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

Nope.

Sure, I am self-educated about the sciences. I won't argue that.

But for you to jump in the middle of ME asking the OP to clarify what he thought he meant...

What's the purpose of that? Other than to confirm (in your own mind, at least) that you are the only smart person in the room.

Get off yourself. "Stationary Orbit" was not usefully defined within the context of the OP's post, and that is what I asked for; not what it means in the general scheme of things, but what it meant to HIM that he would bring it up.




Of course, the geostationary belt is way further than LEO, (and smack dab in the proton belt), AND the spacecraft are in fact maneuvering on a regular basis to counter precession (so not exactly a fixed point in orbit or in space) it in no way makes it more attractive for orbital rendezvous.

If you actually give a flying feghoot about discussing the underlying science, instead of posturing. Which I doubt.

Anyone has the spec for LM:
wireless data modem speeds
Data transfer protocol(s)
Error correction protocol(s)
?

Not in that form. I think you could work it out but the information is spread out across multiple pdf's. Look for the AGC, the Combined S-Wave Broadcast System, and...I'm not even sure where to look for specifics on the data uplink.

Thanks for that, however i'm a skeptic...
I don't think they could have transfer the data in real time for the meeting of the CM and LM, it's two way communication with lots of info and calculations

But communication isn't required at all.
The position of the C/SM is exactly known, it is a sitting duck.
The LM only has to get into an orbit that matches that of the C/SM.
Once done they could rendezvous by just eyeballing it.
You could manage that even without radar.

Rendezvousing and docking with an inert unmanned craft was tested and practised during the Gemini programme, it was in fact one of the main objectives of Gemini.



The Ascend Stage had 16 control rockets mounted in 4 quads.
At intervals the flight computer would poll the inertial tracker to check if the axis of the ship deviated more than a certain amount from the direction is was supposed to be pointed.
If so the computer would fire the appropriate control rockets to swing it into the correct direction.
So basically like all craft during powered space flight.


The 'thunderous noise' you are expecting isn't so much produced by the powerful rocket engine itself, but by the turbulence caused by the interaction of the exhaust with the atmosphere.
No atmosphere, a lot less noise. (Mostly the pumps.)



For landing.
Landing and lift-off were separate systems.
In fact they were separate craft.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 12/28/2012 05:11 PM

Why would they need to?

Or, rather, "real time" in this context means between burns. That's the nice thing about working in space; when you know where a spacecraft was (as in, following a certain vector), you know where it will be, baring any action on its part.

The CSM is in orbit. It isn't changing that (well, it is drifting...precession, decay due to mascons, etc....but not enough to keep you from getting within a handful of meters). So there's DAYS for NASA to work out exactly what the major maneuvers will be.

Which brings us to another point. You don't try to solve the entire rendezvous in one swell foop. You solve it to the point where you can make a correction. The point from correction on is a smaller part of the problem. Keep doing that until the only correction is the rate of closure of two spacecraft a couple of meters apart, and sighting reticule and a firm hand on the stick is enough to take up the remaining error.

yeah, there are so many holes in the moon story that it is amazing that it is still believed...

It might seem that way to someone who doesn't understand the story.

If the last two days have demonstrated anything it is that hoaxies never understand the story.

I understand that things went off basically without a hitch on every mission. That's scientifically not possible. But what do I know, I'm just some guy who is telling the bluepring to the illusion and getting scoffed at, so yeah I don't buy the story and I don't stand under the authority of those who told the story either (reference to my other thread about words not meaning what we think they do)...

Peace...

There are so many holes in the hoaxie theories I don't know how they could keep a straight face.

I mean, really. You walk on the scene, and one guy is arguing that three men are in the spacecraft, another thinks rockets won't work in a vacuum, a third thinks parallel lines remain parallel in a point projection, and the last thinks the Earth is flat.

And you say to yourself, "Those other guys are crazy. But my reason to disbelieve is entirely different, so...."

Nope. I can't do it. Me, I'd look around at every other person who is sure that they have the answer, and I'd be pretty doubtful that I was the odd man out.

Hoaxies don't do that. Self-reflection is not among their talents.

Space is made in a Hollywood Basement as the song says.

No doubt it was fake, at least the shit they Broadcasted.

And besides the Van Allen Belt is the smoking gun.

I love how they shot all those perfect plate shots of the moon while having a camera strapped to your body ( a modified Hasselblad no less. And how about those space gloves just try an
Never mind the photos where you can obviously see multiple shadows( only one lighting source was used on the moon and the was the sun. Take a look at some of the shots of the lunar lander where the sun is behind the lander and somehow the lander is being lit up to the point of good definition when it should be in silhouette.
Armstrong and the Astronauts may have gone to the moon albeit very doubtful but the pictures and the tv broadcast was absolute Hollywood. Ah the Illuminati the sure have pulled the wool over a lot peoples eyes with stunts like these. They must just sit back and laugh there asses off at all the suckers they make believers out of with the illusion of Hollywood.
Good reference book on this subject is "Dark Moon"

[link to www.ufos-aliens.co.uk]

Peace

Oh, look: just when I needed a good illustration, one is offered up freely!

Parallel shadows, no less.

Ever heard of the fact that gravity on the moon is waaaaayyyy less than on earth (roughly a bit less than 17% than earths gravity). This means that 5 kilo (or pound, whatever) on earth equals 1 kilo on the moon.
So, when on earth your weight is 80 kilo, it'll be 16 kilo. This means that you do need a lot LESS of energy to lift off from the moon. This also means that the escape velocity is much less than on earth. All this means : you can lift off from the moon to space with rather small, simple rockets. So no real rocket scientists are required.

OP, how old are you? Did you already have classes on physics? Where I live, we learn this stuff when we are 15 or 16 years old...

