Is it really true that man never really walked on the Moon?

[troutman]

Buzz Aldrin punched Moon Hoaxer in the face:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_241664.html

[Stumptown]

Originally Posted by troutman

Buzz Aldrin punched Moon Hoaxer in the face:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_241664.html

Thanks troutman - that made my morning.

[Cowperson]

I was watching a conspiracy show on Vision TV - yes, hard to believe - last night and it did give me pause for a second to consider a photograph like the one below:



After all, if you dabble a little in photography you might believe that a person backlit by the sun cannot also be exposed correctly in this manner from the front, not without a flash providing filler light anyway. The astronauts did not have flashes.

It is true, however, that the moon can have several sources of light, including powerful Earthshine that would serve the same effect as a flash in the picture above. The reflective quality of the moon surface would help that a great deal as well.

A discussion by higher level photographers on the Photonet.com message board is funny and informative in places:

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001JaK

Cowperson

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I was watching a conspiracy show on Vision TV - yes, hard to believe - last night and it did give me pause for a second to consider a photograph like the one below:



After all, if you dabble a little in photography you might believe that a person backlit by the sun cannot also be exposed correctly in this manner from the front, not without a flash providing filler light anyway. The astronauts did not have flashes.

It is true, however, that the moon can have several sources of light, including powerful Earthshine that would serve the same effect as a flash in the picture above. The reflective quality of the moon surface would help that a great deal as well.

A discussion by higher level photographers on the Photonet.com message board is funny and informative in places:

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001JaK

Cowperson

As mentioned above the mythbusters did a show and busted a bunch of the things conspiracy theorists said.

Regarding lighting, it was one of the myths they they. Basically moon dust has a reflect quality that enabled the picture to look that way.

FYI the other things they did was the flag waving in a vaccum, the foot print, the different angle shadows, and the moon walking. The end it off they bounced a laser off a reflective device left on the moon.

Interesting episode

[Thor]

Originally Posted by troutman

Buzz Aldrin punched Moon Hoaxer in the face:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_241664.html

Oustanding, way to go Buzz!

[Ford Prefect]

Here's some more interesting stuff for the unbelievers.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

[EDBTZ12]

Hahahhaah wow Buzz is my hero. Clocked that fattard.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Robbob

As mentioned above the mythbusters did a show and busted a bunch of the things conspiracy theorists said.

Regarding lighting, it was one of the myths they they. Basically moon dust has a reflect quality that enabled the picture to look that way.

Fortunately for them. Could you imagine if none of those pictures turned out? I doubt thet used light meters to see if there was enough front light... did they know ahead of time about the reflective quality of the sand?

[ken0042]

^^ Or they looked through the viewer of the camera and could see that the person's picture was going to turn out OK. If not, then they would have said "Hey Neil- turn around and face the sun for a sec so I can snap this picture."

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Fortunately for them. Could you imagine if none of those pictures turned out? I doubt thet used light meters to see if there was enough front light... did they know ahead of time about the reflective quality of the sand?

That was the first thing they checked when they made the sand. They measured the albedo of it to be about 8%.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Fortunately for them. Could you imagine if none of those pictures turned out? I doubt thet used light meters to see if there was enough front light... did they know ahead of time about the reflective quality of the sand?

The only conspiracy that NASA was responsible for was the erasing from history of the 4th astronaut flight engineer Joe "Funny man" Ramone.

He was the second man on the moon and his historical speech was "Holy crap I filled my pants"

Anyways Neil Armstrong went to take a picture of Joe Ramone on the surface of the moon, and as a lark Joe decided to do the traditional moon shot on the moon. He died of explosive decompression.

NASA not wanting another public relations fiasco erased all mentions of funnyman Ramone.

He still orbits the moon to this day with his bare A$$ facing the earth.

[Daradon]

The only thing that I wonder about is, why NASA hasn't returned in forever, and why, upon deciding they need a anniversary trips of sorts now, it's taking so long. Surely it should be easy with the 40 years of new technology we have. They had the equivelant computer power of 4 commodore 64's on the first lunar module or something like that. And rocketry and propulsion (not to mention ideas on space vehicles), while obviously not developing as madly as computers, has gone through significant advances too.

Certainly we can find some value in the moon, I can't imagine our closest celestial neighbour has no reason for us to go there for.

Not that I believe that we haven't been there. I always laugh at the flag question, it's so obvious at looking at it there is a cross bar on it. Similarly with the stars question. It's almost like asking why we don't see any stars during the daytime here. Heh. Too much light. Sure the light may be from other sources, even from the glow of the moon itself, but it's a pretty easily debunked question.

