So if the Mythbusters bust this myth (I understand they are working on it) will that put an end to it on this board?.... I doubt it as I am still reading reasons why that plane that took off couldn't have.

quote:

So if the Mythbusters bust this myth (I understand they are working on it) will that put an end to it on this board?.... I doubt it as I am still reading reasons why that plane that took off couldn't have.

Not just the plane, Greg... how about "dropped penny" or any of the other ones they've already done that still get asked almost daily? I'm actually surprised that the plane comments stick in the Episode Discussion (for the most part) and people aren't asking the question anew.

I don't see the episode, when it airs, changing one CT mind. Hopefully their lunacy will remain mostly relegated to Episode Discussion, as well.

Honestly the moon thing is one CT I just don't 'get.' I don't get why anyone believes it, and I don't get why anyone would invest in it.

The moon shots and landing missions were among the most publicized things ever, for all to see. As someone above noted, the same Soviet spy satellites that 'outed' Groom Lake (Area 51) would've easily spotted a 'moon stage' in Arizona (per one CT) or wherever. How little time would they have wasted embarrassing the US? Plus, it's one thing to suspect the govt is hiding something in mysterious remote bases, but why doubt the moon shots? Even if the CT was dead on target (hardy-har-har), cui bono?

You know the one CT support that i love the most is the guy with the leaf blower and the pile of dirt. Cliams that the dirt on the moon would have blown all over the place and left a huge dust cloud, and to prove it it blows some dirt around on the ground with a leaf blower. Yet there is one simple thing the idiot misses. There is no atmosphere on the moon, and no air. So the thrust blowing out from the nozzle of the booster would react completely different than that damned leaf blower on earth. Its like comparing apples and oranges. Which seems to be the case with most these crack pots.

I would like to see that idiot with the leaf blower take it to the moon and try that little stunt. With no atmosphere, there would be nothing for the impeller to push through the tube, so nothing would be coming out. The Apollo missions were the most closely monitored events in history. Thousands of ham radio operators tuned into the telemetry from the space vehicles, and it would have been impossible to fake where those signals were coming from. The Soviet Union had equipment that was not very far, if at all, behind our equipment, as well as an intense motive to catch us in one little slip. Not one word was ever said about the moon missions , and had the Soviets spotted one wrong note, they would have loudly trumpeted it all over the world, in every language. No, my friends, 12 Americans have walked on the moon, and it is only by the grace of God that Apollo 13 made it back to Earth. Oh, to GB-UK, you do not have to become a US citizen to take part in our space program, since we are part of the International Space Station program. We have had Japanese and Israeli scientists that I know of go up in our craft, and a few of our people went up in Soyuz craft while our shuttles were grounded.

quote:

We have had Japanese and Israeli scientists that I know of go up in our craft

What about us Canadians?

Somehow I think for the conspiracy theorists no amount of evidence will ever convince them.

A better conspiracy theory is this. There is a prize similar to the X Prize for any private company that can land a probe on the moon and send back data. Do you think the MB's might be competing for the prize and busting a myth in the same episode? They'd have to raise funding from private sources, but it's not completely unrealistic.

quote:

Originally posted by jamesbsd:
Somehow I think for the conspiracy theorists no amount of evidence will ever convince them.

A better conspiracy theory is this. There is a prize similar to the X Prize for any private company that can land a probe on the moon and send back data. Do you think the MB's might be competing for the prize and busting a myth in the same episode? They'd have to raise funding from private sources, but it's not completely unrealistic.

I doubt it. Aside from the lack of funds, even with public help, there's the fact that any such project would take quite a lot of time. Further, and I could well be wrong, but the Mythbusters probably lack the expertise; they had to get other people to build rockets, etc. for them... and we saw how that turned out: "Rocket car sucked when it blew up" indeed. Nor am I aware of any aeronautical engineering/science credentials from any of them.

But yeah, you are right that no amount of evidence would convince some of these deluded conspiracy nutjob/idiots. Afterall, they haven't been convinced by the fact the Russians don't dispute it occurred. Likewise for the fact we already did manned missions into space before we landed on the Moon and that the failures of those were well publicized. The Moon was just the next logical step after them, just like how Mars is pegged as the next big thing after the Moon.