@halycon : no use trying to argue with those guys. They have no scientific background and get all their info on forums. Half of what they find they understand, the other half they fantasize with it. And then you get stories like this. When you start giving hard facts, calculations and how things are done in the real world, it gets way to complicated for them and then they start mumbling... Watch my words... I see you are from holland. So you got a good education too... I'm from Belgium

I'm sorry but this is only reinforcing your point about not knowing the story.

Things were CONSTANTLY going wrong on the Apollo missions. Remember 13? They made a movie about it?

Other missions had other, smaller problems that had to be fixed while they were on flight or by command. But it hardly went off without a hitch.

No carnival bearded ladies in space?

Correction: We went up into Low Earth Orbit twice in 1969 (Apollo 11, 12), once in 1970 (Apollo 13), twice in 1971 (Apollo 14, 15), and twice in 1972 (Apollo 16, 17).

:docbrown:

First, how could that be determined by 12 men walking on the surface for a few hours of a planetary body, armed with a dune buggy and golf clubs?

Second, the moon has H3 -- a clean energy. ESPECIALLY in these days of rising fuel costs, "global warming" from burning fossil fuels, and "peak oil", we should be up on the moon mining Helium 3 all day every day. But we're not...because we can't, and never could.

He3 is a LOT tougher to fuse than D-T. And we've not quite managed break-even with that. Still decades away from commercial use.

So even if we had the He3 right here, right now, it could be thirty years before we got any power out of it.

And getting it off the Moon is not an easy chore. It isn't in beds or veins, it is part of the ultra-thin dusting of the entire surface. Imagine trying to fill a swimming pool by scraping the dew off the grass of a golf course -- except the latter would be vastly easier.

Yes they did land on the Moon but with very advanced tech that they had (what we call UFOs). And yes they filmed themselves with fake lunar landers to hide the tech with which they really went to the Moon.

Than you understand wrong.
Every mission had problems.

Apollo 1 – Crew killed during a test. Mission Failure.
Apollo 7 – Crew got colds/space sickness; SLA Panel failed to unfold properly after CSM undocking.
Apollo 8 – Borman got sick.
Apollo 9 – Schweickart got spacesick resulting in a cut back EVA; LM engine stuttered at 20% thrust
Apollo 10 – LM was docked twisted with fears of the docking mechanism shearing off when undocked; Radar tracking of CSM caused the AGC to try and fly the LM through the moon on Abort leading to near gimbal-lock.
Apollo 11 – 1201 and 1202 alarms on landing; Boulder field lead to landing long and low fuel landing; Fuel line froze leading to pressure build up after landing; Broken Engine Arm circuit breaker switch; unexpected gimbal lock during LM - C/SM docking.
Apollo 12 – Struck by lightening twice on launch; Burned out TV Camera; RTG expanded due to heat and jammed in canister; Both Hassleblads' triggers broke, one was unfixable; Lost the Hassleblad Timer; Bean forgot to remove DAC from its bracket on landing and was hit by it, knocking him out.
Apollo 13 – Mattingly exposed to measles; Centre engine on second stage shut down due to pogo; Oxygen Tank 2 Sensor burned out setting itself to a false high off the scale reading; Oxygen Tank 2 exploded crippling CSM; LM's spare LiOH canisters in MESA so CO2 levels rose to dangerous levels; Blocking out sunlight caused LM to cool too much; Haise got kidney infection due to lack of drinking water; Shallow entry caused long radio black out on reentry. Mission Failure.
Apollo 14 – Late landing radar lock-on; LM docking failure, took 6 attempts to get it to lock; Loose ball of solder in computer panel shorted out abort button.
Apollo 15 – Shorted SPS control switch; LRV steering issues; Broken LRV fender; LRV camera mount lost vertical movement ability; Final undocking of LM delayed due to Scott's glove having moon dust in it and refusing to lock (New regulations required spacesuits for undocking after the Soyuz 11 accident); Dehydration of Irwin and Scott, causing irregular heart rhythms; RCS system on CM burnt though one parachute's lines.
Apollo 16 –Oscillation problem with the CSM secondary gyroscopes delayed landing; SPS gimbal problems nearly scrubbed landing; Broken Core Temp experiment line; Broken LRV fender.
Apollo 17 – One of four docking clamps failed to lock into place having to be done manually; Broken LRV fender.



Based on what scientific principle?


Indeed.


I don't know what that means.


Since your opinion on the historicity of Apollo is based on ignorance why should anyone take it serious?




I'm not arguing with them.
I am demonstrating to any fence-sitters in the peanut gallery how immensely out of their depths hoaxies are.
After toying with them for 7 years I'm very well aware that hoaxies are impervious to reason and evidence, that why they are hoaxies in the first place.

Good post.

Well do the correct thing and supply him/her with the information they are looking for to rightfully explain how they achieved this lift off based on guess work.

The Apollo astronauts were military guys, under a military code of conduct and justice. You obeyed orders. You didn't scientifically question. If they were told to do something and shut up about it, that's what they did. And that's exactly what they did do. They went up into Low Earth Orbit for 8 days (just like the Shuttle missions), and were trained to say, with facts and figures, that they'd been to the moon.

Well, they didn't fly straight through the most dense part of it for one.

Secondly, Shielding on the command module helped.

Thirdly, The types of radiation that they needed to shield against doesn't require tons of lead to do so.
(They aren't flying through a nuclear reactor, ya know.)

Last Edited by Rabid Wolf on 08/27/2012 05:10 AM

It was a rather odd press conference. Looked more like a funeral.

Moon Landings and Magnetic Videotape.

Thats' a joke in and of itself.

Radio waves were beamed from earth to the moon, and reflected back to earth. To any outside listener, it would seem that the communication would be coming from the surface of the moon.