If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?

No, like so many on this thread, it just proves you know nothing of what you speak.

1. The mass of the Saturn 5 from Earth is no where NEAR the mass of the LEM.

2. The LEM did NOT use the same technology as the S5, it was a pure chemical reactionary motor.

3. You do not know your head from your butt and need to go back to HS to figure out basic chemistry and physics.

You all FAIL, on so many levels, that it hurts to even type this, much less type it again. Done.

Losers.

if the moon landing was fake how come we have satelite pictures of the american flag still standing there and the left behind pieces of the LEM, just google them you numb nuts.

Moon has 1/6 Gravity of earth. There is is safe to assume the lander would 1/6 the fuel of the Appolo or even lets say 1/10 the fule Appolo, just to take off. But the lander has enough fuel to land, take off and catch up with appolo? Go Figure ?????? TOTAL HOAX

No, it is not safe to say that. The Saturn V had to deal with air resistance. It also had to carry EVERYTHING that would be needed later, including the LM that would take off from the Moon and the SM that pushed them back to Earth. The LM only had to carry part of itself (the descent stage was left on the Moon). IF the LM put the same amount of mass into lunar orbit that the Saturn V could put into Earth orbit then it would be close to 1/6 the fuel requirements but the LM had to deal with far less mass.

If you don't believe the LM had enough fuel to do it then you need to PROVE IT. The equations are out there. Show that the LM didn't have the delta V to do what it needed to do. Until then you're just aving your hands around and tilting at windmills.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 01/27/2013 08:24 AM

I've thought about it in these terms; the Moon is a dirt bike track.

A competition team leaves from upstate New York in a semi-trailer. When they get to Barstow, they unload a couple of off-road trucks with the bikes on racks. They get to the desert, ride the bikes around a bit, ride the bikes back to the SUV's and get off. Then they take the roof racks off, dump them on the sand beside the abandoned bikes, and drive the SUV's back to New York.

There's several places where the analogy doesn't stretch. For instance, imagine it is downhill the entire way so while you had half of the semi filled with diesel on the way out to California, you can coast most of the way back.

But the essential idea is this; what took off from Earth is not what landed on the Moon, and what landed on the Moon is not what returned to Earth.

So any direct comparison of propellant mass is meaningless -- just as meaningless as comparing the gas mileage of a dirt bike, and the tractor-trailer hauling the entire team.

Moon landing not real. Check out ALL the endless true info on You Tube. I mean check this out. They NEVER gone more than 500 miles out from earth. Then all of a sudden they're able to go through the radiation belt which would kill any living thing and go 40,000 miles to the moon in THAT rinky dink thing with those rinky dink rovers, etc? Get real. Good photography for the 60's though. Done by Kubrick. All about it on You Tube. The Most Expensive Movie Ever Made!

check this, from 43:54

[link to youtu.be]

My head is also beginning to hurt from the above ignorance. The guy above is 100% correct in his statement with points: 1,2,3! OP is just simpy simpleton from simpletown......Looser, climb back under your rock!

I think GLP should stop wasting server space for this stupid crap coming from OP.

LETS LOOK AT SOME FACTS:
What I think you should do is the following:
1. You need to read a book or two or "one word at a time" take few math and science classes not advanced just HS level.
2. The LEM used chemical rockets (Hydrazine "burns w/o O2") to escape from the moon in a ZERO O2 space enviroment.

How to calculate the speed/thrust of Saturn V and LEM:
Speed it takes to escape EARTHS gravity (17,500 mph)
Speed it takes to escape MOONS gravity (2,917 mph)
Note, the moon is 1/6 the gravitational pull or Earth.

SATURN V: Total weight with, LEM, fuel 6.1 million lbs
THRUST PRODUCED 1st STAGE *"only": 7.5 million lbs per sec
THRUST PER LB BASED ESCAPE EARTH: 1.229 lb per second
THRUST PER LB BASED ESCAPE MOON: .2049 lb per second
Note, the moon is 1/6 the gravitational pull or Earth.

* Based on power from 1st stage only...this will give you the idea!

To prove you and your "wild assumption" worng I am positive that you can see that by doing the math above. Things needed design a rocket that burns on earth/space and achives needed thrust/speed we are good to go.

PS: I was a mathamatics specialist for Boeing

So you seem to think that once they got to the Moon they had to reinvent rockets again? They technology was built on the Earth and it just went with them. The pull of gravity on the Moon is only one-sixth the pull on the Earth and there is no air. Rockets are "pointy" on Earth because of air friction. The LM ascent module weighed (on Earth) around 5 tons. That is less than one ton on the Moon. About half the mass was fuel.

So let me ask you, when a pilot lands an airplane does he have to reinvent the airplane to take off?

And, actually, they did.

The men who went to the Moon were NOT just top-of-the-line test pilots, were NOT just men who had flown spacecraft-like machines (the X-15) and who had in many cases flown in space during Projects Mercury and Gemini, NOT just men who had advanced degrees in engineering, aeronautics, and space sciences, BUT men who had helped to design and build the very craft they were piloting.

Get a brane, morans.

That's been my question all along.
It only took 44 years for the GLP
community to develop and start asking.

General public probably never will.
If you want to do the math, moon
gravity is 1/4 that of earth, according
to NASA myth.

It took about 14,000,000 pounds (nearly 7kt) of explosives
to get the N1 (soviet) into low earth orbit.

Ask some teachers. Get a video of
their reactions. Post it. Hilarious.

Is this a Poe or something?

Lunar surface gravity is 1/6 that of Earth, but that isn't the same ratio as escape velocity; escape velocity is purely dependent on mass (whereas surface gravity is also determined by diameter).

