Did man really land on the moon?

The Russians were trying to get to the Moon in the 60s as well but they were unable to

There are several robots on the Moon, the Japanes sent a robot to orbit the Moon in 1990

http://www.spacetoday.org/Japan/Japan/Moon.html

Japan Investigates The Moon

The Moon
More than a third of a century has passed since the Apollo Program carried Americans to the Moon in 1969-1972. While those flights and the few subsequent unmanned probes have brought back much scientific data, they have not come close to answering all of the questions humans have about Earth's natural satellite.

 

Mission accomplished, high cost and zero public interest = dead program.

 

How many countries in the late 60's could afford to throw 30 billion dollars and 400,000 bodies at putting men on the moon?

 

Like Jules Verne, Robert Goddard, Werner Von Braun, John Glen, Neil Armstrong

these men were heroes and I highly doubt they would have anything to do w a fake Moon landing

 

Excellent point

The USSR was always ready to embarass the USA but the USSR never did that regarding the moon landing

Was the USSR helping its arch rival, the USA, fake a moon landing ?

You must be kidding

 

Proof should be arriving sometime this year when NASA's new lunar orbiter arrives

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

Right: Apollo landing sites. [More]

And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Better pictures are coming. In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.

 

Nice. I mailed that to my father who thinks the moon landing never happened.

 

I know they landed on the moon, and I know why we've never gone back. pre-Microsoft vs. windows BSOD.

In the Right Stuff movie, the Mercury astronauts asked for windows...........

 

The morons will label them fake or concoct other conspiracies that disprove we were there.

"Oh, but but NASA sent up robuts that put the flag there in the 80's on a space shuttle and and NASA is intercepting digital images from the orbiter and putting flags in so we think we were there..."

People like this are allowed to vote.

Moon Landing CTer's and Creationists are cut from the same bolt of cheesecloth.

 

No, they are all explained. Every argument that every bed wetting moron and people like you has been answered with calm and pointed facts that any rational child would see truth in. You and people like you don't want the truth; you want some stupid hypothesis that confirms your idiot views on life in general and confirms your chronic and rampant idiocy. Anything outside of that is disregarded wholesale and sayers of such branded as talking heads that only repeat what they are told to repeat.

The problem with the USA in general is that your views are so far off the mark as to be a laughing stock, yet you are still allowed to vote. There are hundreds of millions of idiots like you, and in a rational world, not a single one of you would be allowed to vote on where to take a crap, much less sit down and elect a leader.

Sad.

 

That's way it "took" so long get send the orbiter, they didn't have computers faster enough to insert the images they wanted people to see into the signal before someone noticed the delay. Now they will have a supercomputer dedicated to altering the arriving image signals and no one will ever know the difference. That is why they build the big antenna arrays that they keep saying are telescopes and listening stations Why can't you see that?

 

I don't think they are defensive. It is just most IMO have a low tolerance for such stupidity.

Honestly if this idiot was getting up in your face and telling you to put your hand on the bible and swear to this would you. He is all but calling you a liar. If Armstrong did actually humor this idiot do you think that this idiot would have stopped with his lunacy. I don't I believe as I am sure Armstrong did that it wouldn't have done anything to help. No person can reason with a dumb ass like the one in that video. So I think Armstrong handled it pretty good. I wish he would have done the same thing Buzz Aldrin did when the idiot tried to confront him.

 

+1

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” Robert Heinlein

 

Here's what confuses me. I believe the moon landing happened, etc. But if the Hubble Telescope is able to see stars that are light years away, why is it unable to zoom in on such small things on the moon, when in relative terms is a short distance away.

I really do love outer space and learning about it, I watch The Universe all the time.

 

Maybe it's akin to using a riflescope to look at something right in front of you on the ground? I have no idea but that's my interpretation of it.

 

Its the way lenses work. Same way that you need to switch to a Macro lens on your camera if you want to photograph a flower up close. Taking precise pictures of nearby objects requires a different kind of lens than taking a precise picture of far away objects. The moon, in terms of the Hubble, is a very close object.

 

Stars are very very large, but still show up as point sources in Hubble. Only very very very very large objects (galaxies, nebula, supernova, etc) show up across multiple pixels.

Hubble has an angular resolution of 0.043 arc-seconds according to this site: http://www.coseti.org/9008-065.htm

Back of the envelope, let's say a 1-meter wide object, 1 meter away has an angular width of 45 degrees. Multiply by 60 min/deg and 60 secs/min to get 162,000 arc-seconds. Geometry says the angular width decreases in proportion to the distance. So a 1-meter object 384,000 kilometers away is 162,000 arc-seconds divided by 384,000,000 meters = 0.00042 arc-seconds in width. 0.00042 arc-seconds is 1/100th of 0.043 arc-seconds, so a 1-meter object falls below the resolution of Hubble by 100x. A 100-meter object would be at the limit of resolution.

 

I believe the relative brightness would be well outside the range that the Hubble can handle.

 

like I said before

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

Apollo landing sites. [More]

And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

 

The Kaguya Probe should clear up any moon landing debate, it would certainly seem logical that scientists would be happy to see 1960's litter on the moon, right? We shall see.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/070913_kaguya_launchday.html

September 2007

 

Artie,

Surely the public interest would be that of such a massive scale never seen before?

Matthew

 

Problem is NASA produced a typical govt video that bored everyone to tears

They need to take someone like James Cameron to the Moon with them to film & edit it

Then the public would be alot more interested