While the
shuttle Endeavour is having a tough time getting off of the launch pad, the Apollo 11 moon mission should proceed as scheduled later this week. Some 40 years after Neil Armstrong and a host of behind-the-scenes workers at
NASA made JFK's vision a reality, WeChooseTheMoon.org is being launched to recreate the whole spectacle. Starting a full 90 minutes prior to the 40th anniversary (that's 8:02AM on July 16th), the site will be fully operational, tracking the capsule's route from Earth to the moon. Reportedly, visitors will be able to peek "animated recreations of key events from the four-day mission, including when Apollo 11 first orbits the moon and when the lunar module separates from the command module." If you're one of those who remembers "exactly where you were on that fateful day," you should probably queue up a Google alert and bookmark your browser to relive the whole experience again.
posted Jul 13th 2009 9:19AM
wow, looks like they had to circle the moon to find a good parking spot.
I hope this website explains the fact that they staged the entire lunar landing event.
Then they fired off robots to make marks in the sand (or paid telescope makers to blue the landing site) ?
Why is it that it has been 40 years and we can't land another craft on the moon with humans aboard ?
We can send robotic explorers to Mars but have not been able to do much with the moon for such a long time.
Hoax?
Yeah I can't help but believe it was a hoax. There's just too much that's wrong with the original footage and photographs.
I think it's mainly to do with cost. What is there to do there if we don't have the technology to make any sort of settlement? The most we could do is straighten the flag.
I don't think it's that we can't.. more like it's not worth the effort.
We have had no scientific or political reason to do it again.
Money, plain and simple.
At the time the US and Russia were deeply at odds and the Cold War was building up. NASA had 5.5% of the federal budget - or in other words, a HECK of a lot more than it does now - at the time of the Apollo 11 mission. Currently, the budget is 0.52%, more than ten times less. Now, arguably the defence budget (though MASSIVE compared to NASA's) probably contributes a small amount to NASA's research. Though NASA is a non-military organisation in principal, it certainly has ties with companies like Lockheed-Martin and Northrop-Grumman who are major players in the aeronautics and military fields.
The Apollo missions were some of the most expensive machines ever built, with a rough cost of $136 billion (in today's money) for the final cost of the program. Nasa, at the moment gets slightly under $20 billion which is why they take so much more care over safety and reliability - it's not just employee health, it's the fact that if they screw up a mission, they've most likely blown a good proportion of the budget for that year.
Simply put, it is woefully naive to say that NASA gets too much money. Fact remains that they get a relative pittance for such a scientifically important organisation.
There are other associated problems, like need. At the time, landing on the moon was exactly what the world needed to see America do, and it's what America needed to give itself a morale boost. There are no doubt plenty of people who think that we should establish a permanent base on the moon, or at least go back there. The fact remains that for that kind of cost, we can do quite a lot of the actual studying with robots that cost a fraction of the amount. We could just go on the basis of cultural enrichment and exploration, but sadly a lot of this is wasted when we can send a satellite that can show the surface at 3m resolution (Google Earth is 2m tops i think?).
Oh and to pick up on what we've done with the moon?
Hiten, Hagoromo, SELENE, Clementine, Lunar Prospector, SMART 1, Chang'e 1, Chandrayaan-1, Lunar Recon Orbiter, etc.
China is planning on launching a rover in 2012, the above missions were all successful bar the LRO which only launched a month ago. They did things like map the moon with greater accuracy, investigate impact characteristics, etc Just look on wikipedia and you'll find lots of information about past and future missions. It's not like we've sat idle, it's just that sending humans is expensive and risky when we can send robots to do it better and for less. The only upside of sending humans is getting a wider variety of data back, and of course getting moon rock back :)
Yes it was all a hoax. And the earth is flat, and sits in the center of the universe. BTW... be very careful if you go on a cruise... my cousins friend fell of the earth when thier ship got too close to the edge.
Because they haven't been actively trying to send a man back for 40 years? They've been working on the Constellation program for only 5 years or so.
