Has mankind ever landed on the moon?

Question

Let´s forget about conspiracy theories but how about these?
1) The vehicle or the rocket or whatever that tin can looking thing could be called, how did it land on the moon when it actually didn´t once manage to land on all four while being tested on the face of the earth?
2) Let´s say it landed on the moon. How come a weird looking vehicle like that (with aluminum folios wrapped around it) managed to take off straight, without any support like those rockets on earth needed when they were shot into the space?
You know the rockets are bound to the supports so they can build enough fuel thrust before launching right? Otherwise they would go cricket, right?
3) The Astraunauts had to repair a tiny little place on the shield of one of the shuttles so the shield wouldn´t brake while entering the atmosphere, due to high temperatures. How did that moon vehicle enter the atmosphere without being burnt down? Just look at its aerodynamics.

4- What about all the radiation in the space?
5- If there can be no wind in a studio? how do you explain wind on the surface of the moon? Remember people have seen videos of the landing and on those videos the flag doesn´t stay put.

Excuse my ignorance, you mean the astraunauts came back with a different
vehicle or a different part of the lander?

O.K. Ethan now you give me a link
about the succesful tests of the lunar lander on earth. Where do you find that 40 yrs old info.?

What about the radiation then. Seeing that the moon doesn´t offer any protection against radiaton of all kinds
how could the astraunauts survive that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:5927_NASA.jpg
does the upper part of this lander look it could take off again?

Some of these points are way too sarcastic. Is this how you know it all guys show your expertise?

Answer 1

Your points are well taken. NASA has failed repeatedly to answer the very same questions that you pose. If you ask whether mankind has ever landed on the moon? Yes! But, not through the Apollo space program. If we did go to the moon, which is very likely, we did it by using a "black technology." This technology would fall under the Unacknowledged Special Access Programs. NASA simply was an overt cash cow for the real covert space program that can only be accessed by those with a "need to know." I have answered this question before as it pertains to the specific reasons why the Apollo program was a sham. If you're truly interested in the moon hoax argument, get the book Dark Moon--Apollo And The WhistleBlowers by Percy & Bennett. This book is incredibly well sourced and researched. Despite what the naysayers say, read the book and then make up your mind.

Answer 2

>>1) The vehicle or the rocket or whatever that tin can looking thing could be called, how did it land on the moon when it actually didn´t once manage to land on all four while being tested on the face of the earth?<<

The Lunar Module was not and could not be tested on the Earth in flight. It was designed to operate in a 1/6th G environment. Its rocket engines generated enough thrust to lift in on the Moon, but not on Earth. The LM was tested in space, very successfully.

What was used on Earth was a training vehicle which made several highly successful flights and landings. Conspiracy theorists would have you believe that the one time it crashed was the only time it ever flew, but that is totally false.

>>2) Let´s say it landed on the moon. How come a weird looking vehicle like that (with aluminum folios wrapped around it) managed to take off straight, without any support like those rockets on earth needed when they were shot into the space?<<

Do you have any engineering expertise that tells you it couldn’t work? The LM did have support. It had a set of reaction control thrusters that stabilized it while in flight.

>>You know the rockets are bound to the supports so they can build enough fuel thrust before launching right? Otherwise they would go cricket, right?<<

Go and learn what the service towers on rockets are actually for. The only bit that actually HOLDS the rocket is right at the bottom on the launch platform. These hold-down arms hang on to the rocket to allow its thrust to build and stabilize before letting it go. The tower provides no support whatsoever. It is there simply to provide fuel lines and other such things so the rocket can be fuelled on the pad as near to launch as possible.

Provided the rocket exhaust points down, the rocket will go up. Contrary to popular belief, a rocket cannot just fall over while in flight unless the engines do something wrong.

>>3) The Astraunauts had to repair a tiny little place on the shield of one of the shuttles so the shield wouldn´t brake while entering the atmosphere, due to high temperatures. How did that moon vehicle enter the atmosphere without being burnt down? Just look at its aerodynamics. <<

The shuttle uses hundreds of ceramic tiles as its heat shield. The Apollo command module used a moulded single heat shield. It has quite good aerodynamics, as it happens. The lunar module was of course totally non-aerodynamic, but as it never came back to Earth that was never a problem.

