Why has no one been on the moon since 1972?

[thesaint sfc]

I appreciate this has probably already been covered, but it genuinely baffles me why anyone would believe we actually went there?

 

Here it is over 20 years later. We now have several space shuttles and the most advanced computers to date. It's hard to believe that with each new improvement to telescopes, and electron-microscopes, not to mention dating processes the moon has absolutely no value to us scientifically. In addition 1970's technology did not allow us to study the shaded side. We left no permenant scientific instrumentation to gather any data, whether it be worthless or invaluable. We just planted a flag and took some rocks.

 

Dog posted some photos recently which furthermore suggests we never went there, with shadows in the wrong places and what not.

 

I really struggle to believe that its because the US don't want the expenditure! I'm sure if it was possible Richard Branson would be making a space ship in the shape of a large penis and flying it to the moon, whatever the costs!

[skintsaint]

Dr Evil setup a moonbase there a few years back I believe.

 

Oops this isnt the muppet forum part, err well there is more evidence suggesting we did get to the moon and I cant believe it is one big cover up. As someone suggested before, in the cold war, if the US didnt make it to the moon then the Russians would have said something about it im sure.

Edited 20 July, 2009 by skintsaint

[Thedelldays]

 

Dog posted some photos recently which furthermore suggests we never went there, with shadows in the wrong places and what not.

 

!

how do you know they are in the wrong place..?

 

you been into space lately..?

 

 

anyone who believes it was all faked up is a loser

[scott_saints]

FAO: People who believe the moon landings were faked.

 

F**k off to America.

[Baj]

I appreciate this has probably already been covered, but it genuinely baffles me why anyone would believe we actually went there?

 

Here it is over 20 years later. We now have several space shuttles and the most advanced computers to date. It's hard to believe that with each new improvement to telescopes, and electron-microscopes, not to mention dating processes the moon has absolutely no value to us scientifically. In addition 1970's technology did not allow us to study the shaded side. We left no permenant scientific instrumentation to gather any data, whether it be worthless or invaluable. We just planted a flag and took some rocks.

 

Dog posted some photos recently which furthermore suggests we never went there, with shadows in the wrong places and what not.

 

I really struggle to believe that its because the US don't want the expenditure! I'm sure if it was possible Richard Branson would be making a space ship in the shape of a large penis and flying it to the moon, whatever the costs!

 

So, before we shoot you down, are you saying you believe we never went there?

 

And btw, we left a VERY important piece of hardware there to continue probably the most important study for moon - earth physics interaction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment

[jeff leopard]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/02/apollo-11-hoax-myths-debunked

[Webby]

It's because Soton City Council have put parking meters up there!

[Nineteen Canteen]

I appreciate this has probably already been covered, but it genuinely baffles me why anyone would believe we actually went there?

 

Here it is over 20 years later. We now have several space shuttles and the most advanced computers to date. It's hard to believe that with each new improvement to telescopes, and electron-microscopes, not to mention dating processes the moon has absolutely no value to us scientifically. In addition 1970's technology did not allow us to study the shaded side. We left no permenant scientific instrumentation to gather any data, whether it be worthless or invaluable. We just planted a flag and took some rocks.

 

Dog posted some photos recently which furthermore suggests we never went there, with shadows in the wrong places and what not.

 

I really struggle to believe that its because the US don't want the expenditure! I'm sure if it was possible Richard Branson would be making a space ship in the shape of a large penis and flying it to the moon, whatever the costs!

 

Walt Disney World, penis shaped space ships not required, just a minvan and petrol at $3 a gallon.

[miserableoldgit]

No atmosphere.

[Sheaf Saint]

I looked at the photographic evidence supporting the hoax claim a few years ago, and while some of it is quite compelling, there is overwhelming evidence to prove that the landings were definitely not faked.

 

There is equipment left on the surface that can be seen from earth with a telescope for starters. If that isn't enough evidence for some people then there is no hope for them. Add to that the laser reflector left there for distance ranging and the rocks they brought back (both from the first mission I might add) and the hoax theory dies on its arse.