Hoax or not, does it really matter? We're all in the Matrix anyways, so try and remember the truth, there is no moon....
besides the massive cost, and contrary to the "hoax" idiots, we already went there five times.. If we weren't going to build an major outpost, what was the point of spending all the money to go back again? While I wish we would have progressed far further than we did in the last 40 years, the truth is a lot of progress has been made in LOE building the space station.
Because taxpayers didn't/don't want to pay for science they are too stupid to understand fully.
Hoax? No!
A shame and crime against the human spirit of exploration that the achievement has not been built upon with a well thought out, progressive space program, yes!
"If you're one of those who remembers "exactly where you were on that fateful day," you should probably queue up a Google alert and bookmark your browser to relive the whole experience again"
Fateful? They died?
Fateful |ˈfātfəl| (adj): having far-reaching and typically disastrous consequences or implications : a fateful oversight. See note at ominous.
See Antonyms:
momentous |mōˈmen(t)əs; məˈ-| (adj): (of a decision, event, or change) of great importance or significance, esp. in its bearing on the future : a period of momentous changes in East-West relations.
Thanks Dan. Maybe death doesn't come into it, but what were the "typically disastrous consequences or implications" of the moon landings?
key word is 'typically'. means not necessarily disastrous.
Those were the days. People actually did things instead of sitting around with their thumbs up their butts. Now NASA is reduced to CGA moon missions.
Funny thing is, there was a guy in the 1960's saying the same thing about steam engine.
@Ed T: CGI
@fanman: citation needed.
GREAT!! What Movie director will direct this landing. The last time a couple years ago, they didnt tell you who directed it. Maybe because it was too many people involved in the 60's. With all the CG graphics and studio props you'd think they could "pull it off" even better this time.
Who was it that sent out the camera on the tripod that caught the first steps on camera?
Were those the real "first steps"? Did an astronaut go out there and setup the camera to capture the first steps?
These are valid questions. I am not trying to tarnish anyone's pride.
it was a camera attached to the side/one of the legs of the lunar lander
You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had a television and a still camera mounted to it.
Honestly, all of the people crying hoax need to pack up and stop talking to the rest of the world. It's so amazingly ignorant to continue to say something was a hoax based on nothing more than some weird need to criticize and conjure up conspiracy stories. The camera being setup to take the shot as a basis? The shadows? CG? Radiation poisoning? Airbrushed steps in photos? It is all laughable.
I can't wait till China heads up there and on their camera you see an American flag, so then we can hear your little theories how the US and China must be allied to fool the world or some bs. We have all seen the specials and heard the hoax arguments and if you have the ability to be rational you would know that its crackpots spewing trash. Move on to your theories on anal probing by aliens or some other junk.
Here's proof!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0
Mondo cool. And, yes, I do remember the day they took off, the day they landed on the moon and walked around, and the day they returned safely. It was no hoax, it was real, and given that they had the processing power of a pocket calculator to do it with, it boggles the mind today.
Enough with the conspiracy theories. I'll bet most of the deniers weren't even around to have seen the original TV images in 1969. That would make you at least 40 years old.
"Filed under: Transportation" it says on the RSS-feed. Shouldn't that be "Exploration" instead? I mean, going to the moon isnt actually a transport that everyone could take advantage of and the whole idea of going to the moon is "Exploration"...
Oh please, not that tired old "moon landing were a hoax!!!!!" chestnut again. It's quite frankly insulting to the enormous number of great scientists and engineers who worked their butts off to successfully complete one of the greatest challenges of the century.
For those who have been deceived by the ones desperate to sell you their book, here's a great debunking of their claims. Basically pretty much every "proof" the have has been shot down. There's plenty more sceptical reason-based analysis of this issue out there too.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
There's also a mythbusters episode available that does much the same thing.
The problem is that the "true believers" won't accept evidence, they "know" what's true and will just repeat the same argument, and are in no way interested in even listening to any rebuttal. It's a point of faith; evidence that contradicts that faith shouldn't be even listened to. You can explain again and again that the reason you don't see stars in the film is that it's daylight, and the exposure settings won't show stars any more than taking a photo with a big flash under large floodlights at night would show stars, and the next thing they'll come back with will be "yeah, well why are there no stars in the pictures?"
