|
Post by blackstar on Aug 21, 2010 13:29:50 GMT -4
On a more general point fireballs when you've asked questions here about Apollo people have been able to go down into the finest level of detail without hesitation. Try getting the same level of answers on an HB site but if you do be prepared for some bad language and name calling.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 21, 2010 13:36:51 GMT -4
It would be a useful exercise to compute how big a launch vehicle you would need to return a certain amount of material from the moon. Anything that is to make it back to earth intact has to fly through the atmosphere at speeds approximating the earth's escape velocity (11.2 km/sec). That requires a fairly sturdy structure enclosed by a heat shield. The heavier the payload, the heavier this re-entry vehicle. This return capsule must also be launched off the surface of the moon to at least the moon's escape velocity of 2.38 km/sec. That takes fuel, the amount depending on the performance of the rocket and the mass of the return capsule. Return capsules and the fuel to launch them aren't available locally on the moon, so they must first be landed there. They don't work too well after impacting at a few km/sec so they have to be landed softly. Parachutes are great for landing things softly on earth, but they're useless in the moon's vacuum so you have to do a powered descent that takes more fuel and probably another rocket engine. And to get the return capsule, its fuel and its rocket engines for the soft landing and return launch, in the vicinity of the moon in the first place, it must be launched from earth toward the moon at nearly the earth's escape velocity of 11.2 km/sec. That requires even more fuel and even bigger rockets. So run all the numbers and calculate, for every kg of material to be returned from the moon, how much the heavier the launch vehicle had to be as it sat on its pad waiting to fly to the moon. Simply going by what the Soviets did, they launched their Luna 16, 20 and 24 missions on a Proton rocket - launch mass 700,000 kg. Each of those missions returned about 0.1 kg of lunar material. That's a 7,000,000-to-1 ratio.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 21, 2010 18:30:48 GMT -4
I can see where everyone is coming from with their responses. They are all good posts, but I'm not convinced regarding the LRRR and the way we got the rocks. My main objections are the same. It's possible that the rocks were collected by rovers; if NASA 'landed men on the moon' they could very well have landed 6 rovers to collect rocks. Rovers could also have been used for the mirrors. The Russians did it, so could we. Sorry if I sound snotty or something of that sort. I just don't know another way to express my position Here's an update on my views: -Moon rocks are really from the moon - Russians had capabilities to track us, and probably did. For some reason this doesn't seal it for me though. Thank you everyone for all the help so far though
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Aug 21, 2010 18:41:38 GMT -4
You're not convinced, but can't tell us why.
Sounds familiar.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 21, 2010 18:55:54 GMT -4
It's possible that the rocks were collected by rovers; if NASA 'landed men on the moon' they could very well have landed 6 rovers to collect rocks. But where is the evidence that rovers were used? Why do you choose to believe something that there is no evidence for when there is an alternate explanation that makes perfect sense and has supporting evidence? If robots were used then there would be people who designed, built, tested, and launched them. There would also be the people who recovered the robots after they returned to Earth. But none of these people have ever come forward to expose this secret? That is simply impossible for me to believe, but you seem to believe it is more likely than the idea that NASA is telling the truth. Why? What is it about NASA that you find so untrustworthy?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Aug 21, 2010 19:04:05 GMT -4
I can see where everyone is coming from with their responses. They are all good posts, but I'm not convinced regarding the LRRR and the way we got the rocks. My main objections are the same. It's possible that the rocks were collected by rovers; if NASA 'landed men on the moon' they could very well have landed 6 rovers to collect rocks. Rovers could also have been used for the mirrors. The Russians did it, so could we. Yes, but why?Why, if you can land men on the moon, and you have said you are going to, would you then turn around and not do so? The answer to this one is really important, so I'd like you to think about it a lot before replying. Also, you still haven't answered this one: Why do you feel that the mere possibility of something other than the historical record occurring negates entirely the mere possibility that the historical record is wholly accurate? You have made the profoundly illogical leap from "someone might have funded an ultra-top-secret project to develop sample return probes several orders of magnitude more capable than any other before or since then completely discarded the technology" to "the Apollo missions were faked because robot rovers could have done it." Why does that sound like a plausible chain of reasoning to you?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Aug 21, 2010 19:05:58 GMT -4
