Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1396174020509.gif (1004KB, 420x259px) Image search:
[Google]
1004KB, 420x259px
Suppose I don't believe human visited Moon. Let my argument be it is too far away (4 E8 meters) for that much weight (3 E6 kg). Current satellites of that time were 100x closer (3 to 4 E6 meters) and 100-1000x times lighter.
Distance from Earth to Moon (meter): 4 E8
Distance from Earth to satellites of that time (meter): 3 to 4 E6
Mass of rocket that is claimed to brought humans to Moon (integrale of kg per meter):
>3 E6 to 5 E4 from Earth to 2 E5 (at that point module was separated from carrier rocket)
>5 E4 to 5 E3 from 2 E5 to surface of Moon
>With 5 E3 from surface of Moon to Earth
Mass of satellites of that time (kg): order of magnitude E3 to E4
I accept that unmanned devices did land on Moon. Latest lunar orbiter had a mass of 4 E3, 10x lighter than manned spacecraft.
In anticipation to the most common counterarguments
>There is a reflective surface in Moon that the men installed. You can shine laser onto it
Unmanned device could've easily planted that. I accept that reflective surface of that kind couldn't have formed spontaneously.
>Why would they fake a moon landing?
Power display. USSR and USA were heavily influenced by competition that could've driven them to such acts.
>What difference does it make whether they were on the Moon or not?
Humans have unrealistic expectations on space transportation possibilities. I want to reinforce the concept that humanity will (1) never live on any other celestial body other than Earth (2) never be able to transport any instrument outside the Solar system (3) never find extraterrestrial life. These realistic expectations will possibly lead to better environmental policies.
In conclusion: I claim a human has never touched the surface of Moon and returned alive.
How would you attack my claim so that I myself could reproduce the results? Merit of science is that in principle anyone could verify what you say, and that for a claim to be true, it must also be verified by someone else (for example, not USA).
>>
>>128564784
I have read your argument carefully, and verified the calculations, it is my conclusion that you suffer from schizophrenia / delusional disorder
keep it up it's entertaining
>>
>>128564784
tl;dr
>>
>>128564784
Using the E notation for distances really gave this post credibility. The pretentiousness in the last few sentences were good too.
>>
>>128564784
>>Why would they fake a moon landing?
>Power display. USSR and USA were heavily influenced by competition that could've driven them to such acts.
1969: USA ''''lands''' on the moon
1971: President Richard Nixon unilaterally ordered the cancellation of the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold.
Hypothesis: With a plan to abandon gold the USA needed to peg the USD to something. That something was innovation, and the profit derived from it.The USA needed to market their ability to be the #1 in the world at science, innovation, productivity and thus profit. A successful moon landing, ahead of anyone else on earth, would without question cement the USA as the leading innovator in the world. Investment in the USA, which would increase and/or keep the USD bouyant after leaving the gold standard would follow from a successful moon landing.
:^)
Sadly my theory hasn't made the Wikipedia list of conspiracy theories yet.
>>
>>128564784
The Russians would have found out and it would be way more difficult to lie than to get to the moon.
But apart from the moon (and mars maybe?) we'll never leave this gay earth.
>>
>>128564784
If you truly think we didn't land on the moon,
Explain all the equipment we left there and the laser mirror left to bounce laser light off of it.
Explain the rocks that were brought back with different chemical compositions.
Explain the pictures we took while on the of fucking earth.
I'll be waiting for your response.
>>
File: atom_solar_system.jpg (83KB, 587x250px) Image search:
[Google]
83KB, 587x250px
>>128566143
>
Explain all the equipment we left there and the laser mirror left to bounce laser light off of it.
Put there by remote controlled rocket.
>
Explain the rocks that were brought back with different chemical compositions.
Most of them proven fakes, some are from meteorites found on earth.
>
Explain the pictures we took while on the of fucking earth
Faked
>>
>>128566535
Your explanation assuming it was with 1960's tech, would make it easier to just land on the damn moon.
>>
You don't know what you're talking about. Orbital energy isn't about distance. We're not working in a constant gravity field where m.g.h holds true.
The delta-v to low earth orbit is about 10km/s. The delta-v from low earth orbit to trans-lunar injection is about 3.2km/s.
Incidentally, the SIVB stage which entered LEO was about 120,000kg + 10,000 for the lunar vehicle. A little SIVB fuel was used in orbital insertion, leaving about 125 tonnes in LEO for the TLI burn and landing.
The Saturn V had a 125 tonne throw weight to LEO. Bigger than anything current. The Saturn V was a beast.
Incidentally, the Saturn V was used to launch Skylab (80,000kg!) in a single launch.
>>
>>128566535
>Most lunar rocks are proven fakes
uhh what? Fucking name one. NASA sent samples of lunar material to every major research institution around the globe, and universities here in australia have samples. You know what you see when you look at them under a microscope? Craters. Craters a couple microns across. Caused by particles of dust impacting at between 3 and 70 kilometres per second, vaporizing small portions of the rock. That shit can't form on earth because we have an atmosphere which stops small hypervelocity particles from hitting anything on the surface, and it can't land on earth because those fine details are destroyed by the plasma sheath on atmospheric entry. They're here because somebody picked one up and flew it back.
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2