Either that, or they'll be convinced that I'm a part of this deep, dark conspiracy. Or that looking at the evidence and thinking about it proves that my mind isn't "open", because apparently a properly "open" mind takes their arguments at face value and doesn't question them. Personally I think it's a much bigger leap of faith to assume that they managed to convince every other nation on earth, including the Soviet Union (who had enough spies, probes, regular and radio telescopes and other instruments to keep a close watch on what was really happening) to go along with it. Or that "they" can fake a massive program involving hundreds of thousands of people but can't cover up consensual naughtyness in the Oval Office, one of the most secure rooms on earth.
"The problem is that the "true believers" won't accept evidence, they "know" what's true and will just repeat the same argument, and are in no way interested in even listening to any rebuttal."
Just like Liberals ;)
It's not a matter of politics. And the Liberal Democrats are no more immune or liable to this than Labour or the Conservative Parties.
Oh, you're taking US "liberals". While a few of them do suffer from this, from the eyes of an interested but uninvolved viewer, they suffer from it a lot less than the US right-wing, who seem to believe in all kinds of things, including the nonsense that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that the US President is a foreign fundamentalist muslim, and that he is somehow a "communist" [like they've ever actually met a communist], and they too absolutely refuse to listen to evidence.
Let's leave politics out of this from now on, or this thread will immidately derail.
It's about the phenomenal act of national brilliance the USA had in landing on the moon, which even a British citizen such as myself can heartily applaud and praise without reservations. Your previous generation of engineers succeeded magnificently - as well as the current generation in the IT industry did in their own field - and both groups helped shape the world into what it was today. They deserve respect, for they earned it.
Totally agreed. People who believe in this hoax theory use some pretty terrible arguments for it. All of these arguments have no scientific credibility. They've seen one history channel special on it or have a crack uncle that made them believe. Now they cannot be convinced because its 'cool' to think that it didn't happen. Please for the love of the invisible pink unicorn look up the scientific explanations for your so called hoax indicators.
Mythbusters is one thing, try reading about it. Actually read about the physics of being in a world that isn't the earth. Then pull your head out of your ass.
The reasoning that we've not been back since the 70s, so it has to be fake, is entirely an uneducated explanation. My guess is that most of you don't remember the Cold War and what it actually meant. Neither country would stop at nothing to win. Cost was not a barrier as it is today.
""The problem is that the "true believers" won't accept evidence, they "know" what's true and will just repeat the same argument, and are in no way interested in even listening to any rebuttal."
Just like Liberals ;)"
You could just as easily substitute Liberals with Global Warming crowd. They absolutely know the Earth is warming and no real world experience is allowed to contradict their computer models or the word of their High Priest Al Gore.
What the hell, did Drudge Report link to this article or something?
Pete, I applaud your post up there on the hoax issue.
That was awesome! The oval office statement made a perfect point!
I knew it wouldn't take long for people to jump on this thinking I was simply attacking "them".
I also can't wait until we have Astronauts leaping and bounding on the surface of of the moon again. All I see are harnessed Astronauts working on the Hubble or on the space station. Space exploration should be left to Hollywood. They are better at it than NASA. :)
That is all kinds of awesome.
Only a pure idiot or pathetic paranoid still believes in the 'moon landing' hoax. Anyone with the slightest scientific background,common sense, or actually watched these missions when they happened knows the wonder, joy, and sheer pride in seeing what people can do when presented with a challenge and given the resources to accomplish great things. It's not only an insult to everyone involved in the space program to insinuate some grand deception, it's also a message to everyone that your thinking and reasoning doesn't extend further than the latest trash tabloid. Proof? How about when David Scott, during the mission on the lunar surface, dropped the hammer and falcon feather and they hit the surface at the same time; proving Galileo's hypothesis about falling bodies. How could he have done that on earth? Did they also construct a stadium size vacuum chamber? http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html
Woo Hoo I cannot wait to view the same fake landing and now in CG. Give me a break. They didn't even have the technology to land on the damn moon. Radiation alone would have killed the astronauts and penetrated the shuttle. What a damn Joke. Funny how we never went there again. By now if we really did land on the moon then there would be some kind of station built there.
