real trip to the moon

What would be taken/have to happen for a real journey to the moon if it was in the place scientists say it is and is the commonly accepted size?

First of all computer training, how to land on a body of different gravity
Remote controlled landers to land on the moon for real life training.
Remote controlled lem ascent training to dock with the module to get back to earth.
An oxygen line going to each person walking on the moon for backup
Redundancy two or three landers and backup crew.

What would be taken/have to happen for a real journey to the moon if it was in the place scientists say it is and is the commonly accepted size?

First of all computer training, how to land on a body of different gravity
Remote controlled landers to land on the moon for real life training.
Remote controlled lem ascent training to dock with the module to get back to earth.
An oxygen line going to each person walking on the moon for backup
Redundancy two or three landers and backup crew.

Sounds like you have a lot of Health and safety concerns.

Isn't it a shame that people think so hard about safety these days that nothing actually gets done?
Good job that these concerns were way less in the 60's and 70's and people actually just accepted the risks associated with their jobs and got on with it.
The nanny state strikes again.

What would be taken/have to happen for a real journey to the moon if it was in the place scientists say it is and is the commonly accepted size?

First of all computer training, how to land on a body of different gravity
Remote controlled landers to land on the moon for real life training.
Remote controlled lem ascent training to dock with the module to get back to earth.
An oxygen line going to each person walking on the moon for backup
Redundancy two or three landers and backup crew.

Does it really need to be manned?  Would you trust the data from a probe? 

It's not that hard to land on the moon.  You don't need to practice on the moon itself.  If you want to try it yourself, I suggest getting a copy of Kerbal Space Program, as that will help you learn the basics.  If you want to know about the maneuvers it takes to get there, I can send you a VDF file if you download STK Viewer. 

What would be taken/have to happen for a real journey to the moon if it was in the place scientists say it is and is the commonly accepted size?

First of all computer training, how to land on a body of different gravity
Remote controlled landers to land on the moon for real life training.
Remote controlled lem ascent training to dock with the module to get back to earth.
An oxygen line going to each person walking on the moon for backup
Redundancy two or three landers and backup crew.

Yeah - and that's just for starters.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on June 05, 2016, 02:51:52 AM

What would be taken/have to happen for a real journey to the moon if it was in the place scientists say it is and is the commonly accepted size?

First of all computer training, how to land on a body of different gravity
Remote controlled landers to land on the moon for real life training.
Remote controlled lem ascent training to dock with the module to get back to earth.
An oxygen line going to each person walking on the moon for backup
Redundancy two or three landers and backup crew.

Yeah - and that's just for starters.

No, that's way too much redundancy.  It would require at least 3 or 4 Saturn V's to launch just one mission. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 05, 2016, 07:22:02 AM

Quote from: Ex-Globe on June 05, 2016, 02:51:52 AM

What would be taken/have to happen for a real journey to the moon if it was in the place scientists say it is and is the commonly accepted size?

First of all computer training, how to land on a body of different gravity
Remote controlled landers to land on the moon for real life training.
Remote controlled lem ascent training to dock with the module to get back to earth.
An oxygen line going to each person walking on the moon for backup
Redundancy two or three landers and backup crew.

Yeah - and that's just for starters.

No, that's way too much redundancy.  It would require at least 3 or 4 Saturn V's to launch just one mission.

Let's be totally "honest" here. It would be a feat that was impossible to do simply because the supposed environment they were to land on was an apparent environment that consisted of all kinds of stuff that could not be replicated on Earth.

Supposed gravity at 1/6th of Earth's but that had to be actually physically proved to be so and the only way to do so would be to simply throw out all the red tape and the worries about any safety issues; then hire suicidal family men to undertake the mission.

Basically just make everything as awkward as possible for the suicidal family men who have become guineanauts in order to pave the way for more potential suicidal family men to hopefully learn from the deaths of the guineanauts. Luckily the suicidal guineanauts somehow made it there and back, amid all of the obstacles the NASA could bestow upon them, like shortened LM exit ladders that gave an excellent chance  of suit ripping or even leg breaking/ankle twisting potential upon first contact.

The training for all of this was done in water pools and in welded bed frames in open fields, with compressed air nozzles to keep the bed frame craft stable as the rocket nozzle underneath kept it airborne.
It's always best to use compressed air nozzles for stability because compressed air works brilliantly in the "airless" environment of the moon, as we are told.