 

As to why we have not been back. Why? What would be the point? It would cost $billions to get there and it's nothing but a big rock floating in space. There is no value in any further scientific study of it.

[Weston Super Saint]

It's because Soton City Council have put parking meters up there!

 

Nah, it's all the potholes they haven't fixed that drive the astronauts mad.

[Weston Super Saint]

 

There is equipment left on the surface that can be seen from earth with a telescope for starters.

 

To be fair that could easily be put there without anyone actually 'going to' the moon.

 

Mars Rover anyone?

[Gingeletiss]

I appreciate this has probably already been covered, but it genuinely baffles me why anyone would believe we actually went there?

 

Here it is over 20 years later. We now have several space shuttles and the most advanced computers to date. It's hard to believe that with each new improvement to telescopes, and electron-microscopes, not to mention dating processes the moon has absolutely no value to us scientifically. In addition 1970's technology did not allow us to study the shaded side. We left no permenant scientific instrumentation to gather any data, whether it be worthless or invaluable. We just planted a flag and took some rocks.

 

Dog posted some photos recently which furthermore suggests we never went there, with shadows in the wrong places and what not.

 

I really struggle to believe that its because the US don't want the expenditure! I'm sure if it was possible Richard Branson would be making a space ship in the shape of a large penis and flying it to the moon, whatever the costs!

 

Suggest you have another look at the photo's........they were talking this morning, to a guy from an English tracking station re moon landing. Now here's the problem..........thousands of people around the world were involved in this, one way or another.........surely one would of come out with proof it was fake by now...they haven't.......so it happened, get over it.

[Ponty]

To be fair that could easily be put there without anyone actually 'going to' the moon.

 

Mars Rover anyone?

That and the fact that 40,000 tonnes of moon debris hit the earth every year blows two of the compelling pieces of evidence that we were ever there anyway.

 

In the end it's mostly about taking someone's word for it.

 

I like to believe it happened but it's hard to accept that a world that only had crossply tyres, reel to reel tape recorders and could barely stitch a car together safely could put a man on the moon.

[RedAndWhite91]

Because the Cold War space race, and general race for ideological superiority is over.

[Ponty]

Suggest you have another look at the photo's........they were talking this morning, to a guy from an English tracking station re moon landing. Now here's the problem..........thousands of people around the world were involved in this, one way or another.........surely one would of come out with proof it was fake by now...they haven't.......so it happened, get over it.

Why did thousands of people need to be involved in the cover up? Surely almost everyone at Houston control could be led to believe that the data they were being fed was genuine. Only a handful of people need know otherwise.

 

The biggest single piece of evidence that it was genuinely achieved is the fact that the three astronauts lived to talk about it.

[Gingeletiss]

Why did thousands of people need to be involved in the cover up? Surely almost everyone at Houston control could be led to believe that the data they were being fed was genuine. Only a handful of people need know otherwise.

 

The biggest single piece of evidence that it was genuinely achieved is the fact that the three astronauts lived to talk about it.

 

Well Ponty..........I wouldn't expect you to believe anything I post:-#...but it wasn't just NASA involved.......there was tracking stations all over the world watching events unfold....both telescopic and radio, you can't fake something like that in public IMO.

 

If this was fake.............someone would have broke cover by now....once again, it is just stupid people who won't believe the evidence that is presented....these are the same people, who claim the twin towers never happened, or was destroyed by the US government.

[Pancake]

I like to believe it happened but it's hard to accept that a world that only had crossply tyres, reel to reel tape recorders and could barely stitch a car together safely could put a man on the moon.

 

Craig Breedlove had already hit 600mph on Bonneville flats 4 yeras before NASA put a man on the moon.

 

Concorde was first flown in the same year that NASA put a man on the moon; and the Harrier was introduced into service with the RAF.

 

The V2 rocket had a 200 mile operational distance, made 17 years before NASA put a man on the moon.

 

Russia launched Venera 6 to Venus a few months before NASA put a man on the moon, not to mention Soyuz 5 - a manned space craft - into orbit the same month.

 

The first artificial heart was transplanted into a human in April 1969 too (OK, so the chap died 65 hours later, buy whatever.)