I have to agree with you. They would be using it as a platform to put other craft / satellites into space.
We are still using the same crude rocket propulsion. Once we lose that archaic design will it be possible.
I don't care if you are 60 years old and think it happened. You being senile does not help the situation at all.
They didn't use the shuttle. That wasn't built yet.
By radiation, I assume that you're talking about the Van Allen radiation belts. For an analysis of radiation received and how it is not a dangerous dose:
http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
For more information, the Biomedical Results from Apollo:
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
Unless you have some actual evidence, as opposed to unsubstantiated wild accusations, I am not convinced.
this is science, not non-verifiable speculation.
The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth's magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts.
It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem.
Science. And yes, I copied and pasted this information from a website. But look it up and verify this information before you pass it off. It is verified data about Van Allen and the actual radiation levels.
Honestly do you believe everything on the internet / tv? Who is today that they shuttle and suits were built and designed correctly. We are talking about the 60s here people. Also, our technology from then has yet to exceed any amazing boundaries. US had to make this moon landing because politically they were losing against Russia. It’s common damn sense. And on top of it, why hasn't china or Russia traveled yet to the moon. Are they banned from there because we supposedly put the US flag on it. You give me one good reason besides money why we never sent anyone there again? Or even built a research facility? There should be no price tag too big for modern day advancement. Imagine if we really cold send a space ship up there to travel anywhere.
Also there are 100s more reasons why that moon landing was staged. The pictures alone were fake, have you ever seen picture crop markers half above and half under?
Microprocessors, nuff said
@ Heem
In regards to your "picture crop markers" those were on the lens of the camera. We are dealing with '60s state of the art camera film. That happens when the film is over-exposed. The white (over-exposed areas) bleed into the darker non-exposed areas. Take a photography class bud.
Heem:
The picture issue? It's called bleed. Overexposure causes the white parts of the picture to bleed over into the black crosshairs. Did you think they'd somehow painted crosshairs on the back of the film set and forgot that the foreground would get in the way? Or decided to add crosshairs afterwards, but messed it up instead of just using a camera with crosshairs? And then nobody noticed it so they released it anyway?
Either they are incompetent boobs who messed up their fakery - and yet somehow managed to convince the scientific and military might of the Soviet Union that it was all real - or there's a simple, non-dramatic, non-consipiracy explanation. Considering the amount of evidence that the moon landings were real (eyewitness accounts, radar, telescopes, radio, moon rocks, reflectors left on the moon we can still bounce lasers off today, etc etc) then you need a lot more than a non-issue like that to raise questions.
Oh, I don't take everything I read, hear or watch for granted - but I still believe in some things. For example, I believe that Las Vegas exists, in spite of having never been there or seen it with my own eyes. There's enough evidence from other sources to convince me that Las Vegas is real, even though it could all be a big hoax aimed at folling me for some dark, unknown reason. It's a matter of balancing what evidence you have, considering where it comes from, and considering the likelihood of the source being corrupted or in error. I'm not willing to believe that every reference to Las Vegas in fiction, history, the news, sports, entertainment, etc etc is all faked by a central mystery conspiracy that controls all that media. I'm not willing to believe that all the tons of evidence of the moon landings from different sources, including multiple non-US sources, is all under conspiritorial control either.
Finally, Russia dropped its moon program because it lost the race, and immediately went into "meh, we don't care, it's not important to us" mode rather than spend loads more money for very little glory. China in the 1960's could not do it. China now can, and has started a moon program; but no nation is willing to spend as aggressively now on a manned space program as the USA was back then. You may think that there's no price tag too big for the research, but trust me, you're in the minority. Money was a good enough reason to cancel a great many things. If you really need another reason, it was becasue the technology was just about possible then, and was not mature enough nor advanced enough to do much more than what was done. Moonbases with Apollo-tech wasn't going to happen; we might just about be able to do it today, but there are still challenges, not the least of which is, unfortunately, cost.