Naturally we are assuming that all of this is a real scenario and men can actually land of a floating piece of spherical rock that just happens to fall around Earth in a vacuum and manages to never fall into Earth or get pushed into the big ball of fire that dazzles us, yet is also in a vacuum and is 93 (cough) million miles away.

Anyway, back to the muwn. The good old muwn. The good old spherical cement like muwn. Just add water and sand and the building blocks are there for cities to be built on it.
If it were real, of course.

Would you trust the data from a probe?

So the data from NASA's probes cannot be trusted?

Thanks for that!

It's not that hard to land on the moon.

Did you really just write that?

LMFAO!!!

If you want to try it yourself, I suggest getting a copy of Kerbal Space Program, as that will help you learn the basics.

 
LMFAO  AGAIN!!!

Oh, just gtfo, you maniac...

If you want to know about the maneuvers it takes to get there, I can send you a VDF file if you download STK Viewer.

I'd rather cut my own thumb off than accept any of your spyware, malware & virus-ridden fantasy kids-game bullshit you utter, utter, utter madman.

I laugh like hell when they say, "it's not that hard to land on the moon." 

In the sixties they just winged stuff and got it done perfectly first time!
It was a different time man!

You would have to bring a doctor astronaut surely, that would be negligence otherwise.
Two landerS would be minimum ,in case one malfunctioned ,you could save billions on a rescue mission...if the super batteries could last that long.


If you have a small amount of fuel it makes it even harder to land anything, has to be done perfectly.
First time. You can't abort and retry.

In the sixties they just winged stuff and got it done perfectly first time!

Ummm....  No.  There were lots of failures in the early days of space flight.  That's why there were usually several unmanned test flights of a new rocket before it was man-rated (the space shuttle was pretty much the only notable exception).

Never forget to take a ball point pen with you in case your ignition goes all dodgy for the ascent from the moon.

A few so called facts about this moon trip stuff and rockets.

• The Saturn V rocket that propelled the crew to the moon still remains the tallest and heaviest ever built. It measured in at 363 feet and had to be assembled in what was the largest building (by volume) at the Vehicle Assembly Building in the Kennedy Space Centre — a building so big clouds formed inside of it.


• It was a hairy moment when coming in to land. A flat area of the moon called the Sea of Tranquillity was picked for the landing site but on approach the automatic landing system was guiding the module towards a boulder littered crater beyond. Armstrong immediately took manual control to pilot the craft himself avoiding a crash. It’s been said there was only 30 seconds of fuel left when they finally got to the surface.

Automatic landing system? On a craft that had never been anywhere near the supposed 240,000 mile, impossible to map, moon. Remember that we are told that a telescope like the supposed Hubble (today) couldn't even get close enough to pick out a lander and such, so how in the hell did they map it so close for the supposed LM to "automatically" avoid a dodgy area.
It's as comical as all hell.


The first drink consumed on the moon was wine. No, the crew didn’t pop a few corks to celebrate, Buzz Aldrin — a strict Presbyterian Christian — actually took a mini communion kit without NASA knowing.

Who writes this stuff? 
No wonder they missed the Gatling gun that Armstrong took up in his haversack. 


The moon has a distinct smell. After walking around the surface then returning to the lunar module where Aldrin and Armstrong removed their spacesuits they could smell and even taste the moon dust on their clothing. They described it as ‘spent gunpowder’ and ‘wet ashes’.

Bet you thought I was kidding about the Gatling gun, eh? 
Wet ashes from Aldrins' 200 Camel cigarettes no doubt. 


This is the best bit.

• Despite millions of dollars of technology invested in the programme, a good old Biro ball-point pen came to the crew’s rescue. Upon return to the lunar module to return Aldrin broke the ignition switch. Without this they couldn’t activate the ascent engines and could have been stuck on the moon. But, industrious Buzz had the ingenious idea to jam a pen into the switch and miraculously it worked. 


Just a few apparent "facts"...

God dammit sceptimatic!  Do you ever get sick of being an ass?

God dammit sceptimatic!  Do you ever get sick of being an ass?

Dry your eyes, love...

After all, he's not as much of an ass as this guy:

It's not that hard to land on the moon... If you want to try it yourself, I suggest getting a copy of Kerbal Space Program

Just thank your lucky stars YOU didn't write that utter shi...

Oh.

You did.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on June 05, 2016, 08:03:16 AM

In the sixties they just winged stuff and got it done perfectly first time!

