Everyone knows it was impossible to land on the moon

[Ottawan]

Alright. Let's approach this in a different way.

You state that the Chinese and Japanese programs are doomed. Is this your opinion? Where are your facts?

Why do you believe that we never went to the moon? Do not just tell me it was "impossible to do" back in the 1960's. That is your opinion, again. You have to back it up with fact, not conjecture.

Some of the members of this board actually work in the aero-space industry, including NASA. They have no problem believing the landings were real. Even those who were not alive at the time.

How did you come to your conclusion?

If shown to be in error will you admit that we actually landed there or is this going to be another exercise in futility?

Participate sir by engaging in rational debate. Stating your "belief" as fact without supporting your claims is not rational debate.

Have you checked out any other of the discussions on this forum about the moon landings?

Research first and then prove to us the landings were fake. Politics aside, the onus is on you.

[LunarOrbit]

Some allegations accuse NASA's moon landing stories " The whole things are fake ". I think the burden of proof falls upon NASA, not people who make such allegations.

Maybe in China people are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent, but that is not how it works in a free society. Here we believe in "innocent until proven guilty", which means it is up to you, as the accuser, to prove that NASA is lying.

NASA has provided all the proof they can that Apollo landed on the moon six times. If you can prove they have lied then go for it.

[DonPMitchell]

Mr. Yu, you have not even taken the time to look up the mass of the Apollo Moon lander, or the thrust of its rockets.  And when Bob and I have tried to explain the math and physics a little, you don't believe it or simply do not understand it.

But you do believe in anti-gravity, even though the laws of physics say it is impossible.  You suggest that NASA has secret technology from aliens.  You believe American and its allies have engaged in a conspiracy to fake the Apollo landings.

It does not seem very rational, that you would reject simple math and rocket science, and then believe many other complicated and crazy theories.

[hyu2004]

Well, let’s approach this issue more seriously. I am going to provide with facts followed by my opinions but I don’t want to talk too much about math formula or Physics. What I want is to make my statement as plain as possible. Let ordinary readers or even children can clearly understand our debate by presenting facts, not tough scientific explanations; so, let’s begin with facts.

We all agree that NASA was capable of launching space rockets into space, directing space vehicles into lunar orbit, and taking photos of lunar surface during 1960s. Nobody doubts that. NASA accomplished this kind of merits all within 1960s technology. Why do some people always say the moon landing stories seem the whole things are fake? That’s because the safe landing on the surface of the Moon sounds quite impossible even within today’s technology. Not all people know serious science of rockery or aerospace but they have some logics. Logics lead to reasons, reasons lead to doubts, and doubts lead to opinions. With opinions, people may draw some imperfect conclusions without backups of sufficient proof.

Why does the Moon landing sound quite impossible. Let’s take a look on the space shuttle. The physical appearance of the space shuttle looks quite like an airplane. Why? As the space shuttle returns to Earth’s atmosphere from space, it has no power and it functions as a huge, but very expensive glider. Functioning as a glider is probably the only means for the safe returning of the space shuttle. At that moment, the space shuttle does not follow advanced scientific theories of rockery or aerospace, but it simply applies for the laws of aviation, which has been discovered for almost 100 years.

Let’s remember the journey of Apollo 11 astronauts again. When the Command-Module of Apollo 11 entered into Earth’s atmosphere, it had to open parachutes to reduce gravity impact. Finally it fell upon South Pacific water. The space shuttle and Command Module of Apollo 11 inspire us one critical fact: If NASA attempts to land something like men, or unmanned vehicles, robots, cameras, instruments, etc. on a planet and that planet has dense atmosphere, the issue of safe landing will be almost assured. Just open parachutes while entering into the planet’s atmosphere. That’s just simple and things will be alright. By using air flow to reduce gravity impact, this method has almost been the most effective means ( probably the only means ) for safe returning to Earth as well as safe landing on a planet. We all know that NASA announced successful unmanned missions to Mars. Nobody says those missions are hoax because Mars also has dense atmosphere so safe landing can be done and will be done. 

The moon has no atmosphere. While approaching the lunar surface, it is useless with the help of parachutes; therefore, the issue of safe landing on the surface of the moon has to be complicated and difficult. In addition to this issue, the Apollo missions were NOT unmanned missions. Not only did Apollo astronauts have to touch the lunar surface safely, but also NASA had to get them back to the lower lunar orbit and had them dock the Command-Module again. Getting them back to the lower lunar orbit sounds like another technical speaking, mission impossible issue. That means NASA would offer additional fuels to lift-off astronauts to the lower lunar orbit ( How far is it from the surface of the Moon? 100 km? or 150 km? or maybe several hundred km? We all know a jet plane is moving in the air which is 10-12 km above the surface of Earth. ) When the astronauts got back to the lower lunar orbit, some sorts of guiding systems had to be activated in order to track precisely where the Command-Module was. Note the Command-Module on the lunar orbit was moving at ultra fast speed, 1.6km/s. ( 5760 km per hour ). The Lunar-Module with two Apollo astronauts got to capture such an object with ultra fast speed and finally dock it without any error and danger. Do you believe it could be done?   
 