>>4- What about all the radiation in the space? <<

What about it? Do you know of any actual data that says radiation in space is a barrier to manned space flight? Do you know what type of radiation you find in space and how best to shield against it? Do you know that James van Allen himself has stated that the radiation belts around the Earth that bear his name are no barrier to space flight? Do you know that two Gemini missions spent some time in the belts? Do you know that the Russians sent live specimens round the Moon and found no radiation damage? Do you know that they too planned a lunar mission, and that they used no more shielding than Apollo?

>>5- If there can be no wind in a studio? how do you explain wind on the surface of the moon? Remember people have seen videos of the landing and on those videos the flag doesn´t stay put.<<

The flag DOES stay put when it’s not being handled. In fact it stays put so totally and completely that it can only be in a vacuum.

Why would NASA b so stupid to fake something that is supposed to be taking place in a vacuum in a place with enough wind to blow a flag around? And if there is such a wind, why is it not picking up any of the dust that gets kicked up by every step the astronauts take?

>>Excuse my ignorance, you mean the astraunauts came back with a different
vehicle or a different part of the lander?<<

The astronauts left the Moon in the ascent stage of the lunar module, but then docked with and transferred to the command module, leaving the lunar module behind. The lunar module NEVER returned to Earth.

>>does the upper part of this lander look it could take off again<<

Since when has a look by an unqualified person been enough to judge the abilities of a piece of hardware. Let me ask you if you think a Harrier looks like it can fly backwards and sideways, or hover, or fly at only a few miles per hour and still stay in the air. Whatever it may look like, I can assure you from personal experience it can do all those things.

Answer 3

I'll have to research your #1 comment, though I find it hard to believe.

Re #2, those towers don't offer much support, they're mainly there for various connections between ground and craft. Haven't you ever flown a model rocket? Even without millions of dollars of gyro feedback making hundreds of corrections per second, they take off pretty well without much additional support, provided they are well balanced.

#3, the lunar lander was not the reentry vehicle - it was not designed for that, that was the command module's job.

Ye Gods, the waving flag again? The flags had horizontal poles to extend them outward. On Apollo 11, the pole didn't extend all the way, leaving a ripple in the fabric. Armstrong decided he rather preferred the look, rather than fuss with it further. And it did not "wave in the breeze". It did swing a bit like a pendulum, and did so much easier there than it would here on Earth since there was no air mass trying to dampen it.

[REPOST] Re your #1 question, wikipedia has a decent write up of the development and operational history of the lunar module, the design of which actually began in the 50's -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_module

As other posters have mentioned, of course it could not be tested in Earth's gravity, it was designed to produce thrust of only one sixth of that necessary on Earth. It was tested in space by earlier Apollo missions, including Apollo 10 wherein it orbited to within 10 km of the moon but did not land.

Look, I can kinda understand, when I was young, I was a lot more open to conspiracy theories, maybe to the point of being gullible. I've since learned to be more thorough about research before esposing my theories; in fact, now I have to. As an engineer, being wrong too often will have an incredibly negative impact on your career. That plus the fact that landing a man on the moon was such a monstorously-huge technical feat could cause some element of incredulity. But if you had lived in those times and watched INTENTLY as I did how the events and progress unfolded over a decade's time to culminate in Apollo 11, the truth of it would be so obvious to you that you would consider anyone who doubted the facts to be a complete moron. But I guess you would've had to have been there to appreciate that.

Answer 4

"aluminum folios"....yeah

Okay.

I do not know where the f* you got # 1...the lander (training version) flew - and landed - quite nicely right here on Earth.

Things "take off straight" if the force applied by the rocket exhaust doesn't generate a significant torque on the vehicle.

"weird looking" makes no difference - why should you make something pointy to operate in a vaccuum?

Big Rockets launched from Earth need 'support' to keep them from tipping over and to release them exactly when the total thrust vector becomes aligned in the desired direction.

The LM's ascent stage used the lander's base as a launch pad. The two were held together until ignition. Quite simple. Not sure what you're suggesting here.

The astronauts didn't reenter in the LM's ascent stage - they used the command module which had a very robust ablative heat shield (far more robust than the space shuttle orbiter's reentry protection)

Don't know why I bother answering this stuff. This information has been available for 40 years now...