Ummm....  No.  There were lots of failures in the early days of space flight.  That's why there were usually several unmanned test flights of a new rocket before it was man-rated (the space shuttle was pretty much the only notable exception).

Youre acting like one of those 'fisheye lenses are normal' people
Training to fly in a rocket is like one tenth of what was done to get to the moon,land,walk and take off,dock,and return to earth.

NASA freaks get misty eyed and just quote new kids on the block

sceptimatic, I don't know but the Moon seems to be MUCH better mapped than the FE. Also, it is always "best guess" on something 1/4 million mi away. Once you get there, things may be different. 3K x 3K image:

(http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/rare-full-moon-on-christmas-day)

Of course there are even more closeups (2K x 2K image of just ONE "small" crater ~2.7 km). Where would YOU suggest a landing site? This is a Mare ("sea" - a relatively smooth place on the Moon). Click on actual website below - 1st image below, 2nd image where on Mare Imbrium it is:

A crater breached and filled with the lavas of Mare Imbrium (top-left of the Moon below)(31.364°N, 334.217°E). LROC NAC M193132768L, image width is 3.2 km [NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University].

(http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/671)

And locations...


BTW... that crater image is ~3.2 km on a Moon 3476 km in diameter. If the Moon is ~51.2 km (32 mi) in diameter, that entire image is ~47.1 METERS across. Are FEers suggesting we can see down to the cm on the Moon? Can't we see the Moonshramps?

Can you show us an actual FE map (not a globe projection) with countries/continents labeled?

VAN ALLEN BELT.

you CAN'T get past 'em.

you'll never will.

stop, game over, end of story.



they even admit it, and they're supposed to be half-way to the moon.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE SO.

VAN ALLEN BELT.

you CAN'T get past 'em.

you'll never will.

stop, game over, end of story.

Apollo went around them.




But that trajectory is not always available for trips to the moon due to the angle of the magnetic field and the angle of the Moon's orbit.  From what I understand it is available even less for interplanetary trips.

they even admit it, and they're supposed to be half-way to the moon.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE SO.

They are talking about testing the electronics which are more sensitive than those in older craft.  And again as the trajectory around the belts is not always available and they want to go more often and at will, they need to have the option to just go through them.  They don't say it is impossible though.

you really have NO SHAME.

you really have NO SHAME.

Because I present facts to counter your emotion?

VAN ALLEN BELT.

you CAN'T get past 'em.

you'll never will.

stop, game over, end of story.



they even admit it, and they're supposed to be half-way to the moon.

Where did they "admit" that? I must have missed it. Can you find or make a transcript of that video and show where that's said? That's the problem with relying on videos to convey technical information - it's a nuisance to refer to; things like this are much easier to refer back to when written.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE SO.

I'd rather believe the people who know what they're talking about, and can demonstrate it, than some anonymous guy on the Internet[nb]Even one who sometimes uses all caps and really big print.[/nb] who tries to promote what he admits is a stupid theory.
 

again, you're just a bunch of stupid shills, and you know, everybody knows.

I don't give a fuck what you think, you even pretend you don't recognize I was being sarcastic, who do you think you're foolin'?

enough for me. this place is run by shills, I'll go spreading the truth in real life to real people.

I do love life, real life, and you're just a bunch of assholes in front of a computer screen defending the biggest lie ever. virtuality is the only reality you know. you must be joking.

you know you're ruined if people find out. you're grabbing people by the balls 'cause they're all asleep and you have to keep your secrets, but there won't be no bullshits and no secrets anymore, very soon.

again, you're just a bunch of stupid shills, and you know, everybody knows.

I don't give a fuck what you think,

Of course you don't. That's why you didn't bother to respond. Oh, wait... oops! Never mind.

you even pretend you don't recognize I was being sarcastic, who do you think you're foolin'?

Sometimes it's really hard to tell when people are foolin' around and when they actually believe what they say here.

enough for me. this place is run by shills, I'll go spreading the truth in real life to real people.

See what I mean? Are you being sarcastic now, or do you really believe that? I guess if you do keep posting here we can tell that you were just kidding. If not, it must mean you're throwing in the towel because you realize you can't defend what you claim; there will be no way to know if you actually believe what you say or not.

I do love life, real life, and you're just a bunch of assholes in front of a computer screen defending the biggest lie ever. virtuality is the only reality you know. you must be joking.

