NASA Unsure of How to Counter the 'Moon Hoax'

The Associated Press ^ | January 5th 2003 | MARCIA DUNN

[ToSeek]

Is there a better telescope for looking at the moon?

There are things Hubble can do that no Earthbound telescope can possibly do. Looking at the Moon is not among them.

[Frohickey]

There's no telescope in existence with the required magnification to make out such tiny objects on the moon.

Telescope to challenge moon doubters

But Marcus Allen, the British publisher of Nexus magazine and a long-time advocate of the theory, said photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the moon. "Getting to the moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959," he said. "The big problem is getting people there."

How about a photograph via the telescope of the footprints? But if you really are skeptical, I guess there is no proof in the universe that would change your mind. There are two words that describe these kind of people... in-sane.

[gg188]

....the astronauts planted corner reflector modules at the landing sights. Point a good laser at a landing sight and it will yield a measurable reflection. Point it elsewhere at the moon and it won't.

It seems like, instead of a $15,000 book or other similar rebuttals, a demonstration of the laser-reflection would end the issue forever and could be orchestrated as part of an education or scientific endeavor, maybe in prime-time, maybe on PBS...

[ToSeek]

THAT is the distance we are speaking of. The Moon is barely a million miles away (I think...someone can provide the exact figure. I believe it is actually less than a million miles, though). A telescope designed to look at bodies trillions of miles away simply cannot look at it.

Millions of amateur astronomers are suddenly astonished to learn that they need to buy new telescopes in order to look at the Moon.

(The Moon is about 240,000 miles away, btw, and will show up just fine in any competently-engineered telescope.)

[AdA$tra]

Here is a picture I took with my Meade AT70 and my Nikon Coolpix 885. I noticed an anomaly in the lower-right-hand quadrant. I was shocked to see the results after I zoomed in a bit!

[Doctor Stochastic]

The capsule also loses heat by way of radiation.

[Doctor Stochastic]

But the radiation coming from the sun, strikes the Earth causing the heating of the planet. It does not cool the sun though.

Yes, it does. Else the sun would be much hotter.

[MHGinTN]

Remember the ratio of Earth gravity to Moon gravity. Take the Earth weight of the Lunar module and multiply by the fraction/ratio. The Lunar module then must have (?) amount of thrust to slow it from orbit to land on the Moon and most of the thrust would have been instituted high off of the Moon surface so that the descent rate would be very slow. The final thrust from the Lunar module would have been small and spread over the nozzle size of the rocket motor. The crater effect would be negligible beneath the Module in order to bring the descent to near zero since it would have been slowed dramatically to drop out of orbit and then even more by retro descending to well above the surface, with only minimal retro thrust to bring it to a managebale descent rate for touchdown. [Last notion: remember the minute thrust required to slow two massive objects docking in Earth orbit; the most thrust is used well before the two objects are close to each other.]

[BigJimO]

The themes on this intelligent forum continue to support my view that a book based on the moon hoax myths, which explains overlooked or misrepresented technology and science, and which provides do-it-yourself home experiments and investigations for people to use their own brainpower,-- that sort of book is going to be very useful. The issue of radiation, or of cooling in space, or other questions that have been raised here calmly and rationally -- and which remain inadequately explained by NASA -- are examples. Drop me a line at joberg@houston.rr.com if you are particularly interested in such themes and want to be 'test cases' for drafts of specific sections of the book.

And join us for more in-depth discussions at www.badastronomy.com's forum.

Jim Oberg
Galveston County, Texas
www.jamesoberg.com

[Doctor Stochastic]

So was Lincoln. On the other hand, Caesar was stabbed.

[jeremiah]

I understand the process poorly, but if the shuttle, which is in low orbit and protected by some atmosphere, and hiding behind the earth for hours a day, needs to convey heat away, how about a capsule, between the earth and the moon for 3 days, how does it cool? The shuttle needs to have doors that open to expose a thing that I suppose is not aero-dynamic, the capsule was that, and thin skinned

[BigJimO]

Re the 'crater', a lot of the confusion is that MANY pre-Apollo artists and illustrators expected such a crater.

But the suggested calculation -- compute the actual hovoring thrust and divude the force by the area the thrust is applied to -- begins to show why no crater would be dug into the compacted soil.

And compare this with a Harrier jet landing on dirt. Massive thrust downdrafts, but -- no hole, right?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Isn't there a Tammy Faye Baker ski condition:

Two inches of powder on a forty inch base.

[DouglasKC]

Also, if all of the moon landings were faked, then why in the world didn't they fake a successful Apollo 13 landing?

Ahh...that's the beauty of it. What is more convincing? A series of flawless missions...or a series of missions with a near fatal outcome of one of them?

I don't really believe this...just thinking of the inevitable response.

[sit-rep]

I agree. But, with the way the walkers bounced as they walked, the amount of activity in the suspension of the rover as seen in video, suggests enough gravity to give my theory weight. Even if the module was doing 1/2 MPH upon landing, it would still need constant thrust in the last seconds befor touch down. Otherwise it would slam. This is enough for some evidence of thrust on the suface under, or around the craft...like I say, I hope I'm wrong.

SR

[Doctor Stochastic]

It was probably cheaper to go to the Moon that to fake things.

[rs79bm]

NASA Unsure of How to Counter the 'Moon Hoax'

Here's an idea. WHY DON'T WE send somebody back there to shut everybody up once and for all??? I have no doubts we went there in the first place, but why haven't we gone back? This is the question that NASA needs to answer. "Surely" there is some kind of scientific experiment we can do once we get there.

[MHGinTN]

Grav speed here is 32 ft/sec/sec. It is a third less on the Moon so your notion is wrong. The final three feet would be how fast on Earth, and how fast on the Moon? The footage shot during final approach showed some gasses blasting away from the Lander leg, if memory serves. Also, the absence of an atmosphere causes dust to dissipate in a different way, with particles accelerated but not under the drag of atmosphere, so a 'crater' would have a very far away rim with rocket thrust sending the particles out from the landing site and that would defer to less rim building due to widely varied trajectories of expelled particles.

[ContentiousObjector]

You guys were right, I have asked the moderator to pull my original comments.

Apprently there was an error in translation on the part of the Russians, they were talking about Apollo 17 and their rover being in the same region of the moon, that was poorly worded and their pictures were poorly placed.

Sorry

[sit-rep]

With this, you suggest the atmosphere will not allow drifting of the particles behind stationary objects moved by the gas "down wind" of the engines?

SR