NASA Moon Landing Hoax 100% Proof

Are you sure? this is what Wikipedia says

"Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf"

I so get tired of idiots like you. There are a thousand proofs we went there. But, I will just give you one.

I have personally examined quite a number of the moon rocks. If you look at them under an electron microscope, you will see inclusions that are as small as 1/10,000 of an inch from micro meteorites. If those rocks were from earth, there is zero, zero, and I mean zero probability such inclusions would be there. THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE WOULD HAVE NEVER LET THOSE MICRO METEORITES THROUGH TO IMPACT THOSE ROCKS!!! DUMBASS.

There are hundreds of pounds of such rocks.

So, Einstein, where the fuck did those rocks come from???

Drees received it from US ambassador J Middendorf, NOT an Apollo astronaut. That is the truth of the matter. Don't trust the fake news. Do your research.

regardless who gave it to them, its fake...funny that once they found it to be fake they claim it wasnt an actual REAL moonrock given by NASA. I believe they are all fake, just like every bullshit trip they faked to the moon..around the van allen radiation belts lol... that was the funniests line yet too.you all can say NASA went to the moon till you are blue in the face. I call bullshit, or better yet DO IT AGAIN. but of course they wont, cuz they cant

moon landing is real, we were told never to return.

regardless who gave it to them, its fake...

Now the question is, why would they lie about going to the moon in the first place?

Maybe people were afraid to the moon back in the day?

AGAIN, there is no proof it was ever intended to be a Moon rock. His estate ASSUMED it was after his death.

They can't do it again unless someone is willing to pay for it.

so the 50 billion a year fir their nasa budget wont cover it why? oh yeah : they need that money to take rides in the zero G plane and do sumemrsaults on the ISS and do water balloon experiments with those billions.

After watched NASA moon landing videos, only a fool or liar will say it is not hoax.

Foolishness is forgivable, lying is not, your nose will grow longer very soon.

I have a 200x telescope. I can see the planted American flag on the moon from my house.

For 40 years, I believed that the moon landing was real.

I entertained the possibility of U.F.O. aliens visiting Earth because of it.

But the last 6 years of doing research on the internet watching the videos of the actual landing, I think it is easy to fake the moon landing.

The Van Allen Belts of radiation.

The little moon lander had enough room for water, oxygen and rocket fuel in it?

I am supposed to believe they walked around in diapers or did they hold it in till they got back to Earth?
No way there was room for a toilet in that ship.

There is lots of footage of them jumping around but they never pointed the camera at the Earth in the moon's sky.

They waited 40 years to release extra photos that were digitized because the original footage was lost/misplaced/damaged?

They release pictures of moon landing from today's telescope that could easily be photo-shopped.

There was supposed to be a race between the Russians and the United States. So when the U.S. got there first, the Russians gave up? N.A.S.A. didn't give up when the Russians were first to be in space.

Cool! Take a picture of it and post it!

The Van Allen Belts of radiation.

Different region of the belts, totally different trajectory in 1969.


It was not dangerous given Apollo's trajectory. It would be given Orion EFT-1's trajectory. Orion also uses a totally different kind of computer which is sensitive to radiation upsets. End of story.

The little moon lander had enough room for water, oxygen and rocket fuel in it?

For the moon there's no atmosphere, so your orbital altitude can technically be anything above about 11 km since the highest point on the moon is about 10.8 km high. As long as you don't slam into the surface, you can reach orbital velocity. In practice it's not quite that simple since the moon is lumpy and gravitational turbulence will perturb your orbit until you do slam into the moon (particularly if you're at very low altitudes) unless you actively counter it with course corrections. But for the sake of calculating a number, let's assume a 11km altitude orbit is viable.

Velocity of a circular orbit = Sqrt((G*M)/r)
Where G = gravitational constant
M = Mass of the moon
r = orbital radius relative to the center of the moon
The moon's equatorial radius is 1738.1 km, so for an orbital radius of 1838100 meters and a mass of the moon of 7.34767*10^22 kg, the circular orbital velocity is 1633 m/s. The moon's rotational velocity is pretty slow, 4.627 m/s at the equator, but if you launch from the equator due east you do get to take advantage of the rotation and so you can subtraction 4.627 m/s from your delta-V requirement to get to orbit. 1628.4 m/s then. You also need to account for gravity losses during launch; thrust spent to offset the gravity of the moon while launching up. Since you can go directly to very low altitude orbits though these losses will not be very large since you can pitch over almost immediately and start using almost all your thrust to build up horizontal velocity rather than offsetting the moon's gravity. The moon's gravity is 1.622 m/s^2, so we can roughly approximate gravity loss as the delta-V it takes to reach 11 km altitude at 0 vertical velocity - this is actually over-estimating the amount of gravity loss a bit since the most efficient path is more of a curve and not straight up and then a 90 degree instant pitch-over. But just to get a ballpark, this will equal Sqrt(2*1.622 m/s*11000 m). That equals about 189 m/s. So the total delta-V to reach lunar orbit would be about 1817 m/s (again it's actually a bit less than this since the path we calculated is not the most efficient, but it's a good approximation).