My biggest question is, if it was so easy (or at least possible) to get all these men and rovers there 35-40 years ago, how come we're having such troubles in space now and how come another moon landing is like a 10 year planning thing?

[Gozer]

I think that we're collectively more stupider.

[troutman]

Missions To The Moon:

http://www.planetary.org/explore/top.../missions.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_moon

On January 14, 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush called for a plan to resume manned missions to the Moon by 2020 (see Vision for Space Exploration).[70] NASA is now planning for the construction of a permanent outpost at one of the lunar poles.[71] The People's Republic of China has expressed ambitious plans for exploring the Moon and has started the Chang'e program for lunar exploration, successfully launching its first spacecraft, Chang'e-1, on October 24, 2007. Like NASA, China hopes to land people on the Moon by 2020.[72] The U.S. launched the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite on June 18, 2009 (the two missions were co-manifested). Russia also announced to resume its previously frozen project Luna-Glob, consisting of an unmanned lander and orbiter, which is slated to land in 2012.[73]

The Google Lunar X Prize, announced September 13, 2007, hopes to boost and encourage privately funded lunar exploration. The X Prize Foundation is offering anyone US$20 million who can land a robotic rover on the Moon and meet other specified criteria.

On September 14, 2007 the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency launched SELENE, also known as Kaguya, a lunar orbiter which is fitted with a high-definition camera and two small satellites. The mission is expected to last one year.[74]

On October 22, 2008 India successfully launched the Chandrayaan I (a Sanskrit word literally meaning the 'Moon-craft') unmanned mission to the Moon and intends to launch several further unmanned missions. The country plans to launch Chandrayaan II in 2010 or 2011, which is slated to include a robotic lunar rover. India also has expressed its hope for a manned mission to the Moon by 2020.[75]

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The only thing that I wonder about is, why NASA hasn't returned in forever, and why, upon deciding they need a anniversary trips of sorts now, it's taking so long. Surely it should be easy with the 40 years of new technology we have. They had the equivelant computer power of 4 commodore 64's on the first lunar module or something like that. And rocketry and propulsion (not to mention ideas on space vehicles), while obviously not developing as madly as computers, has gone through significant advances too.

Certainly we can find some value in the moon, I can't imagine our closest celestial neighbour has no reason for us to go there for.

Not that I believe that we haven't been there. I always laugh at the flag question, it's so obvious at looking at it there is a cross bar on it. Similarly with the stars question. It's almost like asking why we don't see any stars during the daytime here. Heh. Too much light. Sure the light may be from other sources, even from the glow of the moon itself, but it's a pretty easily debunked question.

My biggest question is, if it was so easy (or at least possible) to get all these men and rovers there 35-40 years ago, how come we're having such troubles in space now and how come another moon landing is like a 10 year planning thing?

I'd say there are a lot of pretty simple reasons why it'll take another 10 years to go to the moon again, and my musings on them are below (note these are my own musings and my not be 100% accurate, but I'd be willing to bet they are close).

First up, building anything for the mission isn't as easy as just dusting off the old plans. For the rockets, they are such a huge undertaking, that just building the facilities to build them is a huge undertaking. Just building some new Saturn V's would be a big deal. Probalby just as big a deal as designing and building a new rocket from scratch. One that would likely be a lot more efficient.

Same goes for the different modules. We aren't going to go back with the same crappy computers the had on Apollo, and they were integrated parts of modules, and at the time the really hard parts to build. It's not just a matter of pulling the old computers out and reusing the design of the frames for the landers, command module etc. That'd be like trying to install a modern hard drive on your old comodore 64. It just wouldn't be compatible withouth a huge ammount of work. You might as well just start from scratch.

I do agree however that it should be a lot easier or us to build off of the experience that we have, than it was for the guys in the 60's who were doing raw research and development. However the biggest difference is the fact that right now getting to the moon is seen as a side project for the country. In the 1960's it was the end all be all goal of the US, and budget overruns be damned they were gonna get to the moon. That won't fly now, so they'll have to take their time and make sure that they do it on budget (or at least as close to budget as NASA has ever done anything).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ken0042

^^ Or they looked through the viewer of the camera and could see that the person's picture was going to turn out OK. If not, then they would have said "Hey Neil- turn around and face the sun for a sec so I can snap this picture."

Did cameras in the 60s have that feature?

I had a really old film camera and nothing in the view finder would tell you if the picture would turn out.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'd say there are a lot of pretty simple reasons why it'll take another 10 years to go to the moon again, and my musings on them are below (note these are my own musings and my not be 100% accurate, but I'd be willing to bet they are close).

