• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Conspiracy's?

I didn't mention physics. I stated, "That's humans withstanding that speed constantly for 72 hours straight."

I was imagining traveling like that having an effect on one's system, i.e. becoming ill. But, TBH, that is not based on fact, either, it was speculation.

It really wasn't a major point of what I was saying. If anything really stands out, it's regarding the astronauts going on the moon, re-docking with a hovering ship and then somehow getting back up to 3,000 mph/back to earth in 3 days.

And having enough fuel in the tiny section that broke off the top of the rocket in traveling to the moon and back up to the those sustained speeds on the way back/238,000 miles without a launch. A total of roughly 475,000 miles in 6 days - sustained at those speeds with enough fuel by that tiny ship.

The reason I stated that I still won't believe it - is because that basic premise I described with the ship(s) just does not seem feasible to me at all.

I do believe the U.S. went to the moon..but I think it was a much larger operation...and, in theory, they couldn't just say they went there without a live broadcast as that would actually seem less credible.

Nah, you have to read up on it more in depth it's fascinating stuff, trust me!
As far as launching back to earth - check out slingshot effect + gravity.
In fact, gravity accounts for much of what you're speculating on. Hovering.. well, we'll actually call that orbiting. Using gravity, one can do all sorts of neat stuff. Ever think about all the satellites above our heads right now? Some geostatic, some travelers, but all use gravitational effects to do what they do. Remember - the moon HAS gravity. Not as much as the earth but there is a gravitational effect. (high/ low tides anyone? :))
Also, space offers no wind resistance like you'd have on earth. So you really wouldn't need to have thrusters at full blast to keep you going. Especially when you just used the moon's gravity to sling shot your arse back in the right direction.
 
Ahh now you're talking!
"The Holographic Universe"?
I love this bizarre "reality perception" stuff.

Converse to your statement, I've also heard a theory that I like to ponder quite a bit - the non-linear time aspect whereby everything that has happened, can happen or will ever possibly happen, is simultaneously all happening right now. Our perception of the universe is linear so that it seems like we're moving through time on a single set path, which is only illusionary. Cool stuff to ponder.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program..


Yes I love this one too!
I sometimes wonder how that other 'me' is doing out there, the one that actually did practice everyday, didn't hang out with idiot friends and always listened to the good advice that was offered.
sometimes I wonder what my era-defining solo album sounds like.
Sometimes I say '****' that guy. (don't know if you guys are aware of Red Dwarf over there but there was a great one where Rimmer's more successful self, 'Ace', arrived aboard the ship. Classic one that.

Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!

Erm, sorry if nobody knows what the hell I'm talking about :$


Right, where were we?

oh yes... The moon..... As you were gents
 
Yes I love this one too!
I sometimes wonder how that other 'me' is doing out there, the one that actually did practice everyday, didn't hang out with idiot friends and always listened to the good advice that was offered.
sometimes I wonder what my era-defining solo album sounds like.
Sometimes I say '****' that guy. (don't know if you guys are aware of Red Dwarf over there but there was a great one where Rimmer's more successful self, 'Ace', arrived aboard the ship. Classic one that.

Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!

Erm, sorry if nobody knows what the hell I'm talking about :$


Right, where were we?

oh yes... The moon..... As you were gents

No worries, I'm sure that there's a "me" somewhere who completely understands what you just wrote! :p
 
Absolutely. Not only that, but the ingenuity that went into every detail...freaking astounding.

And the fact that the computer on the Lunar Module had less processing horsepower than most small appliances today. Those guys were the 1960's equivalent of the Wright brothers, flying on little more than a wing (thruster?) and a prayer.
 
And having enough fuel in the tiny section that broke off the top of the rocket in traveling to the moon and back up to the those sustained speeds on the way back/238,000 miles without a launch. A total of roughly 475,000 miles in 6 days - sustained at those speeds with enough fuel by that tiny ship.

