The "moon" and Humans.?

Question

This is something that I have been researching for the last few days after a strange thought ran across my mind.

Have we as humans really landed on the moon? If so, why has there not been an anniversary or second exploration of the desolate planet?

It is very weird to me that with so much technology such as GPS tracking, sonar, solar energy and a list of other magnificent technologies, that now in 2007 we are not building things on the moon, landing on other planets, and having space launches for folks across the globe to view space and other planets.

It is also strange to me how we can build space suites to withstand the pressure of outer space, but we can not develop a machine or humanoid suit to withstand the pressure of our deep blue seas.

Hopefully you guys can shine a little bit of light on the situation. What do you think?

Answer 1

We have landed on the moon. An excellent piece of proof is the laser ranging system that was installed on the moon during the early Apollo missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment

If you go to the earth-based laser system, and use a telescope to look at the mirror on the moon, you can see the laser reflecting back to you from that mirror.

Anyway.

We haven't gone back to the moon because there's no real reason to. There's nothing of real value there. There's no minerals, no gold, no crops. Just rocks. And we have plenty of rocks. Hundreds of them, in fact, floating around research laboratories.

There was an anniversary celebration in 1989, as well as 1999. Remember, we landed in 1969.

As for how we build suits - space doesn't have pressure. It has a NEGATIVE pressure relative to a space shuttle or a space suit. More to the point, it has zero pressure. And it's a lot easier to build something that keeps pressure in (like, a pressurized spacecraft or space suit) than it is to build something that keeps pressure out.

Read here as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations

Answer 2

What a person thinks about this subject is irrelevant. It's an utterly irrefutable scientific fact that we landed on the Moon. The conspiracy theory is based completely upon bad science, faulty common sense, and, in many cases, anti-government bias.

We don't have to take the government's word for it. Consider the following:
1) Apollo 11 left a retroreflector that astronomers have detected thousands of times. It's used to precisely measure the distance to the Moon.
2) Independent radio telescopes, when pointed at the Moon, were able to detect the Apollo transmissions. If there hadn't been a ship on the Moon, they wouldn't have heard anything.
3) The Moon rocks have been examined in detail by geologists, who have positively identified the rocks as being of lunar origin. They explain that there's no way for NASA to falsify this.
4) No scientist rejects the landings. If there was something fishy about the Moon landings, would it not be scientists who would realize it? Instead, scientists are the first to vigorously defend the landings.

Evidence just can't get any more incontrovertible than this. To reject this evidence is to reject all modern science.

NASA landed men on the Moon 6 times in total. We haven't returned since 1972 simply because of severe budget cuts imposed by the government.

You're mixing your facts up: there is no pressure in space - it's a vacuum. In the ocean, however, there is a tremendous amount of pressure, especially at the greater depths. And we have developed machines that can travel deep underwater (we've gone to the wreck of the Titanic, after all).

Answer 3

Yes, as others have said, humans really did land on the moon.

We have continued to study the moon even though no more people have actually gone there. Sending humans into space often is not the best way to learn about what's there. People need a lot of supplies, life-support systems, and (if they're going to be beyond low orbit for a substantial length of time) radiation shielding: that all has to be launched, and the payload capacity could be better used for cameras, radar, computers, and so on.

Still, we could have sent more people to the moon. The reasons we didn't were mostly political and economic rather than technological.

The moon does have resources. It's ordinary rock, but even ordinary rock is useful. Some plans for large-scale permanent habitations in space call for using material from the moon as radiation shielding. Ordinary rock actually contains a lot of oxygen, which can be used as part of rocket fuel. It also contains silicon, a major component of photovoltaic solar cells. It can be made into basalt fiber, which is similar to fiberglass, with high tensile strength.

However, the resources of the moon aren't economical to use, so far. We've got plenty of ordinary rock down here, and for stuff we need in space we mostly want low orbit, so it's not worth the extra trip to the moon plus all the mining and manufacturing it would take to turn rock into useful products.

There are submarines, including suit-like one-person models, that can withstand the pressure of the deep ocean.

Answer 4

Brian is quite right - actually I was just watching a show this morning getting ready for work and the show mentioned the mirror on the moon and how we reflect a laser off the mirror back to earth and have determined that the earth's rotation is slowing by 1/1000 sec per day. Every 18 months on the average, with variation, a leap second is added to planetary time keeping to keep the day consistent with atomic clocks and astronomical observations.

Also man has visited the moon 6 times since 1969 - so we have been back many times.

List of manned Apollo Moon landings

Apollo 11 - July 16, 1969. First manned landing on the Moon, July 20.

Apollo 12 - November 14, 1969. First precise manned landing on the Moon, within walking distance of Surveyor 3.

Apollo 14 - January 31, 1971. Commanded by Alan Shepard, the only one of the original Mercury Seven astronauts to walk (and golf) on the Moon.