First up, building anything for the mission isn't as easy as just dusting off the old plans. For the rockets, they are such a huge undertaking, that just building the facilities to build them is a huge undertaking. Just building some new Saturn V's would be a big deal. Probalby just as big a deal as designing and building a new rocket from scratch. One that would likely be a lot more efficient.

Same goes for the different modules. We aren't going to go back with the same crappy computers the had on Apollo, and they were integrated parts of modules, and at the time the really hard parts to build. It's not just a matter of pulling the old computers out and reusing the design of the frames for the landers, command module etc. That'd be like trying to install a modern hard drive on your old comodore 64. It just wouldn't be compatible withouth a huge ammount of work. You might as well just start from scratch.

I do agree however that it should be a lot easier or us to build off of the experience that we have, than it was for the guys in the 60's who were doing raw research and development. However the biggest difference is the fact that right now getting to the moon is seen as a side project for the country. In the 1960's it was the end all be all goal of the US, and budget overruns be damned they were gonna get to the moon. That won't fly now, so they'll have to take their time and make sure that they do it on budget (or at least as close to budget as NASA has ever done anything).

Yeah obviously I know 99.9% of the equipment is unusable and has to be redone. Not just retrofitted. Heck, they wanted to retire the shuttles we have now years ago and still haven't, so they probably want to unveil something new and fancy for a return moon mission. (Obviously you can't land a shuttle there anyway, not until you build a runaway I guess, but just a comment on how old NASA'S stuff is getting).

EDIT: Actually I wonder if you could land it at all, no wind resistance or anything. Might always have to be a lander or even elevator of sorts.

Probably the only usable things are some suits we have now and the sleeping harnesses, and whatever they have that keeps their food form flying away, lol.

But it probably does have to do with the fact that it was a mission like winning a war last time, compared to being a side project thins time. I just wish it had more signbificance. We're obviously not fixing our problems here at home soon enough, we're going to have to go to the stars soon. Or at least the asteroids.

No one dreams big anymore, and in losing that, we're actually losing options we have to fix our problems. No one looks at 20 years down the road anymore for the planet, or their children (or at least their childrens world) everyone is just fixated on the next financial quarter...

[FlamesAddiction]

The whole flag waving thing is really dumb. For one, there is no way that NASA would neglect to think of that if they were making a hoax. Plus if it was windy, some of that fine dust would have been blowing around too.

It's not hard to imagine how a flag in a low gravity/atmosphere setting could still appear to be waving. Just picture a flag underwater that is being held out by a bar (like the one in the moon photos). It would probably look like it was "waving" as well.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The only thing that I wonder about is, why NASA hasn't returned in forever, and why, upon deciding they need a anniversary trips of sorts now, it's taking so long. Surely it should be easy with the 40 years of new technology we have. They had the equivelant computer power of 4 commodore 64's on the first lunar module or something like that. And rocketry and propulsion (not to mention ideas on space vehicles), while obviously not developing as madly as computers, has gone through significant advances too.

I think BBS has it right.. the infrastructure for these things is enormously complex, especially now where the tolerance for safety mishaps is far lower than it used to be.

The advances are there, however the constraints haven't changed and the constraints largely dictate what you can do and how you can do it.

It's more an issue of will and money and necessity than anything else. The first go round was in a different political environment, the motivation was much bigger. Now the willingness to allocate the $$ necessary just isn't there. Yet. If China put a man on the moon, things might change.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Certainly we can find some value in the moon, I can't imagine our closest celestial neighbour has no reason for us to go there for.

Really I can't think of many, and I'm a big big space flight/exploration proponent. The "we did this" factor shouldn't be underestimated, and the science you could do is very interesting.

But there aren't a whole lot of easily accessible resources on the moon. So putting people up there with all the resources they'll need is expensive! Though you could work on recycling technology and all the kinds of things you would need to be self sufficient.

I'd rather they took the money to put man on the moon, and kept going with robots. Get to the point where you could launch some robots at an asteroid rich with minerals or whatever, and they could set themselves up, mine it, and launch the stuff back into earth orbit. THEN you could take those materials and learn how to build things in space.

Then think about a moon colony, by then you could have robots that would mine the moon for the necessary essentials to survive, or have robots mine asteroids and put the stuff to the moon.

Basically approach the whole thing like it was a commercial venture, meant to be self sustaining and profitable rather than a big drain.

And don't even get me started on going to Mars, we don't even know how to land a man on mars in principle!

[Tower]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why are conspiracy theorists experts in practically anything?

So far this board's resident nuts have proclaimed their expertise in law, politics, biology, astronomy, economics, international finance...

Please explain and include proof of this claim.