suggested they were shooting the moon walks in slow motion(you have to speed up the camera). Now you could maybe double that time if you shoot at slower frame rates(like the onboard film cameras did during the LM decent stage), but that would totally screw up your slow motion bouncing on the moon stuff.

But OK let's say you get around that problem. Now you have to transfer many many hours of developed film onto videotape of the day(we'll ignore the developing film delay). So like in the old days of going to the cinema you'd need the NASA projectionist swapping rolls live on the fly throughout this process, while at the same time making it look live with near constant video feeds on the later missions for many hours at a time and sync it all to the live faked audio of the guys on the moon set and the guys on the ground including backroom scientists all reading from the exact same script. All that without any mistakes. And you'd have to feed that through a transmitter on or near the actual moon to keep the signal telemetry that the world, including America's enemies were monitoring, and do that for mission, after mission, after mission.

Never mind that even with the best of Hollywood cinema special effects technology today, we still can't make TV and Movie Apollo sequences look "real". Look at that Armstrong biopic First Man from 2018. Huge budget with the top professionals at the top of their game using all the tech available from model shots to CGI and usually both. The launch sequences look pretty convincing, the descent to the moon looks pretty good too(if over the top, cos Hollywood), right until the part where the moon itself is shown and then it looks wrong. The EVA moonwalk parts look fake as feck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1CgNrjVHBU

In essence in the late 1960's it was actually technically easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it.

Interesting points, for the time of the transmissions you were dealing with low resolution greyscale black and white TVs, and the reception is quite grainy.

Also the footage of said landing could be done weeks or months in advance.

https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/germany-landing-on-the-moon-on-television-screen-on-the-news-photo/549548081?adppopup=true

https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/television-screen-grab-from-a-cbs-news-special-report-shows-news-photo/85737792?adppopup=true

https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/screen-capture-from-a-cbs-news-special-report-depicts-news-photo/85747232?adppopup=true

Im not saying they didn't go, just saying it could be faked.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Imagine being underwhelmed by humanity sending robots to Mars to check for signs of life.

Whatever generation this is, it's truly the worst.

I've been thinking about this and I reckon if you're the type of person who believes in inter dimensional vampire shape shifting lizards are controlling the world... I can see why Mars missions might feel underwhelming.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting points, for the time of the transmissions you were dealing with low resolution greyscale black and white TVs, and the reception is quite grainy.

Also the footage of said landing could be done weeks or months in advance.

Im not saying they didn't go, just saying it could be faked.

But no, it couldn't have been faked.
For example, it was not possible to porduce the amount of slow motion footage required.

It was not possible to replicate certain effects of the lunar environment.

And this is before considering that it would be impossible to hide an operation to fake the landings.

It is not reasonable to consider the possibility that it was faked. You might as well be considering the possibility that the Earth is flat.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Interesting points, for the time of the transmissions you were dealing with low resolution greyscale black and white TVs, and the reception is quite grainy.

Also the footage of said landing could be done weeks or months in advance.

https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/germany-landing-on-the-moon-on-television-screen-on-the-news-photo/549548081?adppopup=true

https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/television-screen-grab-from-a-cbs-news-special-report-shows-news-photo/85737792?adppopup=true

https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/screen-capture-from-a-cbs-news-special-report-depicts-news-photo/85747232?adppopup=true

Im not saying they didn't go, just saying it could be faked.

If it was faked, why didn't the USSR expose them? They had the means. They had the technology. They had the motive. But they chose not to.

Why?

ohnonotgmail

King Mob wrote: »

But no, it couldn't have been faked.
For example, it was not possible to porduce the amount of slow motion footage required.

It was not possible to replicate certain effects of the lunar environment.

And this is before considering that it would be impossible to hide an operation to fake the landings.

It is not reasonable to consider the possibility that it was faked. You might as well be considering the possibility that the Earth is flat.

you also have to completely ignore the fact that we let items on the moon that we can interact with from earth.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

Also the footage of said landing could be done weeks or months in advance.