[Sheaf Saint]

That and the fact that 40,000 tonnes of moon debris hit the earth every year blows two of the compelling pieces of evidence that we were ever there anyway.

 

Sorry Ponty but there is a big flaw in this. The rocks that fall to earth as meteorites all suffer from scorching and oxidisation as they enter the atmosphere, and there is a simple test to determine this. Independent geologists have confirmed without any doubt that the rocks that were brought back from Apollo 11 did not have such properties, therefore they must have been genuine.

[Sheaf Saint]

it is just stupid people who won't believe the evidence that is presented....these are the same people, who claim the twin towers never happened, or was destroyed by the US government.

 

I think that's a bit of an unfair generalisation Gingeletiss. You are right about the doubters of the moon landings, I agree because the evidence to prove them as real is overwhelming and, the case against it is easily disprovable.

 

However, I have read various books on the subject of 9/11 and I am 100% convinced that the US government was involved in it. This isn't based on blind, irrational belief in global conspiracies, because I'm not that gullible. It is based on a lot of research I have done into this subject, which has so far failed to provide any evidence that the 911 comission report and the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC towers are anything other than politically-motivated works of complete fiction.

[mack rill]

Sorry Ponty but there is a big flaw in this. The rocks that fall to earth as meteorites all suffer from scorching and oxidisation as they enter the atmosphere, and there is a simple test to determine this. Independent geologists have confirmed without any doubt that the rocks that were brought back from Apollo 11 did not have such properties, therefore they must have been genuine.

 

Friends who drooped in for Tea at Roswell gave us the rocks,,,simples;)

[Baj]

If they got away with it once, why risk pulling the same stunt again, and again.... and again.

[GenevaSaint]

Mythbusters -19:00 tonight on Discovery channel 520 - Did NASA fake the moon landings

[Kadeem Hardison]

Have you seen the pictures?

 

It is grey, barren and has no atmosphere. I went to Stoke once and for the same reason I'm never going back.

[LVSaint]

I think that's a bit of an unfair generalisation Gingeletiss. You are right about the doubters of the moon landings, I agree because the evidence to prove them as real is overwhelming and, the case against it is easily disprovable.

 

However, I have read various books on the subject of 9/11 and I am 100% convinced that the US government was involved in it. This isn't based on blind, irrational belief in global conspiracies, because I'm not that gullible. It is based on a lot of research I have done into this subject, which has so far failed to provide any evidence that the 911 comission report and the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC towers are anything other than politically-motivated works of complete fiction.

 

I'll give you credit if you've done your own research rather than having just watched the loose change evidence....of which can be debunked by the simplest of people. I personally doubt the administration of the time were clever enough (however much they may have wanted it) to have covered something of this magnitude up. The colossal ****up of the last 8 years weren't very good at doing anything correctly.

[Deano6]

I looked at the photographic evidence supporting the hoax claim a few years ago, and while some of it is quite compelling, there is overwhelming evidence to prove that the landings were definitely not faked.

 

There is equipment left on the surface that can be seen from earth with a telescope for starters. If that isn't enough evidence for some people then there is no hope for them. Add to that the laser reflector left there for distance ranging and the rocks they brought back (both from the first mission I might add) and the hoax theory dies on its arse.

 

As to why we have not been back. Why? What would be the point? It would cost $billions to get there and it's nothing but a big rock floating in space. There is no value in any further scientific study of it.

 

Not true! Not true!

 

Even the hubble could only identify something a few hundred metres across.

 

 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part2/section-22.html

 

http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm

[Dog]

The lost tape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFAZoVGxqY4

[thesaint sfc]

I'm not saying they didn't happen. I know no more about space than what I learnt out of Star Wars. Just find it strange that after all this time and the technological advancements we don't have people regularly going there. 1972 was a long time ago. We're in a day and age where we have multi billionaires like they're going out of fashion and every ones competing to do the most outrageous thing.

[thesaint sfc]

If they got away with it once, why risk pulling the same stunt again, and again.... and again.