-unfinished, please wait for another part.   

[Bob B.]

Well, let’s approach this issue more seriously. I am going to provide with facts followed by my opinions but I don’t want to talk too much about math formula or Physics. What I want is to make my statement as plain as possible. Let ordinary readers or even children can clearly understand our debate by presenting facts, not tough scientific explanations; so, let’s begin with facts.

No, these ground rules are unacceptable.  You cannot ask to debate a topic like space flight and then stipulate to your opponents that they cannot use math and physics in their rebuttals.  That's like challenging someone to a fight and then saying they can't use their fists.

Well Why do some people always say the moon landing stories seem the whole things are fake? That’s because the safe landing on the surface of the Moon sounds quite impossible even within today’s technology.

Nothing seems impossible about it if you understand the physics behind it.   I have yet to encounter anyone with expertise in astronautics that questions the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings.

The moon has no atmosphere. While approaching the lunar surface, it is useless with the help of parachutes; therefore, the issue of safe landing on the surface of the moon has to be complicated and difficult.

Landing on a world without an atmosphere simply means we have to supply all the deceleration by propulsive means.  There is nothing from a science or engineering aspect that precludes this.  In fact, it is entirely plausible as thousands of aerospace experts worldwide attest.

In addition to this issue, the Apollo missions were NOT unmanned missions. Not only did Apollo astronauts have to touch the lunar surface safely, but also NASA had to get them back to the lower lunar orbit and had them dock the Command-Module again.  Getting them back to the lower lunar orbit sounds like another technical speaking, mission impossible issue.

It seems impossible only to those who lack the knowledge necessary to understand the issue.

That means NASA would offer additional fuels to lift-off astronauts to the lower lunar orbit

Which is exactly what they did; and in just the right proportion as the calculations verify.

( How far is it from the surface of the Moon? 100 km? or 150 km? or maybe several hundred km? We all know a jet plane is moving in the air which is 10-12 km above the surface of Earth.)

It varied mission to mission, but the LM was generally lifted to about 15 km under rocket power and then coasted up to an apolune of about 80 km.

When the astronauts got back to the lower lunar orbit, some sorts of guiding systems had to be activated in order to track precisely where the Command-Module was.

Tracking stations on Earth could precisely track the trajectories of both the CM and LM.  Engineers on the ground could then calculate if any modifications in the LM’s trajectory were needed to guide it to a rendezvous with the CM.  Any necessary corrections were radioed up to the spacecraft and the maneuvers performed.

Note the Command-Module on the lunar orbit was moving at ultra fast speed, 1.6km/s. ( 5760 km per hour ). The Lunar-Module with two Apollo astronauts got to capture such an object with ultra fast speed and finally dock it without any error and danger. Do you believe it could be done?

The Space Shuttle routinely docks with the ISS in Earth orbit moving nearly five times as fast.  The Gemini spacecraft performed rendezvous and docking missions as early as 1965.  The maneuvers require great precision but are certainly within our capability as a spacefaring species.
 

-unfinished, please wait for another part.

Sorry, but you don’t get to wait for hours without expecting others to reply.

[Bob B.]

You mention the LM descent capabilities with the help of anti-gravity devices. If such devices have been developed for quite while. Why does NASA never release these for civilian use? or at least license these to people who need? Is it top secret? or it was given by intelligent aliens? What is NASA afraid for?

Please get serious; you know I made no such claim about NASA possessing secret anti-gravity technology.  I said the LM descended to the lunar surface using rocket power to decelerate it.  Since a rocket engine can be used to counteract gravity, I compared it to an anti-gravity device.  I was exaggerating.

[Bob B.]

The Chinese and Japanese moon landing programs will be doomed. They are all mission impossible within 20 years. Time will tell us what the outcome should be.

How about missions of the past?  You didn't comment on the Soviet unmanned lunar landings in the 1960s and 1970s.  Are you about to accuse the former Soviet states of perpetrating a colossal hoax upon the world?

If a landing on and liftoff from the Moon is impossible, then how do you explain the hundreds of kilograms of lunar rock, soil, and core samples that are in our possession?  You do realize that hundreds of geologists from all around the world attest that these samples are of authentic lunar origin?  Are you prepared to accuse these esteemed scientists of incompetence?  Do you know the former Soviet Union also returned a small quantity of lunar soil, which geologically matches the Apollo samples?

[Bob B.]

Some I think the burden of proof falls upon NASA, not people who make such allegations.