Relic already touched on this, but relatively little fuel is necessary for a return trip from the moon to the Earth compared to the trip from the Earth to the moon, for a few different reasons.

First, it takes very little fuel to lift the lunar module off of the lunar surface compared to the amount of fuel it takes to lift the spacecraft off of the Earth's surface in the first place, because:

  • Earth's gravity is roughly six times that of the moon's.
  • The Earth's atmosphere provides resistance to the spacecraft that the rocket needs to overcome. There is no atmosphere, and therefore no wind resistance, on the moon.
  • The lunar module needs to lift only itself off of the moon. The rocket that launches from Earth needs to lift the lunar module, the command module, all of the fuel necessary for both the outbound and return trip, and the booster stages that carry that fuel. Thus, the overall mass of the vehicle that was lifted off of the moon was just a fraction of the mass of the vehicle that lifted off of the Earth.

Second, it takes relatively little fuel to return the command module to Earth. Unlike the initial launch from Earth, which had to move the entire vehicle from the ground, the command module is in lunar orbit, moving at a relatively high rate of speed as it circles the moon. Think about the way a slingshot works: you spin it around and around and then release it at a certain point, flinging the stone in the slingshot a long distance. The return trip from the moon does essentially the same thing. The vehicle is traveling around and around the moon. At a certain point, it fires a rocket to shoot it out of the moon's orbit and towards the Earth, maintaining all of the velocity it already had while in orbit. It takes a very small amount of fuel to break an already moving vehicle out of lunar orbit and slingshot it towards Earth compared to the amount of fuel that was necessary to lift a much, much larger vehicle off of the Earth's surface.
 
Well, well, well,...a few new additions to my ignore list. :::[shakes head in disbelief]:::
.

Just curious, but for what reason do you find it necessary to add new people to your ignore list?

History is full of conspiracies, why would that have all of a sudden stopped in the last few decades?

Because now the internet allows people to ridicule those who believe that not everything is up to snuff.

Space anchor. I about spit out my coffee when I read that.

Will we use one of those to hold the space elevator in place?
 
Awww, c'mon guys! This is a thread about "conspiracy's"; let's not get bogged down with the details. :D

I believe the landing happened. But to be honest a part of me still refuses to believe that it was manned... BUT, we had to "have" a man on the Moon before the close of that decade, so...

The space station, shuttles, all of those coke can thingies with humans onboard all operate in the upper atmosphere... not quite out in "space"... I don't think Uncle Sam has yet found a way to keep humans safe from solar and other forms of space radiation. I think there'd be zero chance of the US Govmnt sort of "abandoning" the traditional space program unless they were not convinced that they should be putting their marbles somewhere else...

Now, go to the Space Museum in Dulles and take a look at those Gemini capsules... (precursors to the Apollo program). They ARE Coke cans... and there's just not enough "space" in there to fit the balls of those courageous US astronauts!

I think it's all part of the Matrix... :D
 
Did they not put mirrors on the moon, they reflect a laser off them?

From NASA:

Ringed by footprints, sitting in the moondust, lies a 2-foot wide panel studded with 100 mirrors pointing at Earth: the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array." Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong put it there on July 21, 1969, about an hour before the end of their final moonwalk. Thirty-five years later, it's the only Apollo science experiment still running.

University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley was the project's principal investigator during the Apollo years, and he follows its progress today. "Using these mirrors," explains Alley, "we can 'ping' the moon with laser pulses and measure the Earth-moon distance very precisely. This is a wonderful way to learn about the moon's orbit and to test theories of gravity."
Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.

The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of 385,000 km, typically.