EDIT

Pic up a copy of the 1967 edition of Man & Space (Time Life, I think)...well before the moon landing...details the proposed flight sequence. Good heavens! Go to the damned library - you can find any number of technical publications about the Apollo missions - many prior to Apollo 11.

Go to google videos and you can see tests flights for yourself. The NASA/Dryden clip is a classic...

And yes...the astronauts left the moon's surface in the LM...and transferred to the CM for atmospheric reentry.

The more follow-ups you ad, the more you betray a startling level of ignorance. I wont bother with further posts here.

Answer 5

The lander was in two parts: the original lander had two rocket motors, one for landing and one for takeoff.

When the return lander takes off, it left the bottom legs and lander rocket motor and empty fuel tanks on the surface of the moon as a complete assembly. The legs of the lander steadied the upper part while trust built up. If you watch the video, You can see that the rocket exhaust literally shoots the upper half into the sky because of all the pressure that built up between the two halves.

There are minor puffs of air on the moon coming from the spaceship and the exhaust of the space suits. As the air tanks loose pressure, the space suit would blow-up like a balloon if it were not for venting this used air to the moon. It greatly expands when released. It can and did make the flag move a little.

Don't they teach history where you went to school? Or is it more propaganda than history?

Answer 6

its really hard to believe the stories about the man on the moon, there are many people who don`t believe, but, at the same time USA and URSS were in a hard race for the reaching of the space, you know that the first astronaut was Yuri Gagarin, so; URSS won the first stage, and the next step became who both was able to reach the moon,

You should knoww that while NASA was developing the Apollo project, URSS was launshing satelites around the moon, this satelites took many photographs of the moon surface, then, if the apollo 11 woulnt have reached the moon, I think URSS wuould have been the first to demonstrate the fraud, but it never happened, nobody in the URSS have never talked about a possible fraud. Thats my personal opinion and excusme if I make mistakes in my english

Answer 7

(I assume you are talking about the LEM or Lunar Excusion Module)

1. the gravitational force on the moon is only 1/6th that of earth's gravitational force. It was much easier controlled on the moon.

2. again...the gravity of the moon compared to the earth's gravity allowed the LEM to take off, land, and be maneuvered easier on the moon. the LEM was not intended for flight anywhere except in orbit around the moon and for landing on the moon. take for instance the Apollo 11 mission that was the first to land on the moon. Michael Collins (the command module pilot...and by the way the father of a famous soap star who used to be on All My Children...I believe her character's name was Natalie "something or other") did not set foot on the moon, only Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong went to the moon via the LEM. when their work was done on the moon they used the LEM to go back up the the command module and docked with it.

3. the astronauts did not return to earth in the LEM. they returned to earth in the command module (sort of a triangle or cone shaped tip of the spaceship). the LEM was left in orbit around the earth once the LEM and the command module returned to earth's vicinity. the orbit of the LEM and other support machinery gradually decayed and, yes, did burn up in earth's atmosphere.

*to get a better idea of this watch the History Channel's program called "The Universe". There is an episode about the Apollo 13 mission, many of your questions would have been answered by this documentary.

Answer 8

All of your questions were answered last Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 08P on the National Geographic channel.

Long story short, it would have been cheaper and less complicated to actually land on the moon, than it would be to pull off such an elaborate hoax.

Any why didn't the USSR expose the NASA moon landings as a hoax? They had spies, radio telescopes, optical telescopes, and so on. They could monitor Apollo just as well as the U.S. could.

Answer 9

1 - it never flew on the Earth. Wasn't designed to.
2 - it had manuevering thrusters directing it's attitude, while the big rocket did not.
3 - The moon vehicle didn't enter the atmosphere (at least, not while populated.)

Answer 10

Others have answered most of your stupid ascertations, but regarding the moon lander:

The moon has no atmosphere - DUH. The lander did not need to be aerodynamic.

It took 8 hard, and costly years to develop that lander, and you think some ignorant fool like you can comment on its suitability?

Obviously you know nothing about the whole Apollo project, so how the hell can you comment?

Get a life, mate.

PS - Jeez, this guy says "excuse my ignorance" in his added comments. If he does not know that the moon lander had nothing to do with the re-entry into earth’s atmosphere, how has he any right to comment on the validity of the moon landings at all?

Please, please, you younger audience. Don’t get caught up with the comments of fools like this guy.

This moon landing hoax stuff is perpetuated by sheer ignorance.