Proof the Lunar Landings happened

[omni'X 0]

j/k, i didn't think you guys would take that seriously. actually, i'm surprised you wasted your time with that kind of remark

[Lollypop 0]

'Capricorn One'

 

Has anyone seen this film ?

 

Plot Summary for

Capricorn One (1978)

 

 

 

Classic conspiracy tale about the first manned mission to Mars. All appears to be going well until the astronauts are pulled off the ship just before launch by shadowy government types and whisked off to a film studio in the desert. It transpires that the space vehicle has a major defect which NASA just daren't admit. At the studio, over a course of months, the astronauts are forced to act out the journey and the landing to trick the world into believing they have made the trip. Meanwhile, a Journalist (played by Gould) is getting suspicious and every clue he uncovers seems to result in an attempt on his life! The astronauts are just about to splashdown when a further twist to the tale occurs, leaving them with no choice but to try and escape...

 

Summary written by MT

 

Charles Brubaker is the astronaut leading NASA's first manned mission to Mars. Seconds before the launch, the entire team is pulled from the capsule and the rocket leaves earth unmanned much to Brubaker's anger. The head of the programme explains that the life support system was faulty and that NASA can't afford the publicity of a scratched mission. The plan is to fake the Mars landing and keep the astronauts at a remote base until the mission is over, but then investigative journalist Robert Caulfield starts to suspect something.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

'Capricorn One'

 

Has anyone seen this film ?

 

Plot Summary for

Capricorn One (1978) 

 

 

 

Classic conspiracy tale about the first manned mission to Mars. All appears to be going well until the astronauts are pulled off the ship just before launch by shadowy government types and whisked off to a film studio in the desert. It transpires that the space vehicle has a major defect which NASA just daren't admit. At the studio, over a course of months, the astronauts are forced to act out the journey and the landing to trick the world into believing they have made the trip. Meanwhile, a Journalist (played by Gould) is getting suspicious and every clue he uncovers seems to result in an attempt on his life! The astronauts are just about to splashdown when a further twist to the tale occurs, leaving them with no choice but to try and escape...

 

Summary written by MT

 

Charles Brubaker is the astronaut leading NASA's first manned mission to Mars. Seconds before the launch, the entire team is pulled from the capsule and the rocket leaves earth unmanned much to Brubaker's anger. The head of the programme explains that the life support system was faulty and that NASA can't afford the publicity of a scratched mission. The plan is to fake the Mars landing and keep the astronauts at a remote base until the mission is over, but then investigative journalist Robert Caulfield starts to suspect something.

I remember the movie but how is it related to the reality of landing men on the moon from 1969 to 1972?

 

This movie was a Hollywood Sci-Fi movie, completely ficitional. To try to equate this movie with reality is just not reasonable. A movie is a movie, real life is real life.

 

Watch the videos of the moon landings that I linked earlier in this thread, the proof they give is undisputable. The physical way things react in the video is clear from the dirt to the flags to the way the men themselves bounce into the air.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

j/k, i didn't think you guys would take that seriously. actually, i'm surprised you wasted your time with that kind of remark

There was nothing in the posting to indicate you were joking so as far as anyone could tell you were serious.

 

As for taking the time to respond, that's why we're all here. To respond and discuss on all of the various topics. To spark discussion and even argue (in a friendly way) from time to time.

[Data 0]

There is absolutly no doubt in my mind that man walked on the moon.I just laugh at people that say we didn't. And I know for sure that Alan Shepard is the first man to hit a golf ball on the moon. I watched every moon mission as it was televised and was captivated by the whole expeirence.

Yes we have walked on the moon,my only question now is when will we go back?

I am not interested in a flight back to the moon. It was an acomplishment but it was done already. I would like to see them go further. Maybe venture to other planets.

[Lollypop 0]

'Capricorn One'

 

Has anyone seen this film ?

 

Plot Summary for

Capricorn One (1978) 

 

 

 

Classic conspiracy tale about the first manned mission to Mars. All appears to be going well until the astronauts are pulled off the ship just before launch by shadowy government types and whisked off to a film studio in the desert. It transpires that the space vehicle has a major defect which NASA just daren't admit. At the studio, over a course of months, the astronauts are forced to act out the journey and the landing to trick the world into believing they have made the trip. Meanwhile, a Journalist (played by Gould) is getting suspicious and every clue he uncovers seems to result in an attempt on his life! The astronauts are just about to splashdown when a further twist to the tale occurs, leaving them with no choice but to try and escape...

