do you believe that the us landed on the moon and returned to earth without a hitch?

Question

Considering that we have lost two space shuttles and some other near disasters with them why is it that the moon landing seems impossible. The technology back in the 60s was 1000 percent behind of what we have now. The engineering of automobiles back then was horrible and the engineering pool was also pretty limited in every aspect So how can one assume anything but hoax when the idea of a successful trip to and back to the moon seems like science fiction ..Also, why haven't we returned in nearly 40 years.

Answer 1

why don't we just get a really good telescope and have a look at where the landing sites were.If there is stuff there we were there, if not we weren't. Even though with digital mischief these days it would be hard to tell

Answer 2

Ok, lets do a little math...

The Apollo missions sent 12 astronauts to the Moon from Apollo 11-Apollo 17. Apollo's 1 (which blew up on the launch pad during a test) through 10 were all test flights. Many of them had issues which had to be worked out before the launch to the Moon.

Apollo was cancelled soon after Apollo 17. By my count that is about 10-12 TOTAL manned missions during the Apollo era. (Many of the early Apollo's were unmanned test flights).

Ok. Let's look at the shuttle. STS-116 just returned from space. This was the 116th flight of the shuttle system. With only 2 catastrophic, and undeniably sad failures that gives the shuttle an amazingly good reliability. The Shuttle has also outlived its program expiration date many years over, and will be retired in 2010. It will be replaced with the new Ares rockets, which will take us BACK to the Moon, and assist in reaching Mars.

You obviously have a very limited understanding of history, and a sadly undereducated view of spaceflight. Sure, "technology" has advanced by leaps and bounds since the 60's.

ROCKET technology, however, has really not advanced all that much. Liquid and solid rocket engines are still the standard, even though electric propulsion, nuclear propulsion, and several new propulsion systems are coming more to the forefront as we look at going to Mars.

The technology was very much there to get to the Moon in the 60's. And it did the job of landing 6 manned missions on the Moon. The NASA engineers of the '60s were incredibly smart, and incredibly good at problem solving and were well within the capability of getting men to the Moon. The scene in Apollo 13 where the engineers were given the bits and pieces that they had to work with to build a carbon dioxide filter was REAL. They actually put together that filter and saved those astronauts lives within a day. And that's small potatoes compared to the challenges of upsizing the V-2 rocket (Wernher von Braun's german missile) to the Saturn V's incredible power.

So please, before you try to use your mediocre mind to undermine some of the most brilliant and dedicated men in US history, take a look in a book.

What's funny, is none of what I said here matters, because you actually believe this crap. It's a good thing I have my aerospace engineering degree, and a job with a NASA contractor working on the Ares propulsion systems... otherwise, I might just be dumb enough to believe such stupidity.

Answer 3

Without a hitch? No -- look at the near disaster that was Apollo 13. And don't forget the deaths of the Apollo 1 astronauts in the fire.

Went to the moon and landed six times, and returned safely six times -- absolutely. It is true, and no amount of pseudo-scientific BS can change that.

Remember that the Shuttle was built by the cheapest bidder. Apollo was done under the fiscal philosophy of "no expense too great to ensure success".

Answer 4

IMHO if we had not landed on the moon, some old disgruntled guy who worked at NASA during that time would have said so by now. And if we had not, the Russians would have been more then happen to expose the lie back then.

Also the first moon landing did not go off without a hitch. The capsule almost hit a Soviet satellite that was orbiting the moon and the Eagle almost ran out of fuel while it was landing. Among other things

Answer 5

This idiot's assertions prove that the people who put forward the moon landing hoax know nothing about the Apollo missions.

What is so sad is that what should have been the most exciting and worthwhile memory and history, and something all Americans and the world should be proud of, is in the eyes of all these ignoramouses some kind of fix and cover up.

PS and this idiot above thinks that we couldn't have gone back then because we didn't colonize it. Ridiculous logic. I am shaking my head in disbelief. Doesn't this person realise that getting there is one thing, making the moon habitable is a whole different ball game.

Hey, moron, Antarctica isn't colonised. It is 150 years since explorers first went there.

Answer 6

Wow, what logic skills you have there bud.

You can't come up with evidence of a faked moon landing so you decide to claim that the technology of the 1960's and early 1970's were not good enough to do the job and then declare that to be the evidence you needed.

You use automobiles as your guide stick on this. Yes, automobiles today are fancier than those back then. However, those made back then did the job they were designed for. Also, how many automobiles were made with the labor of thousands, the brightest minds of the country, and also millions of dollars per car?

What you need to do is find one of the surviving astronauts from back then and pitch this argument to them.

If you want to prove the moon landing was a hoax then you will need evidence that it was a hoax. Solid, concrete evidence. No pictures of oddball stuff, no pointing to videos and saying there is something you can't explain so that must be proof. Get government papers, direct witnesses willing to testify and bear cross examination, that sort of stuff.

I know, I know. You already know that none of that exists because there was no faked moon landing. You will instead claim that the super evil government destroyed all the evidence and eliminated the witnesses with efficient speed and accuracy. This is the same government that could not cover up Watergate.

Answer 7

Uh, you need to study a bit! Where did you ever get the silly idea that they did not use rockets to return to earth? Assume you meant the Apollo missions to the moon. Rockets were used several places to get crews back from the moon: The two astronauts on the moon blasted off in the Lunar Module Ascent Stage, using a storable propellant 3500 pound thrust rocket engine, They joined the third crewman orbiting in the Command and Service modules, and then they left lunar orbit and headed back to earth using the 22,000 pound thrust rocket engine in the Service Module. Seems to me they used two large rocket engines, a long with a bunch of smaller ones that controlled spacecraft attitude and performed small course corrections.

Answer 8

We did go there and had a near mishap with Apollo 13. I was on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific and aided in the pickup of the capsules. Why should we return?

Answer 9

And the "impeccable logic" award goes to .... (drumroll) ...

alanlee: "I do not believe that we ever landed on the moon at all. The one single reason is that any place that we have landed on, we have inhabited directly there after."

Any place we have landed on also had AIR, Einstein.

It's kinda hard to "colonize" a place when you have to carry your own air to breathe ... oh, and food ... and water ... ah, yes, fuel to make energy ... shelter from radiation ... intense cold. It makes supplying the Antarctic stations like calling out for a pizza.

You've been waiting "years" to say that?

If that's your "one single reason" then OMG is that a bad reason.

Answer 10

So Apollo 1 and 13 didn't have hitches?

Why go back to a moon that's made up of rock and sand? We have more use of it now, but not then.