Man has landed on the Moon. July 20, 1969. Sir, questions, sir.

I think I am having a second thought.
Man cannot even land a spaceship on the surface of the moon.

polscie

 

They haven't. Do you read much Russian?

Of course the entire moon landing is a scam.

There are no rocket engines powerful enough to accomplish the task that NASA has at its disposal today, let alone 40 years ago.

NASA has no technology to land on the moon today, do you expect me they did it 40 years ago?

 

That's because Von Braun wrote his calculations in runic codes only he could understand and took all secrets to his grave.

 

Let's see if Von Braun really developed the SUPER ENGINE that was used for the alleged moon flight.

The following article describes the F-1 rocket engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-1_(rocket_engine)

The article claims that the engine has thrust of 1,522,000 lbf (6.77 MN), five of these engines were supposedly used to launch Saturn V.

Let's for a second imagine that this is true, then the engines NASA used at the later time and today must surely be more advanced or at least on par with F-1.

Is this the case? Far from it.

Let's look at the hydrogen rocket engine used for space shuttles.

The following article describes the thrust of this engine at:

Each Space Shuttle Main Engine operates at a liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen mixture ratio of 6 to 1 to produce a sea level thrust of 179,097 kilograms (375,000 pounds) and a vacuum thrust of 213,188 (470,000 pounds).

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SSME.html

Therefore we have a very peculiar situation 40 years ago NASA used a 1,522,000 engine, then for some reason they lost the ability to produce powerful engines and had to use the engine with quarter of power 375,000.

Any reasonable person who has at least basic knowledge of industry and engineering would understand that this is impossible.

If one was to accept that a man was on the moon then NASA has demonstrated significant technological regress...

If one was to accept that a man was on the moon then NASA has ditched a powerful and reliable engine in order to develop less powerful (1/4), highly unreliable (think of space shuttle accidents) engine.

The card shark has been caught with an ace up his sleeve...

 

It's not that NASA has lost the ability to manufacture engines capable of delivering record thrusts, it is rather that the era of big budgets in the aerospace industry is over. In the early 70s NASA had two options - elaborate on the Apollo program with space stations and possibly in the long run - lunar colonies/research bases, or opt for the space shuttle. They really wanted the space shuttle (remember how much money and time they spent on the X-15?) and they had severe doubts about their financial prospects to achieve goals set out by the former option (remember - the last Apollo missions were cancelled due to budget cuts). If NASA worked with unlimited budgets, it could reproduce Jupiter-5 in a few years. It was planning to do something along these lines recently with its Constellation program where a new powerful rocket was on a drawing board. So what happened to the Constellation? It got cancelled in February of 2010. Not due to technological obstacles, but because of budget cuts. NASA was all for it, but the current administration decided that it was a diversion. Constellation was supposed to test human endurance on flights far away from Earth and terminate with repeat lunar landings and possibly with establishing lunar bases, again to test human endurance in a space habitat. This was to be a testbed preparation for the more risky future Mars flight. The current administration however decided this was all unnecessary, futile and a bold (riskier) shortcut can be opted for by sending a human directly to Mars without all the lunar side-programs. Of course no serious, expensive undertakings and initiatives will follow in the short-term to achieve the direct Mars mission goal. An arbitrary date for the landing can be set circa 2030 which can be pushed back and forth. For now, nothing will be done, not the moon or the Mars stuff, because there is no money in the system. Aside from all this, most scientists who predict the manned Mars landing to cost around $2 trillion suggest it makes more senseto send out unmanned probes. They pointed out the cost for a Mars Rover hovers at around $1 billion. So for a $2 trillion price tag you can launch 2 thousand unmanned spacecraft, with that much more science getting done.

 

Man cannot build a spacecraft to travel and reach moon's atmosphere then make a safe landing on the surface of the moon.

If the first statement is true, it is therefore conclusive that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Man to even land on the surface of the MOON.

Then MAN has not landed on the moon as he made a claim as seen on worldwide tele on July 20, 1969.

 

Correct.

Hard for some to come to terms with, but nonetheless, true.

 

Does NASA run around the world painting moon lander debris onto telescope lenses when they are pointed at the moon?

 

There is no debris.

A picture of debris is not proof.

Sorry.

 

what debris is has been identified by a telescope?

I mean, it would seem that if one telescope can see it, then all capable telescopes could, right?

Ie... do you have pictures from Russian or chinese observatories sharing the 'lander debris'?

 

With all due respect. When severe budget cuts are implemented an organization in question sticks with the old equipment rather than invest heavily into development of the new. It is not any cheaper to develop less powerful engine. And certainly it is much more expensive than just keep existing, proven and reliable model.

 

It's not so much design, but the development and logistical costs. For example, NASA erected a monumental assembly tower where all the Apollo components were put together. Today this tower is just a rusting concrete shell. Many Apollo subcontractors went out of business or discarded the tooling equipment needed to build the components (a special 100+ mile water channel was dug out to ship stage 1 of Jupiter-5 connecting an Atlantic-based company to an inland location where stage components were put together - is this channel still operational, and is this company still at the same location?). So it's not like you could reactivate the assembly line tomorrow. Why commit yourself to replicate an old technology? Today you have better materials, better pumps, more resistant gaskets. You can accomplish the same goals with much less, given there's a mission for your task.

 

Um...why not? How would it have gotten there if it was not placed there by somebody?

Is there some natural phenomenon that generates debris on the moon that no one has told us about? LOL

 

It merely proves that their is debris, somewhere.

"there" could be anywhere.

 

Anywhere that orbits the Earth, and looks exactly like the moon. That kind of anywhere.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gullible

 

LOL funny thread.

They only build what is needed to acommplish mission objectives. No US administration has had any commited interest to go to the Moon in decades and therefore they do not bother building equipment or maintaining old equipment and personnel to sit around doing nothing. I do not understand how that somehow implies an inability to do so, it only shows an unwillingness to do so.

 

When they stopped going to the moon, they stopped building the Saturn Five, the most powerful rocket on earth back then. Now many of the companies that built parts for the Saturn 5 are no longer in business and the rocket can no longer be built.


For those that think it was staged and we never went to the moon, consider this. Both the US and Soviets, can track a lost glove or screw driver in space. We were in a race with the Soviets to get to the moon first. If it had been staged, the Soviets could have easily found out and laid the lie to rest. They didn't and they quit the race as soon as we got there first.

 

Wrong. We had the Saturn 5. Unbelievable how we know so little of our history and it wasn't even that long.


THE SATURN V




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Saturn V was the largest operational launch vehicle ever produced. Standing over 363 feet high with its Apollo Spacecraft payload, it produced over 7.5 million pounds of thrust at lift-off. These pages contain a mixture of photos of the three examples on display at the Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center and the Alabama Space and Rocket Center. Of these three, only the JSC vehicle is made up entirely of former flight-ready (although mismatched) components.


http://www.apollosaturn.com/saturnv.htm

 

LOL, yes, a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands if not millions of people makes much more sense.

 

Where do you get your numbers from?

 

From the conspiracy theorists....thats how many people would have to be cooperating to keep this kind of high profile stuff covered up for 40 years or more.

Not only that, but it would have to span many nations and governments and cultures, not just the US.

 

Any sort of evidence for your numbers?

"hundreds of thousands if not millions"

Anything?

 

My uncle was a senior engineer at NASA on the 1969 moon landing.. It was fabulous..

 

There's one ...