 

That's a ridiculous statement. I bet there are thousands of people who would happily give their lives for that opportunity. So many people are passionate about stuff like this that I don't believe that's the case. Think of all the technological advancements between now and then. It was 1972 FFS.

 

How long did the moon landing supposedly take?

[Thedelldays]

do you think it is a fake..?

[Sheaf Saint]

That's a ridiculous statement. I bet there are thousands of people who would happily give their lives for that opportunity. So many people are passionate about stuff like this that I don't believe that's the case. Think of all the technological advancements between now and then. It was 1972 FFS.

 

How long did the moon landing supposedly take?

 

I think the point that Baj was making is that if they got away with faking it once, why would they attempt it over and over again and risk getting found out?

[thesaint sfc]

do you think it is a fake..?

 

I don't have a clue. I find it a bit far fetched to think someone got in a rocket which was able to withstand the pressure of being fired into space, with enough fuel. Then we landed on the moon, got out moon buggies even though we had no idea what the surface was like, collected a few rocks, stuck down a flag and then came back to earth again and survived the whole ordeal. In 1972! Then never went back again. I'm inclined to say yes, I probably do think it was fake. Not on much scientific evidence though as I don't know what I'm talking about.

[thesaint sfc]

I think the point that Baj was making is that if they got away with faking it once, why would they attempt it over and over again and risk getting found out?

 

Oh I see, well that I agree with. Sorry Baj.

[Sheaf Saint]

I'll give you credit if you've done your own research rather than having just watched the loose change evidence....of which can be debunked by the simplest of people. I personally doubt the administration of the time were clever enough (however much they may have wanted it) to have covered something of this magnitude up. The colossal ****up of the last 8 years weren't very good at doing anything correctly.

 

I disagree. Bush was no criminal mastermind, that much is for sure. But they only needed to cover it up enough to make sure they didn't leave a 'smoking gun' and this is what they did. There are dozens/hundreds of individual aspects of the whole saga that just do not add up. Each one of them on their own could easily be dismissed as circumstantial or just plain coincidence, but when you add them all together the chances of coincidence becomes infinitessimally small.

[Thedelldays]

I don't have a clue. I find it a bit far fetched to think someone got in a rocket which was able to withstand the pressure of being fired into space, with enough fuel. Then we landed on the moon, got out moon buggies even though we had no idea what the surface was like, collected a few rocks, stuck down a flag and then came back to earth again and survived the whole ordeal. In 1972! Then never went back again. I'm inclined to say yes, I probably do think it was fake. Not on much scientific evidence though as I don't know what I'm talking about.

it is not a fake..do you not think the russians, who at the time wanted to wipe the yanks off of the face of the earth, who were in the race to get to the moon first would have spilt the beans if it was fake..?

 

they (along with us) tracked the whole mission using radio telescopes...the radio waves were being tracked from the rocket/shuttle and using the doppler effect it could determin the position within something like 10 meters...

 

there is no way the russians at the time or even now, would have kept quiet

[Scummer]

In 1972! Then never went back again.

 

But they had been there a number of times previously, hence the 40th anniversary was yesterday and not in 2012.

[Pancake]

it is not a fake..do you not think the russians, who at the time wanted to wipe the yanks off of the face of the earth, who were in the race to get to the moon first would have spilt the beans if it was fake..?

 

they (along with us) tracked the whole mission using radio telescopes...the radio waves were being tracked from the rocket/shuttle and using the doppler effect it could determin the position within something like 10 meters...

 

there is no way the russians at the time or even now, would have kept quiet

 

That, for me, is the most compelling basis for it being real too. There is no way the American's "enemies" would have allowed them to fake it.

[Baj]

I don't have a clue. I find it a bit far fetched to think someone got in a rocket which was able to withstand the pressure of being fired into space, with enough fuel. Then we landed on the moon, got out moon buggies even though we had no idea what the surface was like, collected a few rocks, stuck down a flag and then came back to earth again and survived the whole ordeal. In 1972! Then never went back again. I'm inclined to say yes, I probably do think it was fake. Not on much scientific evidence though as I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

See the power of picking out a few snippets in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary.