It'd be kinda like saying the Lousiana Purchase or the expansion to the west was "faked", or WWII was "faked" after WWI, in spirit, it's the same thing.

I'll be very interested to see how the team actually busts this myth, and OH yes, it will be busted. I dont think the US govt has justified this myth(crap) with an answer. Mainly because, only the patently stupid dont believe that man has set foot(actually boot) on the moon. A bare foot would suffer a partcularly bad case of swelling, hehe.

I do find it hard to believe though that the Hubble T/scope hasnt the resolution to spot Eagle One's landing module on the lunar surface. It looks at objects many light years away that are on scale vastly smaller. After all, 20 years or more ago satlelites could almost read the words of a coin on the earths surface, weather permitting. No atmospheric conditions would apply between Hubble and the target.

Also at certain times of the year other reflective material around the landing sites would in effect shine very brightly, even a very blurry image would show small areas with unnaturally high levels of reflected sunlight. Radio photograghy/radar is nowadays highly evolved, remember this stuff is I think mostly metallic. The above times would most likely coincide with lunar eclipses or near eclipses and depend on if Hubble was at an optimum point in its orbital path to view this.

For me, Hubble's resolution isnt likely to be the problem. My local think tank holds the concensus that the problem is one of focus, the lens being designed for a much further distant focal range than the surface moon.

PS. To digress a little. The chances of a Hydrazine fuel tank from a flimsey orbital vehicle, re-entering the atmosphere and reaching the earths surface are 0, nil, nahdah.... Even craft specially designed for re-entry sometimes fail to make it there intact. Anyone want to argue?

quote:

For me, Hubble's resolution isnt likely to be the problem. My local think tank holds the concensus that the problem is one of focus, the lens being designed for a much further distant focal range than the surface moon.

Well, as repeatedly explained, you and your local think tank are wrong.

quote:

After all, 20 years or more ago satlelites could almost read the words of a coin on the earths surface, weather permitting.

Completely and utterly wrong.

Ok having read further back in the posts I accept that optical and radio resolution would not be sufficient to spot the remains of the lunar landing craft. And that radio telescopes dont emit radio waves, only recieve them. Thanks for the reply. I hope you dont just rain on peoples parades for enjoyment! These forums are for peoples education not their cynical pleasures.

I still think radar is a definite possibillity now that measurement of less than a nanowatt is possible. Radar easily disseminates, with the help of todays powerfull processors ever better, background reflections and wavelengths.

I also accept that the naysayers will probably still deny the moon landings even if you rubbed their nose on Eagle One's foot.

Hitting the moon with a beam or radar is not a problem, measuring any reflection the reflection off the surface is a whole different ball of wax. There is really no difference between laser and radar, they are both electromagnetic radiation. They have reflected lasers off of reflectors set up on the moon, but those were already aimed at the earth. Trying to get a radar reading off of the surface would be equivalent to trying to get the lasers to work without the reflectors, it is not going to happen. It is sort of strange that people will accept that you cannot use a light beam off the surface of the moon, but then think that another beam of light will work just because it is invisible to the naked eye.

quote:

Originally posted by OilyT:
Ok having read further back in the posts I accept that optical and radio resolution would not be sufficient to spot the remains of the lunar landing craft. And that radio telescopes dont emit radio waves, only recieve them. Thanks for the reply. I hope you dont just rain on peoples parades for enjoyment! These forums are for peoples education not their cynical pleasures.

I still think radar is a definite possibillity now that measurement of less than a nanowatt is possible. Radar easily disseminates, with the help of todays powerfull processors ever better, background reflections and wavelengths.

I also accept that the naysayers will probably still deny the moon landings even if you rubbed their nose on Eagle One's foot.