 

Summary written by MT

 

Charles Brubaker is the astronaut leading NASA's first manned mission to Mars. Seconds before the launch, the entire team is pulled from the capsule and the rocket leaves earth unmanned much to Brubaker's anger. The head of the programme explains that the life support system was faulty and that NASA can't afford the publicity of a scratched mission. The plan is to fake the Mars landing and keep the astronauts at a remote base until the mission is over, but then investigative journalist Robert Caulfield starts to suspect something.

I remember the movie but how is it related to the reality of landing men on the moon from 1969 to 1972?

 

This movie was a Hollywood Sci-Fi movie, completely ficitional. To try to equate this movie with reality is just not reasonable. A movie is a movie, real life is real life.

 

Watch the videos of the moon landings that I linked earlier in this thread, the proof they give is undisputable. The physical way things react in the video is clear from the dirt to the flags to the way the men themselves bounce into the air.

All I was pointing out was that the film showed how it can be faked.

[Lollypop 0]

Why the hell Fake the Apolo 13 desaster.

It was said that everyone had lost interest in the moon program, and funds from the government were drying up. So why not fake a disaster in Space to get the public behind the program again. And it worked didn't it.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

There is absolutly no doubt in my mind that man walked on the moon.I just laugh at people that say we didn't. And I know for sure that Alan Shepard is the first man to hit a golf ball on the moon. I watched every moon mission as it was televised and was captivated by the whole expeirence.

Yes we have walked on the moon,my only question now is when will we go back?

I am not interested in a flight back to the moon. It was an acomplishment but it was done already. I would like to see them go further. Maybe venture to other planets.

I can understand that, Mars would be the next step. The question is though what is the best way to get to Mars? To launch from Earth orbit or to launch from Lunar orbit?

 

Another reason to go back to the moon would be to establish a long term base of operations. Why have a long term base of operations? Well, if we plan on going to Mars the people that go there won't be going for just 1 day or even 1 week. The trip out there (with current technology) will take 6 months to a year and then another 6 months to a year back. So missions to Mars will likely stay for weeks or even months at a time. Living on a planet with no breathable atmosphere is something that needs to be perfected and the best place to do that (other then in a special lab here on Earth) would be someplace close enough to home just in case something bad happens but far enough away to have the realities of the situation in place.

 

If we can establish a base on the moon and perfect the realities of living in that kind of hostile environment then we will be ready to do it on Mars.

 

That's one argument for going back to the moon anyway. Then there's the argument about mining. There were many different minerals found on the moon that would be valuable on Earth. The problem is transporting them back to Earth in an inexpensive way to make it worth the effort.

 

Another argument for going back to the moon is to put a scientific lab on the back side of the moon. Something like Hubbell, I'm sure everyone has seen the amazing photos that Hubbell has taken. That's from Earth Orbit, where there is still interference from Earth's atmosphere and the lights from earth and the sun. Put a Hubbell on the back side of the moon in total darkness and the photos it would take would be 1,000 times more amazing then Hubbell.

 

I myself would personally want to go just out of sheer history, not to be "historical" but rather to visit the first 6 landing sites. To photograph them and study what 30 plus years has done to the things left behind. What happened to the things left behind after so many years of going from 250 degrees to -250 degrees every lunar day?

 

To me Mars is interesting but the moon fascinates me, at least 6 spots on the moon do anyway.

 

Of the things left behind in the 1960's and 1970's were there any bacteria that may have survived? For instance, before the LM would lift off from the moon it had to be as light as possible. So the backpacks were tossed out, the boots and trash like half eaten food. The "waste extraction" packs that were inside their space suits were tossed out. All these things were left on the moon. What has 30+ years done to them?

 

Anyway, think of it this way. If Columbus had come to the "New World" and stayed for 3 days then left and no one ever returned where would we be now? I think it's disgraceful that we don't already have a colony of sorts on the moon.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

There are some people that argue that manned missions aren't the best way to explore - that the extra resources needed to keep us alive keep us from further discovery.