NASA has made available more than enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the landings were authentic.  By making the evidence available, NASA has done all it can reasonably do.  It is up to the accusers to familiarize themselves with this evidence and to make certain they understand it.  It is not NASA's responsibility to baby-sit and spoon-feed everyone.  The persons who make these accusations are typically aware of only a tiny fraction of the evidence (if you need to ask what that evidence is then my point is made) and/or don't understand what they have seen.  If they are going to accuse NASA of wrongdoing, then they have the burden of proof for their accusations.  NASA is innocent until proven guilty.

For instance, you claim the landings were faked because you don't understand how the LM could have landed on the Moon and returned to orbit.  Why is your lack of understanding NASA's fault?  Do you expect a NASA engineer to come to your front door and explain it to you?  It is not NASA's job to educate you about rocketry and flight dynamics.  If you want to understand then you have to seek out the data and educate yourself.  Those of us who believe the moon landings were real have done the research and have the education to understand it.  We believe NASA has proven their case convincingly and we expect nothing more from them.  We do, however, expect those how make allegations against NASA to prove their case.

[ijuin]

But you do believe in anti-gravity, even though the laws of physics say it is impossible.  You suggest that NASA has secret technology from aliens.  You believe American and its allies have engaged in a conspiracy to fake the Apollo landings.

If aliens gave technology to the USA, then why should spaceflight technology not be a part of it? 

Anyway, here's a question: If the Apollo landings were faked, then why did the USSR not accuse the USA of faking them? It would certainly have been greatly to the USSR's advantage to convince the world that the USA had not landed on the Moon.

[hyu2004]

Again, let’s see the Lunar-Module ( LM ) descent capabilities. Bob B. in this forum says: “NASA did have an anti-gravity device of sorts, the LM's rocket engine. While in lunar orbit the spacecraft was moving only about 1.6 km/s, which is many times less than a spacecraft in Earth orbit. The LM's engine could easily provide enough propulsion to slow from 1.6 km/s to a soft landing on the Moon. You must also realize that the LM was made as lightweight as possible and burned up about half its initial mass in propellant during the descent. Furthermore, the Moon's surface gravity is only 1/6th that of Earth. As the LM approached the lunar surface its weight in lunar gravity was less than 3,000 pounds. It therefore required no more than 3,000 pounds of thrust to allow it to hover over the surface and gently touchdown. The LM's descent engine was capable of producing a maximum thrust of 10,000 pounds, thus it was throttled down to about 30% thrust for the landing. From a rocketry standpoint, a landing on the Moon was well within the capability of 1960s technology. “

People may or may NOT believe Lunar-Module ( LM ) has such magical power. On the lunar orbit, as the Lunar-Module began to separate from the Command-Module and set out for the historical expedition of lunar surface, it had the initial speed of 1.6km/s, and it was falling to the moon, this falling object was also simultaneously influenced by velocity. Bob B. says: “ The LM's engine could easily provide enough propulsion to slow from 1.6 km/s to a soft landing on the Moon. “ ; “ Furthermore, the Moon's surface gravity is only 1/6th that of Earth. As the LM approached the lunar surface its weight in lunar gravity was less than 3,000 pounds. It therefore required no more than 3,000 pounds of thrust to allow it to hover over the surface and gently touchdown. “. Hey! Bob! Is that your conclusion? “ With the initial speed of 1.6km/s plus velocity, the Lunar-Module’s rocket engine still could easily provide enough propulsion to slow down itself, result in soft landing on the surface of the Moon. Before the moment that LM started so-called “ hover over the surface and gently touchdown “, the LM was completely near the status of floating upon the lunar surface, its speed reduced to about 0 km/s.

The LM was not unmanned space vehicle. It had to host two astronauts. If so-called “ hover over the surface and gently touchdown “ was the real situation, NASA had to conduct numerously rigorous experiments and tests on Earth before the Apollo missions to make sure that LM’s rocket engine could do the job, then allowed so many participants or even civilians to witness some progress of those experiments and tests. If test results showed the LM’s rocket engine could definitely do the job, there would be so many participants and civilians shocked by this great technological leap forward. Those people would not hide their admiration and have to tell the story, and NASA would voluntarily or involuntarily have to release this breaking news to the press. The big question hereby shows up: “ Did anyone see those experiments and tests? “ The answer is quite clear: “ No. “ Another question could show up subsequently: “ Why did nobody see? “ The answer could vary. Maybe NASA never accomplished this kind of great technological leap forward so there is no way conducting numerously rigorous experiments and tests on Earth. Maybe some technological progress had been made, but NASA was unable to simulate the environments which were similar to that of lunar orbit. Without simulated environments, any experiment and test would result in inaccuracy, uncertainly, and bias; therefore, it is not worthy to conduct experiments and tests on Earth environments. One thing is for sure. NOBODY EVER SAW THE DESCENT CAPABILITIES OF LUNAR MODULE ON EARTH; THEREFORE, NOBODY WAS CERTAIN THAT LUNAR MODULE’S ROCKET ENGINE COULD DO THE JOB WHILE ON THE LUNAR ORBIT.