You need to understand how wrong your perceptions are; it's not just for anyones's cynical pleasures. First of all, the mission was called Apollo 11, not Eagle One. Eagle was the Lunar Module for that mission. The chances are that the LEM descent stages of all the landers have greatly diminished reflectivity after 4 decades of exposure to direct solar radiation. The Surveyor 3 spacecraft that was examined by the Apollo 12 astronauts had shown significant degradation of the exposed surfaces after 31 months of exposure. Your think tank needs to study some basic optics; Read up on the Dawes limit. It's simply impossible for an optical system to resolve something smaller than the Dawes Limit for it's optics. Hubble can image galaxies far, far away because galaxies are on the scale of 100,000 light years across (which is very large), the Moon is 240,000 miles away and the remaining landing stages are about 25 feet across-do the math. Also you need to learn about the concept of Optical Infinity. The Hubble is perfectly capable of focusing on the Moon and has repeatedly. Satellites reading the print on coins is a complete fantasy. Under perfect conditions, optical satellites are limited to about 6" resolution. What that means is they can distinguish a 6" wide white line on a black background. Atmospheric dispersion is a big problem for any optics. On one Shuttle mission earlier in the program, they tested a laser tracking system based on the ground and aimed at the Shuttle. The beam started out about 1/4 inch in diameter and , by the time it reached the Shuttle's orbital altitude, it was more than 32 feet in diameter. The lasers used to do the Lunar Ranging measurements off the surface reflectors start out the same size and end up being about 5 miles in diameter when they strike the Moon. Take a Physics course.

Hm, they'd probably have to take two or three univ-level physics classes to get to optics; that's a lot of coyote-roadrunner problems I'll give oily a break. Even if they're a bit misguided, at least they aren't buying the CTs or something really oogie-boogie. Welcome aboard

You having trouble reading dfez. Read carefully this time. I was talking about Eagle One, not Apollo 11. For your information E1 consisted of a Landing Module and an Escape Module. I was specific.
I also said I accepted the resolution argument so why go on about it again, unless you are deriving some cynical pleasure. Havent U read properly again.
Do the math yourself on the most distant galaxxies and you will find that your not as smug as you think. If galaxies are big, the distances are immense. Fact is, somewhere short of infinity the optical MOA equals that of the moon, and past that point you are wrong. So you can tell me how far away the most distant galagy is? I didnt think so. Sounds like you need a better physics course and a bit of imagination to help you.
Even on Earth radar desminates between ground and target signals. Someone with a better outlook may like to pick the radar thread in a bit more depth, thinking outside the square a bit.
This forum is for peoples information and to spark healthy debate, we cant all be Einstiens like you dfez. I suggest you pull out the rat that crawled up your back passage and died. A smile wont kill you, and a change in attitude may improve your reflection.
Thanks too badgolf, I completely understand your name Golf has a way of teaching a even and conciliatory attitude, take note dfez or next time I'll open the whole can of whoopass Oh and thanks for the info on Hubbles focal range.

Oily, just to clarify, I believe the confusion on your Eagle One statement is that there seems to be no reference to it.

Apollo 11 sent the Eagle (Lunar Module) to land on the moon. The transmission was along the lines of "Houston, Tranquility Base here, the Eagle has landed".

I don't believe they referred to it as "Eagle One".

In addition, since I seem to be in pedant mode this morning, the Lunar Module consisted of a descent stage (the part with the legs and large rocket motor) and an ascent stage (the little weird looking section that took off and rendezvoused with the Apollo 11 command module in Lunar orbit.

The Apollo escape system only consisted of that little rocket apparatus that was attached to the top of the entire Saturn V/Apollo stack. It was only there to be used when the rocket was on the pad, and possibly immediately after takeoff. It was jettisoned fairly quickly before the whole thing reached Earth orbit.

Pedant mode off.