Sorry if I sound snotty or something of that sort. I just don't know another way to express my position I'll give you a hint then. Many members have put considerable effort in answering your posts in great detail. Answering these people individually specifying what you acknowledge and what not and why would be politeness in my book.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 21, 2010 19:09:48 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 21, 2010 19:13:46 GMT -4
I can see where everyone is coming from with their responses. They are all good posts, but I'm not convinced regarding the LRRR and the way we got the rocks. My main objections are the same. It's possible that the rocks were collected by rovers; if NASA 'landed men on the moon' they could very well have landed 6 rovers to collect rocks. Rovers could also have been used for the mirrors. The Russians did it, so could we. Sorry if I sound snotty or something of that sort. I just don't know another way to express my position Here's an update on my views: -Moon rocks are really from the moon - Russians had capabilities to track us, and probably did. For some reason this doesn't seal it for me though. Thank you everyone for all the help so far though I really don't get where you are coming from at this point Fireballs; no HB has ever offered so much as a back of an envelope sketch of such a robot collector, they've never come up with so much as one person who even claimed to have worked on such a probe. On the other hand there are photos, video, and radio evidence that amply supports the reality that Apollo landed astronauts on the moon who collected these samples. As I pointed out earlier, the Russian probes essentially brought back dust, Apollo brought back rocks and 2 metre core samples. It's simply impossible for a handful of probes to have returned such material. What then I have to ask makes the Hoax theory still worth taking seriously for you? Especially when there is such a disparity in the weight of evidence on each side, in fact there is zero evidence on the HB side.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Aug 21, 2010 19:45:15 GMT -4
I can see where everyone is coming from with their responses. They are all good posts, ... I'm curious to know, how you can tell that the posts are good? How do you know that the posters are not just pulling your leg - or simply plain wrong?
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 21, 2010 19:54:24 GMT -4
I'll try to answer these questions. It seems the most popular ones are "where is the evidence for your claims?", "why don't you trust NASA/believe them?" and "why are you (I) still skeptical?" 1) there really is no evidence, yet for some reason (can't put my finger on it) I remain skeptical. It must be my nature to question. Or it's sub-conscience, no joke. But I can't put my finger on it. 2) why don't I trust NASA? I do- for most things. But they are a government agency. So I suppose this question really comes down to "how much do you trust your government?" I trust them, but at the same time they are the government. What I'm saying is they can and do hide things from us, especially in the military. How much do I trust my government... I trust them with the essentials, such as protecting my rights, etc. 3) why do I remain skeptical? I guess #1 answers this... Please keep in mind that I'm not here to troll. Though I can imagine that by now it must sound like I am, and I apologize. Just try to bear with me, but I understand if you can't (no sarcasm intended). Lastly, thanks for the help! I'll reply to the other points raised later, as I'm short for time, but I will get to them.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 21, 2010 19:59:37 GMT -4
Forgot to add- you guys really are helping and are chipping away at my skepticism. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 21, 2010 20:02:07 GMT -4
It must be my nature to question. Questioning things is fine, but when all the evidence says "the sky is blue" it is pretty ridiculous to say "I still think it might be green." The government is made up of regular people like you and me. They have no interest in doing things that ultimately hurt the country. Nope, not really.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 21, 2010 20:12:30 GMT -4
Sorry for being late to the discussion.
The reasons they can't have been remotely collect are two:
1. The sheer volume of samples collected (Apollo - 382 kg versus Luna - 320 grams); and
2. The type of samples collected.
Remotely collected samples were basically regolith, the "topsoil". Apollo not only returned similar, but a large amount of large 'rocks' and more importantly, core samples. The core samples were very difficult to obtain and reach down to a depth that COULD NOT (and possibly still cannot?) be obtained remotely.
These facts alone are some of the strongest proof of the reality of the Apollo manned lunar landings.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 21, 2010 20:14:23 GMT -4
Fireballs, would you mind answering my question about whether you believe the Apollo flights prior to 11 were real? And have you looked at the videos/transcripts/photographs/ of the reflector deployments or not?
|
|