Targeting the mirrors and catching their faint reflections is a challenge, but astronomers have been doing it for 35 years. A key observing site is the McDonald Observatory in Texas where a 0.7 meter telescope regularly pings reflectors in the Sea of Tranquility (Apollo 11), at Fra Mauro (Apollo 14) and Hadley Rille (Apollo 15), and, sometimes, in the Sea of Serenity. There's a set of mirrors there onboard the parked Soviet Lunokhud 2 moon rover--maybe the coolest-looking robot ever built.
In this way, for decades, researchers have carefully traced the moon's orbit, and they've learned some remarkable things, among them:

(1) The moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year. Why? Earth's ocean tides are responsible.
(2) The moon probably has a liquid core.
(3) The universal force of gravity is very stable. Newton's gravitational constant G has changed less than 1 part in 100-billion since the laser experiments began.

Physicists have also used the laser results to check Einstein's theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity. So far, so good: Einstein's equations predict the shape of the moon's orbit as well as laser ranging can measure it. But Einstein, constantly tested, isn't out of the woods yet. Some physicists (Alley is one of them) believe his general theory of relativity is flawed. If there is a flaw, lunar laser ranging might yet find it.
 
Second, the neatness of the collapse of the towers. This has always bothered me. I would understand the heat and/or impact causing the towers to topple over on itself, but the way both towers collapsed just like you see with a controlled demolition has always been something I've wondered about. Then tower 7 going down, again in a neat stacked collapse. It all makes me wonder why they put in so much effort to demo a building if this is how they collapse anyway. Although to be fair, I thought I read somewhere a long time ago that they chose to demo tower 7 because it was compromised, although the fact it happened so quickly made me wonder how they made the decision and got it set up for demo so quickly. I recently saw this clip, and it has kind of confirmed some of my suspicions (yes it has the cheesy conspiracy music) but I found some of it compelling.

The WTC towers were constructed with what amounts to an "exoskeleton" for structural support around a central column - which is not the norm for buildings, and had a lot to do with the nature of the collapse.

Invalid Link Removed
 
ZB158 said:
Yeah, maybe it couldn't actually be provided visually for TV and was unspectacular- like just one guy touching the surface and saying "Okay, we did it, let's get the F out of here..."

There are elements to the story which I find may have been difficult to execute and may have in reality been done another way.

Firstly, the moon is 238,857 miles away. It took them three days to get there, so that would be 3317.45833 miles-per-hour, straight for three whole days. (Moon distance divided by 72 hours/rough estimate.)

That's humans withstanding that speed constantly for 72 hours straight. Also, since they are going 3300 miles-per-hour, in the event debris flew by, it would be at an incredible rate. That's 55 miles per minute or close to a mile-per-second. There would be no time to react to large debris, rock whatever. I mean, it's not a Star Trek ship.

Now, they are going 3,000 mph and, at the end of 3 days then can pin point it so that their ship hovers at the desired spot above the moon instead of crashing the F into it?

Then, apparently two guys separated from the ship in a lunar lander. While the other guy kind of hovered in the ship with a space anchor?? (I don't understand how it could successfully hover there like the Millennium Falcon.)

So the two guys go down there and run around a bit, take pictures and stuff. Then they leave and successfully dock with what's left of the original rocket, which left them with just the tip to fly back, without a launch, again at 3,000 mph and casually go back to earth?
They had a cargo ship's worth of fuel in that puny ship to make the trip back at 3,000 mph in 3 days??

I know someone will chime in with the official story...I still won't believe it. I think it's possible, what dmonroe said - the version we see is more of a Hollywood production to make it more digestible for public consumption. The actual landing was probably way different, took a lot longer/maybe by other players and they didn't have the technology to broadcast it.

Without getting into whether it was real or not, you display a large lack of understanding of physics.
If you can, read about some basics about gravity, acceleration, etc.
 
I missed the offensive comments. He might not understand what he's talking about, but that's not a reason to get all dramatic.

Yeah, I didnt see any offensive comments either, which was why I asked.

I take it dmusic148 finds the entire idea of this particular conspiracy theory offensive for reasons unbeknownst to me.
I dont see how someone discussing a ridiculous theory is worthy of being put onto an ignore list. One can entertain an idea without accepting it, in fact they say that is the mark of an intelligent man.