To ask you about the 1969 moon landing, and if you think it actually DID happen... - LIGHT HEARTED.

[alittlerayofsunshine]

OK, so there have been a few conspiracy theories around the 1969 moon landing, and some people think it was staged; all filmed on a film set (in Arizona I think...) I used to believe these conspiracy theories, but have seen a few things more recently that have made me think 'hmm maybe it did happen...' I am quite torn. So can I ask you to vote to say what you think... Thanks folks

So, vote YABU if you think the 1969 moon landing DID happen.

And vote YANBU if you think it did NOT happen, and was indeed staged...

Much appreciated.

(Sorry I can't enable a 'not sure' button, so if you aren't sure, just say so in the thread (if you like...)

That is a very good point cardi! I forgot that photos don't always look the same as out eyes see. Thank you!

You are talking about the photos, and you have no idea of scale.

Very hard to judge scale on the Earthrise photo, because there is no real reference in the image.

Still, I think the Earth from the Moon, looks quite a lot bigger than the Moon from the Earth myself.

www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/earthrise-the-image-that-changed-our-view-of-the-planet-7837041.html

Yes that one does look much bigger, was more like this one (first one) that made me wonder www.aulis.com/moon-earth.htm

But in no way am I doubting it happened! My innocent question was just for someone cleverer to explain to me the science behind it!!

The moon is actually a model built in the ocean where people believe Australia is
Don’t be silly, Australia does exist it’s Finland that doesn’t! Tsk.

19 billion dollars to put man on the moon. I think most people now agree that those kinds of sums can be better spent.

And talking of the people who helped them get there - if you haven’t seen it, watch the film “Hidden Figures”.

@Coffeeisnecessary - it will all depend on the focal length and the width of the lens on camera they will have used to capture that image so as you rightly point out photographs capture an image but not necessarily as our eyes would see it

@Coffeeisnecessary - it will all depend on the focal length and the width of the lens on camera they will have used to capture that image so as you rightly point out photographs capture an image but not necessarily as our eyes would see it.

In this instance it was a 250mm lens on a hasselblad but in any event it still doesn't look the same size as the moon from earth!!

Apologies for the double post!!!

I can't seem to vote in the app (maybe I can, it's been a long day).

You can’t, you need to be logged into the browser version to vote.

And talking of the people who helped them get there - if you haven’t seen it, watch the film “Hidden Figures”.

Really good film and suitable for older primary kids as well. It is based on a book, and there's an abridged version of the book for kids as well. So important for all children to see positive images of WoC, there are not enough in common culture.

pigeonsnest.co.uk/stuff/nasa-fakes-moon-landing.html

Conclusive proof right here

I do think it happened, but can someone science minded explain to me what the earth looks so small in the photos they took there? The earth is so big compared to the moon and yet it looks the same as the moon looks from earth which really confuses me!

Not sure what pictures you've seen, but the Earth is huge as seen from the moon compared to the moon as seen from the Earth.

There's a famous picture of the Earth from the moon, called Earthrise, where the earth is just coming up on the horizon. Even though you can only see part of it, it's massive, far bigger than the moon as seen from the Earth.

Now we can see how Brexit happened when 25% don’t believe the moon landing happened shock

We write, on bottles of bleach...DO NOT DRINK! And we expect people to understand a complex issue like Brexit.

We should have taken the warnings off the bleach....for 2 years...and then held the Brexit referendum.

@givemesteel

"Visited the Smithsonian museum in Washington dc which has an exact replica of the luna unit that was meant to land on the moon. It looks like a very dated prop from an old movie like Space Odyssey. It just doesn't look high tech or robust enough, particularly as it was meant to get those astronauts make to earth as well."

1. The lunar module was NOT designed to get the astronauts back to Earth. It was designed to land on the moon, then return the astronauts to the CSM.

1. What you're seeing when looking at the LM is the outer thermal panels that help to control the internal temperature of the craft. Underneath, it looks like the attached image. The LM was designed to work only in the vacuum of space: it does not need to look streamlined or anything.

1. If NASA WERE faking it. surely they'd have made it look more like the sleek spaceships of fiction that so many wouldd've expected, eg those seen in 'Space Odyssey'

It happened. There's not a single shred of 'evidence' presented by hoax proponents that stands up to any scrutiny at all.

Lifecraft - I wonder if anyone has yet bagged the NN WonkoTheSane...

Michael Gove The weird fashion for disregarding experts has a lot to answer for. A conflation perhaps between the 'elites' in some other spheres (politics, media) versus science. Yes, science is and damn well should be 'elitist' in a meritocratic sense. I defer to experts in other fields, as they would defer to me in mine.

Nope - never happened!
It was 50 years ago.
Why hasn't it happened since?
Surely we are now better at it and could have gone more often?
I love space and loved the Kennedy Space Centre but this just doesn't ring true for me.

"Surely we are now better at it and could have gone more often?"

Our computer technology is way, way more advanced, but that actually doesn't help you get to the moon. You can work out the calculations for the thrust and trajectory with a slide rule or a very simple computer.

The reason we haven't gone back is that the basic problem is the same as it was then: you need to get a huge amount of mass into low earth orbit (so much is needed because you need to carry life support, people, lander and fuel) and boost it to the moon. This needs a mahoosively powerful launcher which is extremely expensive to develop and there's no need to develop and maintain these unless you're going to use them. There was no impetus to return to the moon - it had been done.

NASA had huge plans for post-Apollo missions, including a moon base, a large orbiting space station and a manned mission to Mars planned to leave Earth on Nov 12 1981 and return in late 1983. None of these things happened as Congres s cut funding.

Why hasn't it happened since?

It did happen since, by Americans and the USSR. And then they found better, more technologically advanced ways to explore space.

The Apollo mission and the soviet counterpart were at least to some extent colossal capitalist versus communist willy-waving exercises.

• Our computer technology is way, way more advanced, but that actually doesn't help you get to the moon. You can work out the calculations for the thrust and trajectory with a slide rule or a very simple computer.

I think I said this on a different thread, but it takes more 'tech' to enable us to find an efficient route through a city accounting for traffic. Starting with satellites - a much more sensible thing to send into space than humans.

Lots of opinions about this, but not all opinions are equal.

Scientist and astronomers, experts in the field, all say it happened.

The woman behind the counter in Greggs says it never happened.

OK...thanks for your opinion love, very interesting, now fuck off out the back, there's 24 sausage rolls need cooking.

Sausage rolls have all sold out for today.
No more due in until tomorrow!
We do have other pastries on offer though.

The woman in Greg's would probably be ignored, it's blokes on the internet who are most likely to propagate this sort of tripe I reckon.