Apollo 15 - July 26, 1971. First mission with the Lunar Rover vehicle.

Apollo 16 - April 16, 1972. First landing in the lunar highlands.

Apollo 17 - December 7, 1972. Final Apollo lunar mission, first night launch, only mission with a professional geologist.

In total twenty-four American astronauts have travelled to the Moon, with twelve walking on its surface and three making the trip twice.


I don't know if I totally agree with Brian on the last point. There is not positive pressure in space but if you were to land on say Jupiter there would be an immense gravitational pull. A little different than the 1 atmospheres of pressure experienced by scuba divers every 33 feet they dive in the ocean

Answer 5

ahhh, the old, we didnt land on the moon, deal.
This conspiracy theory falls short of providing any real convincing evidence.
The reason we are not out galavanting about the universe, is
a) its fairly dangerous and
b) its fairly expensive.
Nasa doesnt have the kind of funding to be performing more journeys to the moon, and no really significant research to do there that will get them the funding they need to make such an expedition. Taxes in the US would increase if they decided to make such an expedition, and most people would not be happy about that.
Space suits dont need to withstand pressure, as space is a void. The deep sea on the otherhand has to deal with the weight of all the water above the person. This creates tremendous pressure and the depths can crush even the sturdiest of submarines which venture too far down.

Answer 6

Yes, we have landed on the moon, and it is not a planet.

We do have the technology to get to the moon but the reason we haven't visited again is money. We've been once and done some research and the cost to go again outwieghs the benefits greatly. Currently we're sending unmanned missions to places outside our solar system so we're still exploring.

Outer space is actually void of pressure and so the suits, which are pressurized on the inside, don't actually have to withstand much of a pressure difference ( 1 atmosphere) The bottom of the ocean has pressures many times that of our atmosphere and the suit, therefore, would have to be designed to handle a much higher pressure difference than a space suit.

Answer 7

Yes they landed several humans on the moon and brought them back. the reason we have not gone back yet is because the Federal Government didn't want to spend the money to go forward, and build a base on the Moon.
The only reason that the US went there is because they were racing the Russians.
After the second world war the scientist that came to America like Warner Von Brown wanted to build rockets to go to the Moon, but the Federal government thought it was a waste of money, but when the Russians put Sputnik their first Satellite in orbit, then the federal government allotted the funds to try to catch up and pass the Russians, which the did.
The only reason that the federal Government is willing to go back to the moon now, is because the Chinese seed that they were going to the moon and build a base, now the race is on again.
Here is something of entrees, after world war one, the US had two air craft carriers, the Navy wanted more, bit the Federal Government didn't want to fund the building of ant more carriers, but one Navy officer finally got the funding to build three carriers.
And if it hadn't been for those three air ceaft cariers we would be under Jap government now.
So the reason things don't get done is because of the people that are voted into federal Government.

Answer 8

In a way, it's "weird" to me too. But from a cultural standpoint, not from a technology standpoint.

I have been following technological developments since I was a kid (long before the first moon landing), so it has never seemed to me that 1969 technology was too primitive for the task (as some have claimed). And now that the technology has improved, there is no _technological_ reason why we couldn't do it again.

But another thing I've learned from being around so long, is that "can do" does not equal "will do." It is still a big project, which means it has to be paid for by tax dollars, which means enough people need to support it. And there just aren't enough organized people demanding a return to the moon, to make it a reality.

That's the same reason we don't have electric cars. In 1996, General Motors produced a terrific all-electric car that was loved by everybody who was lucky enough to get their hands on one. It could have eliminated air pollution and our dependence on foreign oil. But it was squashed by oil companies and the politicians in their pockets, and has now completely disappeared. "Can do" doesn't mean "will do."

Answer 9

watch these videos, 1-4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc
it not only disproves all those stupid theories, it actually proves that we have been on the moon.

as for why nothing has been built on the moon: the moon has no resources. anything built on the moon would have to be built out of things taken from the earth. unless you take 4 scraps of wood and tiles for a shed (that wouldn't even keep air in) it would be insanely expensive. I'm talking like trillions of dollars expensive. we can built space suite because we are trying to keep air in, not out. under the ocean, the pressure is tremendous. we would need an insanely strong substance to push back with a force large enough to counteract this. in space, however, we are trying to keep something in. bit of a different between 20 thousand kilopascals and 0 kilopascals.

by the way, there has been a celebration. its not a religious act though, so we don't celebrate with presents and stuff.

Answer 10

In a word, cost.

Look how much trouble we're having with a lousy space station. We've pretty much cut Hubble out of the budget. Mars, after a few remote controlled vehicles were sent there seems to have lost public interest.

I agree that we probably have the technology. But somebody has to pay to get it to the moon... or wherever.