And the N1 going to LEO? Sergei Korolev wished! The best the N1 ever got to was 40 kilometers. Several never even made it off the pad.

"I don't understand how it was done therefore it couldn't be done" is NOT a rational statement.

It's Apollo, btw. One p, two l's. And capitalised since it is a proper name.



What is your evidence for your assertion?


What is THEIR evidence for YOUR assertion?


So, because nobody had flown across the Atlantic before it would have been impossible to fly across the Atlantic?
Ergo nobody has ever flown across the Atlantic.

I detect a wee bit of a logical problem with that train of thought.


What is your evidence for your assertion that the Belts "would kill any living thing"?


By what metric did you assess the rinky-dinkyness of these devices?
Can I see your engineering license?


What is your evidence for your assertion?


Ah. The Fountain of All True Knowledge™.


Like most hoaxies you seem to be under the delusion that the photography and the "movie" is the only evidence for Apollo.
It isn't even important evidence.



Whatcha talking about, Willis?
We've had hundreds of Apollo Hoax threads.
(And we haven't been around that long.)


The general public is better informed than you.


1/6th.
Like all hoaxies you're ignorant of the most basic relevant facts.

You didn't do the math. ('Cause you can't.)
People who have all got the right results.


Whatcha talking about, Willis?
It took that much 'explosives' for the N1s to produce a very satisfying Earth-shattering KABOOM!


They are not laughing with you.

We did not go
OP is correct
Van Allen belts is all you need to know

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

let the real astrophysicists explain how its easier to actually go to the moon than it would be to pull off a hoax involving so many people and keep it secret for so many years.

The OP doesn't exactly form the most cogent argument, but that doesn't detract from the fact that, ultimately, he is correct: The moon landing, as we have been brainwashed to believe it happened, was clearly a hoax. There are so many inconsistencies in the official story, but just doing something as simple as watching the "moon footage" and seeing how the astronauts move, and how high they're able to jump in 1/6th Earth's gravity, is incredibly insulting to the intellect. You don't have to have a ridiculously high IQ to be able to observe, reason, and understand when you're being lied to.

We don't know what really happened, if anything, because the imagery NASA has shown to the public re the Moon landings and the rest of the space program since then are fraudulent. I'm sure there is a real space program though we aren't privy to it.

If the infamous moon footage was indeed taken on the moon then there's another problem: no way is that a 1/6 earth gravity environment. The moon rover is designed for a high gravity environment like earth.

It's all media fakery, folks.

The only way they could have taken off from the moon as depicted would be via antigravity technology, which exists, though is one of the Elite's(tm) most closely guarded secrets.

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." — Dr. James Van Allen



Hoaxies keep saying that.
Assertions, however, aren't facts.
In nearly 40 years hoaxies haven't been able to proof a single claim.
Perhaps things aren't as simple as they think.


So things didn't look like you expected they would.
On what was that expectation based?

OK so we can assume it was fake because of the establishment goons defending the moon landing

Let me tell you why i am now convinced it was fake.

Dismissal and ridicule.

Same method they use for 911

We already know you couldn't use logic to think yourself out off a wet paper bag.
Why rub it in?

Your (very confused) premiss in the OP was shown to be wrong.
If you you disagree provide evidence and rational arguments why the reasons given are incorrect.

If you can't don't go all circular.
There are only "establishment goons" IF there is a hoax.
Which you have yet to proof.

The Shill Gambit is a dead give-away you haven't got a clue.
Come up with better ideas.

Let's all perform a little intellectual exercise, shall we? Let's imagine you're waking up, as I believe all humans are, only at different rates of speed, and you're beginning to see through all the mainstream media bullshit, and all the bullshit you were taught in that government school you attended. Your search for the truth (and at first you don't even know that's what you're doing, searching for the truth) leads you, ultimately, to the strange website known by the strange name of Godlike Productions, since so many of your new, unusual searches bring up results with links to GLP.

Once there, you start to familiarize yourself with the truth about topics like what the Federal Reserve really is and who owns it, how fractional reserve banking works, what the IRS is, what cancer truly is and how the only treatment most people know about is more poisonous to the body than the cancer itself, what the fluoride they add to toothpaste and drinking water really is and what it's meant to do, the list goes on.

You learn the truth about these things one by one, due to your new, much higher level of discernment (you don't know where it came from, but it's clear you have it now), but, in spite of all that, you come on GLP and continue to defend the "moon landings", for years, never altering your opinion that they happened exactly as you were told by the long since bought and paid for mainstream media and the textbooks that the CIA mandates your government school had to use, the very same sources you've come to understand have absolutely lied to you, about everything, for your entire life. Now, does that make any sense?

Does it make any sense that your entire raison d'être, your sole purpose as an entity on GLP is to vociferously defend the official version of a specific series of events (the so-called "moon landings") which quite obviously could never have happened as you've been told? Such a course of action would be one of the most incongruous, cognitively dissonant endeavors you could possibly undertake.

When someone comes on GLP and continues to defend the "moon landings" in that manner, without ever asking any questions about them, without ever trying to understand the truth about the event, but just tries to prove, over and over and over again, that the official story cannot be questioned in any way, but only taken as incontrovertible fact, on a site such as this one, I know quite clearly that poster is a fraud.

Time for somebody to send up a gigapixel camera instead of that Kodak Instamatic Japan sent up recently.

Which brings up, why didn't any film get ruined by radiation?

You're correct. Reality would dictate that they would explode and crash a few times before the technique had all the bugs worked out. Unless they faked it all, like beyonce lip syncing at the inauguration.