Since there has never been a US Spacecraft call signed Eagle One, I can see I'll have to start with the basics. Any reference will tell you that the first mission to land on the Moon was Apollo 11. The Lunar Craft, LM-5 consisted of a Descent Stage and an Ascent Stage, not a Landing Module and an Escape Module-that terminology was never used. It was given the radio call sign Eagle and the Command/ Service Module that remained in Lunar orbit was designated Columbia. All LEMs and CSMs had unique name designations so there was never any point in naming LM-5 Eagle One. The Launch Escape System was used only to protect the crew from a launch pad abort or trouble during the first stage operation. The LES and the Boost Protective Cover were jettisoned just after 2nd stage ignition as they were just dead weight at that point.
The most distant galaxies imaged in optical wavelengths are in the Hubble Deep Field Images and are about 12 Billion Light Years away. The Hubble WFPC2 camera that did these images has a resolution of .09 arc seconds per pixel. By using a complex additive processing technique possible because the images are so faint called Drizzling , they have obtained resolutions of .039 arc seconds. Since this can't be done with bright objects like the Moon, the resolution is limited to the basic .09 arc seconds which then subtends a distance of about 265 feet on the Moon per pixel. Oh, BTW, The Hubble Space Telescope is a mirror telescope of the Ritchey-Chretien design. It has a 94" diameter Mirror and has an effective focal length of 189 feet. The only lenses involved are small ones in the instruments and they are not involved in the overall focusing of the instrument.
As for my Physics background, I had my basic education in Optics from Dr. James Van Allen who was also my academic adviser for a couple years. If you know anything about the Space Age, you may have heard of him. I have been involved in Physics, Astronomy, Space Exploration, and Telescope building for more than 50 years. How about you?
I have tried to provide as much accurate information to as many people as possible in my 2700 posts and have done a pretty decent job of accuracy. I suggest that if you are going to persist in flaming people who know what they are talking about, that you do some basic research first. Google is your friend. There are several people on these boards who were around for the days of the Space Race and some actually worked for NASA or the contractors. So here's a dollar; Buy a Clue.

IMHO we've had enough flaming to go around, especially on a side issue. It doesn't really matter who started flaming, we can all agree to end it - or at least save it for the conspiracy theorists.

The important thing is we all agree that people have walked on the moon. It would be difficult if not impossible to see the evidence on the lunar surface (right?), but there is plenty of satisfactory evidence otherwise. Of course that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

Eagle One or Eagle, it was obvious what was intended. I assume NASA named it Eagle so I see it a pertinent point, Apollo 11 wasnt left on the moon, just a small part of it.
I didnt attack your knowledge dfez just your attitude. After all I'm quick to accept when I'm wrong, as said we all cant be Einstiens.
And, sorry to rain on your parade, the term LEM was made obsolete. Correct term is LM. Another correction for you, the LM consisted as you said of two stages, they were called the Ascent Module & the Decent Module. The AM was only part of the LES.
I dont feel flamed, I'm enjoying this. Anyone else got any idea's to dowse the CT's, mine have been exhausted, at the moment

quote:

Originally posted by OilyT:
Eagle One or Eagle, it was obvious what was intended. I assume NASA named it Eagle so I see it a pertinent point, Apollo 11 wasnt left on the moon, just a small part of it.
I didnt attack your knowledge dfez just your attitude. After all I'm quick to accept when I'm wrong, as said we all cant be Einstiens.
And, sorry to rain on your parade, the term LEM was made obsolete. Correct term is LM. Another correction for you, the LM consisted as you said of two stages, they were called the Ascent Module & the Decent Module. The AM was only part of the LES.
I dont feel flamed, I'm enjoying this. Anyone else got any idea's to dowse the CT's, mine have been exhausted, at the moment

The terms LM and LEM were and are used interchangeably by NASA , the Astronauts, and the media. In fact, LEM, was used mostly during the uplink and downlink during the Missions. If you listen to the tapes, you would hear that. Once again, you are wrong; the LM consisted of a Descent Stage and an Ascent Stage-they were never called anything else. The entire vehicle was called the Lunar Module and the other vehicle was called the Command/Service Module. There was no Lunar Escape System. LES was the term for the Launch Escape System that mounted on the Command Module and was discarded after second stage ignition as I posted above. I don't know where you live, or if you're experiencing translation problems to another language, but you references are wrong.
My attitude is that when I see someone posting incorrect information that anyone could verify, I try to correct it. Just to show you that I have a sense of humor, I showed your posts to a small group of older Aeronautical Engineers and Physicists I meet with every week, and we all got several yucks out of them. BTW, even Firefox's Spell Check requires LEM as the correct term.