Sez the guy sitting in front of a computer screen trying to defend a load of nonsense! Love it!

you know you're ruined if people find out.

Yeah, yeah... sure. 

you're grabbing people by the balls 'cause they're all asleep and you have to keep your secrets, but there won't be no bullshits and no secrets anymore, very soon.

Shhh!

Nope. Just trying to keep it real, here.

There are quite a few reasons to trust the moon landings.

1.  Retroflectors.  Each moon landing set up a retroflector.  This was a very carefully made concave mirror-like contrivance, not requiring a battery, which could (if properly set up) bounce back laser and maser beams to their precise source points.  Setting these up to get results required precision that was, then, only available with human astronauts.  In each moon landing, from the very first, laser/maser beams had already been beaming toward the landing site, and began reflecting back as soon as the astronauts set up the retroflector.

2.  Radio signals.  Ordinary short wave frequencies cannot punch through the ionosphere, that's why we can receive BBC and Radio Moscow broadcasts.  Only ultra-short frequencies cut through the ionosphere - but those frequencies don't bounce from one part of the earth to another.  So if you hear something on those frequencies it's either coming from your hometown or it's coming from outer space.  In the case of the moon landings, labs and radio engineers all of the world could hear the astronauts on those frequencies - proof that they were in outer space.

3.  Demonstrations.  Each moon landing involved something done on the TV broadcast that simply wouldn't be possible on earth gravity - like hitting a golf ball a mile.

Quite frankly, if the moon landings were fake, the govt would have continued them, instead of stopping them during the Reagan era.  Real moon exploration is very expensive.  Faking it is much cheaper.

There is actually a documentary about how they supposedly faked going to the moon( which before I saw that documentary I believed that people actually went to the moon but after seeing the documentary I don't think they went to the moon anymore). I don't remember what it's called but it can't be too hard to find. Also, there are tons of YouTube videos about faking it so u could also go and watch those.

There is actually a documentary about how they supposedly faked going to the moon( which before I saw that documentary I believed that people actually went to the moon but after seeing the documentary I don't think they went to the moon anymore). I don't remember what it's called but it can't be too hard to find. Also, there are tons of YouTube videos about faking it so u could also go and watch those.

Whatever documentary you watched was biased and uninformed.  You're better off at sites like this that debunk those claims. 

There is actually a documentary about how they supposedly faked going to the moon( which before I saw that documentary I believed that people actually went to the moon but after seeing the documentary I don't think they went to the moon anymore). I don't remember what it's called but it can't be too hard to find. Also, there are tons of YouTube videos about faking it so u could also go and watch those.

Probably "Conspira...."

NOPE! Not going to spread that hour long bullshit around!

Seriously, if you were swayed by that garbage, please slap yourself! Then go fact-check even a little bit of that crap..

Here's some good resources...
http://www.clavius.org/
https://lightsinthedark.com/2014/05/22/no-the-moon-landings-werent-faked-and-heres-how-you-can-tell/

What would be taken/have to happen for a real journey to the moon if it was in the place scientists say it is and is the commonly accepted size?

First of all computer training, how to land on a body of different gravity
Remote controlled landers to land on the moon for real life training.
Remote controlled lem ascent training to dock with the module to get back to earth.
An oxygen line going to each person walking on the moon for backup
Redundancy two or three landers and backup crew.

1. Kerbal Space Program
2. Win the Lunar X-Prize
3. Send two unmanned vehicles to LEO and dock them
4. Wear a spacesuit
5. Prepare backup crews and rescue vessels

Can't it get more simple?

You can bounce radio signals off the moon......so anyone receiving a signal from the moon doesn't really know it's origin,it could have bounced off.

Laser get reflected by the moon itself...no reflectors needed...and how the fuck is someone on earth going to be able to locate reflectors on something about 1/3 the size of the earth? How far can the average person's telescope zoom in to the moon anyway?

You can bounce radio signals off the moon......so anyone receiving a signal from the moon doesn't really know it's origin,it could have bounced off.

Laser get reflected by the moon itself...no reflectors needed...and how the fuck is someone on earth going to be able to locate reflectors on something about 1/3 the size of the earth? How far can the average person's telescope zoom in to the moon anyway?

Retro reflectors bounce straight back to you no matter the angle.

Laser get reflected by the moon itself...no reflectors needed...

True but then you need a more powerful laser and you then get a more diffuse return.