So anyway, gravity drag is of course much more significant for launches from earth's surface. You have to reach much higher altitudes in a much more powerful gravity well. Atmospheric drag is a factor too, but it's actually a lot less important than gravity losses (generally by at least an order of magnitude). In fact the heavier the rocket, the smaller the ratio of surface area (in the direction of flight) to mass, so the less drag it experiences due to the atmosphere. Gravity drag for earth launches accounts generally for about 1.2 ~ 1.5 km/s of delta-V required to reach orbit. Earth's mass is 5.972 * 10^24 kg and it has an equatorial radius of about 6378 km. So figure you want to launch into a low earth orbit, say 300 km high. The orbital velocity you need can be calculated the same as the moon, but with the numbers I gave you. You'll find the answer is about 7.7 km/s. So figure about 8.9 km/s delta-V needed to reach earth orbit if you keep gravity losses reasonably low.
*I just remembered I forgot to account for earth's rotation so the numbers I calculated are really for launching from one of the poles. From the equator you save about another 465m/s delta-V.


Now in terms of the "amount of fuel," that depends radically upon the amount of mass you're trying to get and what velocity you're trying to get it to. This can be calculated with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Delta-V of a rocket = exhaust velocity * natural log(initial mass/final mass).

It's kind of apples and oranges for launching from the earth vs the moon; you're generally trying to get a much larger payload into earth orbit than lunar orbit, particularly if you're going to the moon. If you're leaving the moon then you just need a bare bones spacecraft like the LM and use a much heavier capsule you rendezvous with to get back to earth safely. If you're launching from earth you need a heavy capsule with a heat shield at a minimum to get back safely. See the issue? If all you had to do was get a lunar ascent module sized mass into earth orbit with a delta-V of 8.9 km/s and the same exhaust velocity as a lunar module, then the fuel you would need would be only about 38,320 kg of fuel (somewhere between a Mercury Redstone and a Mercury Atlas rocket). But Apollo had to put a lot more than the ascent stage of a lunar module into orbit in order to get the moon. The ascent stage itself carried about 2639 kg of fuel, which provides more than enough delta-V to get to lunar orbit (about 2041 m/s if you do the math). So to answer your question in its most basic form, it takes about 14.5 times the amount of fuel to get a lunar ascent stage to earth orbit that it takes to get it to lunar orbit.

I am supposed to believe they walked around in diapers or did they hold it in till they got back to Earth?
No way there was room for a toilet in that ship.

There is lots of footage of them jumping around but they never pointed the camera at the Earth in the moon's sky.

They waited 40 years to release extra photos that were digitized because the original footage was lost/misplaced/damaged?

There was supposed to be a race between the Russians and the United States. So when the U.S. got there first, the Russians gave up? N.A.S.A. didn't give up when the Russians were first to be in space.

went around them.


Yes.


Why don't you know already?


Wrong. There are pictures of the Earth.


All photos have been available since the 70's. The digitizing made them easier to access.

Opinion


Russia didn't give up. They had an active program until 1974, two years AFTER Apollo ended. They couldn't get there because their heavy lifting rocket, the N-1, kept exploding instead of launching.

Anyone who still believes in a moon landing is hopelessly stupid!!!!

Anyone who still believes in a moon landing is hopelessly stupid!!!!

Astromut deleted the thread where he could not prove this to be wrong. I wonder why?

It's getting more and more obvious that there are serious problems with NASA and they would seem to be faking pretty much everything.



[link to youtu.be (secure)]

maybe someone went to the moon, but not the way we have been told

hey dr. a. I have question about the view of earth. I want to believe. (see other posts in this thread)

in the video at about 3:49. The image of the half lit earth, relative to the astronaut (over the shoulder view) is tiny. it is smaller than the moon would be if I took the same shot from earth. The diameter of the earth is 7,917.5 mi. The moon is 2,159 mi.

It is wierd because that is about the reverse of the ratio shown/expected. I used to be good at math and spatial so thats why I noticed it. But now I am old so I see things the inverse of what they should be.

For 40 years, I believed that the moon landing was real.

I entertained the possibility of U.F.O. aliens visiting Earth because of it.

But the last 6 years of doing research on the internet watching the videos of the actual landing, I think it is easy to fake the moon landing.

The Van Allen Belts of radiation.
The little moon lander had enough room for water, oxygen and rocket fuel in it?
I am supposed to believe they walked around in diapers or did they hold it in till they got back to Earth?
No way there was room for a toilet in that ship.
There is lots of footage of them jumping around but they never pointed the camera at the Earth in the moon's sky.
They waited 40 years to release extra photos that were digitized because the original footage was lost/misplaced/damaged?
They release pictures of moon landing from today's telescope that could easily be photo-shopped.

There was supposed to be a race between the Russians and the United States. So when the U.S. got there first, the Russians gave up? N.A.S.A. didn't give up when the Russians were first to be in space.

I know when friends/family/strangers lie. A red flag goes up in my heart. I feel something is not right. Like when food is past the expiration date.
This Moon Landing is bunch of bullshit and I feel like a gullible fool for believing in this "Santa Claus" fairy tale for 40 years.

Or maybe meteorites that crashed on earth were crushed up and passed off as moon rock?

how do you KNOW it is smaller? Do you have a camera with the same lens? Are you even aware that the lens used affects the size of objects in the frame? The camera is using a wide angle lens, hence a large field of view, hence objects will appear smaller. I'd bet if you did the math with the field of view you'd find the Earth takes up about 2 degrees just as it should.