 

I believe the private sector not the government will lead the colonization of the moon or space in general because they can pursue profits. I did read about some hotel chain with long-term plans for an orbiting hotel once a reliable shuttle system is open to the public.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the purpose behind our rush to the moon to beat the Soviets. I'm sure as soon as another country announces it is planning a moon base we'll crank up the activity.

 

Another topic, but what about all the debris we have in orbit - doesn't this create a danger to shuttles and other vehicles? Do we have anything like Enterprises deflectors?

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Space Junk is a huge problem, one that I'm not sure they know how to solve.

 

If we ever do go back to the moon there are already a few rules for people going there, and there's people trying to get the Apollo 11 site declared "Off Limits" to preserve it's historical aspect.

 

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/sav...nts_000418.html

[A l t e r E g o 9]

The only good thing from going to Mars right now or in the very near future is the fame and prestige of having done so. Imo the next best project after all the near Earth experiments (Space Station) would be to move on to the Moon, that would be our next best bet for learning how to be extraterrestrials.

[Data 0]

I am not interested in a flight back to the moon. It was an acomplishment but it was done already. I would like to see them go further. Maybe venture to other planets.

I can understand that, Mars would be the next step. The question is though what is the best way to get to Mars? To launch from Earth orbit or to launch from Lunar orbit?

 

Another reason to go back to the moon would be to establish a long term base of operations. Why have a long term base of operations? Well, if we plan on going to Mars the people that go there won't be going for just 1 day or even 1 week. The trip out there (with current technology) will take 6 months to a year and then another 6 months to a year back. So missions to Mars will likely stay for weeks or even months at a time. Living on a planet with no breathable atmosphere is something that needs to be perfected and the best place to do that (other then in a special lab here on Earth) would be someplace close enough to home just in case something bad happens but far enough away to have the realities of the situation in place.

 

If we can establish a base on the moon and perfect the realities of living in that kind of hostile environment then we will be ready to do it on Mars.

 

That's one argument for going back to the moon anyway. Then there's the argument about mining. There were many different minerals found on the moon that would be valuable on Earth. The problem is transporting them back to Earth in an inexpensive way to make it worth the effort.

 

Another argument for going back to the moon is to put a scientific lab on the back side of the moon. Something like Hubbell, I'm sure everyone has seen the amazing photos that Hubbell has taken. That's from Earth Orbit, where there is still interference from Earth's atmosphere and the lights from earth and the sun. Put a Hubbell on the back side of the moon in total darkness and the photos it would take would be 1,000 times more amazing then Hubbell.

 

I myself would personally want to go just out of sheer history, not to be "historical" but rather to visit the first 6 landing sites. To photograph them and study what 30 plus years has done to the things left behind. What happened to the things left behind after so many years of going from 250 degrees to -250 degrees every lunar day?

 

To me Mars is interesting but the moon fascinates me, at least 6 spots on the moon do anyway.

 

Of the things left behind in the 1960's and 1970's were there any bacteria that may have survived? For instance, before the LM would lift off from the moon it had to be as light as possible. So the backpacks were tossed out, the boots and trash like half eaten food. The "waste extraction" packs that were inside their space suits were tossed out. All these things were left on the moon. What has 30+ years done to them?

 

Anyway, think of it this way. If Columbus had come to the "New World" and stayed for 3 days then left and no one ever returned where would we be now? I think it's disgraceful that we don't already have a colony of sorts on the moon.

You brought up some good points. In fact, before we actually went to the moon, we had to have flights which were the length of the trip to the moon to get an idea how people would handle the trip.

 

The Russians have had people in their Space Station Mir for as long as a year. They have some vital information on the effects of long term exposure to 0 gravity. I am not sure we need to test this on the moon with the building of our own Space Station. Possibly many of the tests that you are suggesting can be done on the Space Station.

 

As for dealing with the atmosphere of Mars, I do not know if there is really a way to prepare for that. I am not sure we even want to land on the planet until we get more information about it. From the info we got from the probes, the planet looks pretty harsh.

[Lollypop 0]

I think one of the biggest problems going into space would be the radiation.

 

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I think one of the biggest problems going into space would be the radiation.