[Gingeletiss]

I don't have a clue. I find it a bit far fetched to think someone got in a rocket which was able to withstand the pressure of being fired into space, with enough fuel. Then we landed on the moon, got out moon buggies even though we had no idea what the surface was like, collected a few rocks, stuck down a flag and then came back to earth again and survived the whole ordeal. In 1972! Then never went back again. I'm inclined to say yes, I probably do think it was fake. Not on much scientific evidence though as I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

Surely we did!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Manned missions

This image shows Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin with the U.S. flag. The illusion of a breeze was caused by the horizontal rod intended to hold the flag flat failing to telescope out completely, thus leaving ripples in the fabric like those seen in a flag in the wind.

 

 

On each manned mission there were three astronauts: a commander, a command module pilot (CMP), and a lunar module pilot (LMP). In the case of a moon landing the commander and the LMP descended to the Moon, while the CMP remained in lunar orbit.

Apollo 7, launched on October 11, 1968, was the first manned mission in the Apollo program. It was an eleven-day Earth-orbital mission intended to test the redesigned command module. It was the first manned launch of the Saturn IB launch vehicle, and the first three-man American space mission.

A mounted camera captures Neil Armstrong as he becomes the first human to step on the moon.

 

 

By the summer of 1968 it became clear to program managers that a fully functional LM would not be available for the Apollo 8 mission. Rather than perform a simple earth orbiting mission, they chose to send Apollo 8 around the moon during Christmas. The original idea for this switch was the brainchild of George Low. Although it has often been claimed that this change was made as a direct response to Soviet attempts to fly a piloted Zond spacecraft around the moon, there is no evidence that this was actually the case. NASA officials were aware of the Soviet Zond flights, but the timing of the Zond missions does not correspond well with the extensive written record from NASA about the Apollo 8 decision. It is relatively certain that the Apollo 8 decision was primarily based upon the LM schedule, rather than fear of the Soviets beating the Americans to the moon.

Between December 21, 1968 and May 18, 1969, NASA launched three Apollo missions (8, 9, and 10) using the Saturn V launch vehicle. Each mission had a crew of three astronauts, and the last two included Lunar Modules, but none of these were intended as Moon landing missions.

“That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.”

—

Neil Armstrong[29]

 

Astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt, December 13, 1972. This image was taken during the Apollo 17 mission, the last human lunar landing to date.

 

 

The next two flights (11 and 12) included successful Moon landings. The Apollo 13 mission was aborted before the landing attempt, but the crew returned safely to Earth. The four subsequent Apollo missions (14 through 17) included successful Moon landings. The last three of these were J-class missions that included the use of Lunar Rovers.

Apollo 17, launched December 7, 1972, was the last Apollo mission to the moon. Mission commander Eugene Cernan was the last person to leave the Moon's surface. The crew returned safely to Earth on December 19, 1972.

[thesaint sfc]

See the power of picking out a few snippets in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary.

 

I'm not stating any facts Baj, just saying that from common sense it seems a bit far fetched. I'm sure it will all be proved/not proved in my life time, maybe not yours

[thesaint sfc]

Ginge... never went back since 1972 I meant...

[Gingeletiss]

I'm not stating any facts Baj, just saying that from common sense it seems a bit far fetched. I'm sure it will all be proved/not proved in my life time, maybe not yours

 

It was proven...it's just people, not unlike yourself, refuse to believe it.

[Gingeletiss]

Ginge... never went back since 1972 I meant...

 

So they faked it how many times!!!!!!............lol........you lot:o

[Baj]

I find it a bit far fetched to think someone got in a rocket which was able to withstand the pressure of being fired into space

Well, Werner Von Brawn (excuse spelling, can't be arsed to look it up) was happily building V1 and V2 rockets that pumelled London in WWII, over 20 years earlier. He was then taken on by NASA to help on the Apollo programme. Don't think I need to point out that the most stress a rocket is under is on liftoff.

 

Then we landed on the moon

Well, NASA sent probes there before landing a man on the moon.

 

Got out moon buggies

That weren't used until the later Apollo missions.