And you then have to launch the transmitter of that video taped footage to the moon and successfully land it there in advance without being noticed by anyone else so that you can then transmit those signals from the surface of the moon, because that is where the various observatories around the world ( I think mostly Australia) are going to be looking for the signal to be coming from. You also have to have the radio signals of the craft during the flight to the moon being transmitted from the correct places in the sky at the correct time as other countries will be watching for that as well.

ohnonotgmail

robinph wrote: »

And you then have to launch the transmitter of that video taped footage to the moon and successfully land it there in advance without being noticed by anyone else so that you can then transmit those signals from the surface of the moon, because that is where the various observatories around the world ( I think mostly Australia) are going to be looking for the signal to be coming from. You also have to have the radio signals of the craft during the flight to the moon being transmitted from the correct places in the sky at the correct time as other countries will be watching for that as well.

It is really odd that the russians were listening in to the communications signals from Apollo 11 and never told the rest of the world that they weren't coming from the moon.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

And you then have to launch the transmitter of that video taped footage to the moon and successfully land it there in advance without being noticed by anyone else so that you can then transmit those signals from the surface of the moon, because that is where the various observatories around the world ( I think mostly Australia) are going to be looking for the signal to be coming from. You also have to have the radio signals of the craft during the flight to the moon being transmitted from the correct places in the sky at the correct time as other countries will be watching for that as well.

And then you'd also have to somehow get lunar samples back from the moon to be independently confirmed.

Once, a conspiracy theorists claimed that there was a second second space program to develop an autonomous rover that could operate in secret, retrieve the samples and return to Earth whilst being hidden in the descent stage of the lunar lander.

Hotblack Desiato

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If the probe can be controlled from this end (200 million km away) then it's hardly magic that a static transmitter sending data back in the other direction is some kind of scientific miracle.

But at this end, you can use as much transmission power as you like, not so on the probe.

At this end you can make the antenna as big as you like, not so on the probe

At this end it's easy to aim the antenna accurately, not so on the probe...

namloc1980 wrote: »

What are you talking about? Perseverance is powered by a radioisotope thermoelectrical generator, in essence nuclear powered. You're being absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, a whole 110 watts at launch, which will decay over time... the radio is at best a few watts. Radio enthusiasts consider it a major achievement to communicate in morse code from one side of the earth to the other using a few watts of power.

ShatterAlan

I just watched the BBC about this asteroid that has come so close to Earth.



There was an MIT professor also giving his 2 cents worth.


There was "footage" of the surface of this asteroid. I'm just wondering where this footage came from. Pretty skillful to get a probe up into space and film an asteroid. Lot of money too I would imagine.


Allegedly there's also one that was discovered 2 days ago :eek:


In conclusion the newsreader asked "how could we be be prepared" and the MIT professor said "well on way would be to get a space craft up and nudge it off course"


This was on the BBC News.

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

There was "footage" of the surface of this asteroid. I'm just wondering where this footage came from. Pretty skillful to get a probe up into space and film an asteroid. Lot of money too I would imagine.

Why do you say that it's footage of that asteroid?

It wasn't. It was probably footage from one of the many asteroid missions there have been in the last few years.
You just assumed they were claiming it was footage of the asteroid they were talking about because you didn't understand the concept of illustrative purposes and you didn't bother to check into the footage.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Allegedly there's also one that was discovered 2 days ago :eek:

What do you mean by "allegedly"?
Are you claiming that it wasn't discovered then?

ShatterAlan wrote: »

In conclusion the newsreader asked "how could we be be prepared" and the MIT professor said "well on way would be to get a space craft up and nudge it off course"


This was on the BBC News.

That isn't really a conclusion you're reaching there.

What exactly is your point? And what has this report to do with the silly notion that Mars/space missions are faked?