 

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

Radiation is a big concern for sure. Especially during times of heavy solar flare activity. All of these issues would have to be answered before we could really have a long term presence in outerspace.

 

I don't know why but Mars has never captured my imagination like the moon has. Maybe it's because I am just barely old enough to remember the last lunar flights and I have memory of being in the car looking up at the moon while laying in the back seat and my father "giving me" the moon. Telling me it was all mine and I could do whatever I wanted to do with it.

 

Something a Mars landing won't be able to do that the moon did is give us moments like we had in 1969 when Neil Armstrong took his Small Step. We watched it live with only a few seconds delay. When (if) we go to Mars though the delay will be much longer. I forget what the time delay is but I believe it's something like an hour. That's how long it takes the signal to reach Earth and then it takes another hour or so for us to send a signal back. We'd be able to see it but by the time we see it the explorers would have been done with that aspect of the mission for quite some time. On the Moon we saw it as it happened.

[Lollypop 0]

More problems needed to be solved for space travellers.

 

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/medicine.asp

[bearded ape 0]

radiation is not a problem in space becuase the suits they wear protect them, and on mars they have an atmosphere. also the delay is not an hour, it is ten minutes. many experts think that if we really worked at it in about 1 century we could terreform mars and live on it like a second earth.

[Lollypop 0]

radiation is not a problem in space becuase the suits they wear protect them, and on mars they have an atmosphere. also the delay is not an hour, it is ten minutes. many experts think that if we really worked at it in about 1 century we could terreform mars and live on it like a second earth.

Radiation is a serious problem according to the scientists. The suits they wear are useless, except for short time exposure.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

There were concerns for Apollo 15 (I think it was 15) because of solar flare activity while they were on the surface. They (Space goers) have a degree of protection but not nearly what they need.

[bearded ape 0]

they have as much as they need obviously, sice they where out there for qiute some time and none of them seem to have gotten cancer as of yet. the ozone layer that protects us from UV rays is about a quater of a centemeter thick and i am not dead. so when is radiation a problem?

[VaBeachGuy 12]

they have as much as they need obviously, sice they where out there for qiute some time and none of them seem to have gotten cancer as of yet. the ozone layer that protects us from UV rays is about a quater of a centemeter thick and i am not dead. so when is radiation a problem?

Alan Shepard (Apollo 14) died of cancer in 1999.

 

Jack Swigert (Apollo 13) died of cancer in 1982.

 

 

 

http://www.crcss.csiro.au/spin/spin89/spin8913.html

 

Click for Spoiler:

Long-haul astronauts, including those signing up for the international space station, face a risk of cancer due to cosmic radiation, according to a study by the University of New South Wales.

 

Dr Louise Lutz-Mann of the UNSW School of Biochemistry recently worked with NASA to determine the effects of cosmic radiation on human cells, and the likelihood that damage might lead to cancer. With longer space missions, including a potential human mission to Mars in 2020, NASA needs a better understanding of the long term effects of radiation exposure on astronauts.

 

Cosmic radiation consists of high-energy particles, some of which are left over from the formation of the Universe, and some are created by the Sun. The Earth’s atmosphere protects us on the ground, but in space astronauts are vulnerable.

 

“NASA had several questions they wanted us to answer,” said Dr Lutze-Mann. “What will the radiation do to the astronauts? Will that make them prone to cancer in the long term? And can we protect them from radiation?

 

“We discovered great variation in the recovery of different cells,” she said. “The liver recovered very quickly, its damaged cells died and were quickly replaced with undamaged cells. This is reassuring because a dead cell will not cause cancer. The brain was less efficient than the liver at killing and replacing the damaged cells, but the damage did eventually disappear.”

 

Examining the gastro-intestinal tract, Dr Lutze-Mann found cause for concern. “The damage to the gastro-intestinal tract increased over time. We concluded that the radiation damaged the stem-cell population [the cells that produce new cells] and they had begun reproducing damaged cells. As the damage increases, so does the risk of cancer.

 

“The end result is that there is a possibility that exposure to the space environment and its cosmic radiation will cause cancer and there is no realistic way to protect the astronauts. The only shielding that could protect them from such strong radiation is too heavy to send easily into space. NASA wants to protect their astronauts, but there is no viable way to do so.”