 

Even though we had no idea what the surface was like

*sigh* That's why NASA sent probes.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/solar/surveyor.html

 

collected a few rocks, stuck down a flag and then came back to earth again and survived the whole ordeal. In 1972!

1969. Be a bit pointless going and not bringing anything back.

 

Then never went back again.

Apart from Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 ,and 17.

 

I'm inclined to say yes, I probably do think it was fake.

I think you just need to read your history a bit more first.

[Baj]

BTW, for those that do 'believe', the LRO has been taking detailed pictures of the Moons surface and has returned some neat images of junk we left on the moon, including a footpath between the landing vehicle and scientific equipment

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

[St Landrew]

As for evidence of hardware being left on the moon from the Apollo missions; there is a lunar orbiter, only recently sent, that has, amongst its other tasks, taken some high resolution pictures of the old landing sites. Here are a couple of examples:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10289551-239.html

 

EDIT: Oops, Baj beat me to it. Will, you should have a little more appreciation of 1940/50/60's technology. We weren't going around wearing animal skins with clubs before 1990. It was an incredible achievement, and if you were sufficiently interested, you'd find out for yourself, rather than just assuming it was far-fetched.

Edited 21 July, 2009 by St Landrew

[Gingeletiss]

Samples returned

Main article: Moon rock

Lunar

MissionSample

ReturnedRepresentative

SampleApollo 1122 kgApollo 1234 kgApollo 1443 kgApollo 1577 kg

The most famous of the Moon rocks recovered, the Genesis Rock, was discovered and returned from the Apollo 15 mission.

 

 

 

Apollo 1695 kg

Ferroan Anorthosite moon rock, collected by Apollo 16. The only sources of moon rocks on Earth are those collected from the Apollo program, the former Soviet Union's Luna missions, and lunar meteorites. Future missions manned or unmanned would provide the opportunity to collect more.

 

 

 

Apollo 17111 kg

The Apollo program returned 381.7 kg (841.5 lb) of rocks and other material from the Moon, much of which is stored at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston.

In general the rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.2 billion years old for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar mare, to about 4.6 billion years for samples derived from the highlands crust.[31] As such, they represent samples from a very early period in the development of the Solar System that is largely missing from Earth. One important rock found during the Apollo Program was the Genesis Rock, retrieved by astronauts James Irwin and David Scott during the Apollo 15 mission. This rock, called anorthosite, is composed almost exclusively of the calcium-rich feldspar mineral anorthite, and is believed to be representative of the highland crust. A geochemical component called KREEP was discovered that has no known terrestrial counterpart. Together, KREEP and the anorthositic samples have been used to infer that the outer portion of the Moon was once completely molten (see lunar magma ocean).

Almost all of the rocks show evidence for having been affected by impact processes. For instance, many samples appear to be pitted with micrometeoroid impact craters, something which is never seen on earth due to its thick atmosphere. Additionally, many show signs of being subjected to high pressure shock waves that are generated during impact events. Some of the returned samples are of impact melt, referring to materials that are melted in the vicinity of an impact crater. Finally, all samples returned from the Moon are highly brecciated as a result of being subjected to multiple impact events.

Analysis of composition of the lunar samples support the giant impact hypothesis, that the Moon was created through a "giant impact" of a large astronomical body with the Earth.[32]

[Baj]

EDIT: Oops, Baj beat me to it. Will, you should have a little more appreciation of 1940/50/60's technology. We weren't going around wearing animal skins with clubs before 1990. It was an incredible achievement, and if you were sufficiently interested, you'd find out for yourself, rather than just assuming it was far-fetched.

 

Indeed, we're talking about an era where splitting the atom became commonplace. Where 70 years later, rogue states are still struggling and testing in order to do the same.

[thesaint sfc]

Ok..... but why haven't we been back there since 1972? There surely must have been technological advances between now and then which would be interesting to implement up there.

[Gingeletiss]

Ok..... but why haven't we been back there since 1972? There surely must have been technological advances between now and then which would be interesting to implement up there.

 

There has been no reason to.........but there are plans to commence the lunar project, as they require a vehicle to launch the Mars mission.........watch this space......