So NASA would not put two astronauts into Lunar-Module and descent to lunar surface. Lunar-Module was merely a toy. It was about to cheat. All three astronauts of Apollo 11 remained in the Command-Module. They could possibly reach the Moon on schedule but only on the orbit of the Moon. None of the three astronauts ever landed on the surface of the Moon.   

My dear Bob, don’t you ever worry this great crusade was still a little dangerous, a little uncertain, and a little worthless? The Lunar-Module was NOT fully tested. It could NOT be used for landing. Try to have some logics. If you had been that big boss, the decision maker, Would you have been really willing to gamble your men’s life? The American love their astronauts. NASA spends billions of dollars on training these astronauts. They are so precious. They can’t just die out there. If anyone dies out there, this tragedy will certainly disgrace NASA as well as U. S. national prides.

-unfinished. Please wait for another part.
 

[Satanic Mechanic]

Hyu2004,
Your reasoning is flawed just like your renegade province.

One China,

Satanic Mechanic  (Mao Hung Wang)
Beijing, People's Republic of China.

[Bob B.]

hyu2004,

I thought the human species had moved past having to believe in magic to explain things we don’t understand, but apparently you have not evolved that far yet.  The LM did not use magic, it used rocket propulsion.  Rocketry is a science that has been well understood and successfully used for decades.  It is the same technology launched the first liquid-fuelled rocket in 1926, that rained bombs down on London in 1944, put satellites into orbit in 1957, launched men into space in 1961, landed the first probe on another world in 1966, and put men on the Moon in 1969.  If you think magic is required to accomplish these things perhaps you would be well served by taking some physics and mechanics classes.

[DonPMitchell]

Mr. Yu.  You are asking us to chose between two things:

1. Believe the opinion of thousands of highly educated scientists and engineers.

2. Believe the opinion of one man who does not know math or physics.

You lose that contest.

[sparkmaster]

Hyu2004,
Your reasoning is flawed just like your renegade province.

One China,

Satanic Mechanic  (Mao Hung Wang)
Beijing, People's Republic of China.

In the words of my Generation...

Pwned.

[Bob B.]

… NASA had to conduct numerously rigorous experiments and tests on Earth before the Apollo missions to make sure that LM’s rocket engine could do the job, then allowed so many participants or even civilians to witness some progress of those experiments and tests. If test results showed the LM’s rocket engine could definitely do the job, there would be so many participants and civilians shocked by this great technological leap forward. Those people would not hide their admiration and have to tell the story, and NASA would voluntarily or involuntarily have to release this breaking news to the press. The big question hereby shows up: “ Did anyone see those experiments and tests? “ The answer is quite clear: “ No. “

Your entire rationale for claiming no tests were conducted was that no one was shocked by the miracle taking place before their eyes.  Perhaps no one was shocked because they were witnessing a well engineered machine operating as designed and expected.  The LM was not a technological leap but the result of a steady progression of aerospace research and development.

Do you realize you’re using a logical fallacy known as begging the question?  ”Had the LM worked people would have been shocked.  Since people weren’t shocked, the LM didn’t work.”  This argument assumes that people’s shock at a successful test is already proven and is used in support of itself.  You ask us to use logic but it is you who have committed a serious logical error.

The Lunar-Module was NOT fully tested.

Why are you so convinced the LM was not fully tested?  I think you have some more research to do; perhaps you should start with the following book:

Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module

Book Description
In 1961, only a few weeks after Alan Shepherd completed the first American suborbital flight, President John F. Kennedy announced that the U.S. would put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. The next year, NASA awarded the right to meet the extraordinary challenge of building a lunar excursion module to a small airplane company called Grumman from Long Island, New York. Chief engineer Thomas J. Kelly gives a first-hand account of designing, building, testing, and flying the Apollo lunar module. It was, he writes, "and aerospace engineer's dream job of the century." Kelly's account begins with the imaginative process of sketching solutions to a host of technical challenges with an emphasis on safety, reliability, and maintainability. He catalogs numerous test failures, including propulsion-system leaks, ascent-engine instability, stress corrosion of the aluminum allow parts, and battery problems, as well as their fixes under the ever-present constraints of budget and schedule. He also recaptures the anticipation of the first unmanned lunar module flight with Apollo 5 in 1968, the exhilaration of hearing Apollo 11's Neil Armstrong report that "The Eagle has Landed," and the pride of having inadvertently provided a vital "lifeboat" for the crew of the disabled Apollo 13.