[bearded ape 0]

out of how many that have completed space walks and been on the moon? at thier age it is queit reasonable that at out of that many people some of them would get cancer

[VaBeachGuy 12]

out of how many that have completed space walks and been on the moon? at thier age it is queit reasonable that at out of that many people some of them would get cancer

Well, there were 24 men that went to the moon. 2 have died of cancer, one of a sudden heart attack (Jim Irwin). You can do the math if you wish. Jack Swigert (Apollo 13) wouldn't have been that old in 1982. In fact he had just been elected to congress. His space flight was in 1971 so he died 11 years after his flight.

 

In Jim Irwin's case it could possibly be linked to his time on the moon. There were problems noted in both his and Dave Scott's heart while they were on the moon. They weren't informed of this until they returned to Earth though. Dave Scott recovered from it, seemingly with no problems. Jim Irwin however didn't bounce back so quickly and possibly it caused his death.

 

The fact of the matter is that there is a greater risk in space from the solar radiation. NASA knows this and so does the world scientific community. How great is that risk? I don't know, but to dismiss it out of hand would be foolish. In my reading and studying of Apollo and other aspects of NASA, it seems to only be of concern during times od greater then normal solar flare activity.

 

But I say again, to just casually dismiss the threat or possibility of a threat without any kind of research or study would be foolish.

 

Do you have any research that you have read that indicates that there is no danger of Solar Radiation while in space? If so please post a link, I would be interested in it. I am a big fan of the Space program and NASA.

 

Here's a link that tells about a new form of Radiation Shielding Nasa is working on:

 

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/colloquia.../wilson_pos.pdf

 

If they are working on shielding then there must be at least some risk.

[bearded ape 0]

i never said that thier wasent any danger, i am just saying that it isent like it is enough to be reason to stop space exploration.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

i never said that thier wasent any danger, i am just saying that it isent like it is enough to be reason to stop space exploration.

No, surely not. Don't misunderstand me either. I in no way think it should be stopped. Quite the opposite. The risks are there but I believe they are worth taking. I wish we would return to the moon and establish a base there. From there I think we should move on to Mars and begin to try and develop some type of "warp" ship.

[bearded ape 0]

alright, then we understand one another. if we had enough anti-matter we might be able to create a warp ship, but right now anti-matter costs around 10 million an ounce. also, what do you think of the idea to terreform mars by melting the ice caps and then putting algi in the oceans (algi and other sea plants create 82% of the earths oxygen) and let them feed off the carbon concentrate atmosphere creating a thicker atmosphere and in effect global warming, heating the planet to at least livable temretures.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

alright, then we understand one another. if we had enough anti-matter we might be able to create a warp ship, but right now anti-matter costs around 10 million an ounce. also, what do you think of the idea to terreform mars by melting the ice caps and then putting algi in the oceans (algi and other sea plants create 82% of the earths oxygen) and let them feed off the carbon concentrate atmosphere creating a thicker atmosphere and in effect global warming, heating the planet to at least livable temretures.

If we can melt the ice and the atmosphere is thick enough to keep the water from evaporating away into space I think it could be done, though to make it "Class M" would take about 100 years from what I've read in the past.

[roguedawg 0]

My mother doesn't believe the moon landings took place at all.She doesn't even think people go up in the space shuttle and orbit the Earth!No ammout of proof will convince her otherwise.

[cptwright 1]

i just dont understand the mentality to think all the moon landings, and everything were faked. but alas it takes all kinds. i find the moon landings, and space exploration to be very fascinating. i do hope that we bo BACK to the moon in my lifetime and set up camp.

[Kyalia 0]

Everyone in my family firmly believes in NASA and stuff like that-- as I type, I'm running seti@home in the background (aargh! Only 8.850%...).

 

roguedawg-- what about the shuttle Columbia? What did she think of that?

 

As for the radiation shielding necessary to get anywhere-- well, look at it this way. A few decades ago, you could have described the Internet and been told that it was scifi.

[removed 0]

Everyone in my family firmly believes in  NASA and stuff like that-- as I type, I'm running seti@home in the background

hehe. me too. mines %17.764 done though. Ive only completed 339 hours.