Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Landed on the moon?

  1. Sep 7, 2004 #1
    Which part of the moon did they land on? The one that is facing us or the backside? If they landed on the front site can it be seen from a telescope? Also, what kind of flag did they use? Is it just a regular cloth? If so then why gravity doesn't pull it down?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 7, 2004 #2

    enigma

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They landed in several different places on the near side of the moon. Landing on the far side was being pushed for by many scientists for the Apollo 18 landing, but the mission was scrapped.

    No. The site's details are much to small to be resolved, even with the Hubble.

    I don't know the exact type, but there was a wire placed in the flag to hold it up.
     
  4. Sep 10, 2004 #3
    Just the other night, I was watching an old Fox-produced documentary called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Go to the Moon?"

    They revealed a lot of facts (that seemed quite plausible on the surface) supporting the idea that men did not land on the moon. I'm just wondering if any of you have seen the video. I know that there are a lot of websites such as this one that has debunked these moon hoax theories.

    I need to know what you all think about it.
     
  5. Sep 10, 2004 #4

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Try peeking through the archives for several past dicussions on this question (in this subforum and in the astronomy subforum). My opinion (and that of many others here) is that the Fox show is junk. Here's an excellent rebuttle to it...
    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
     
  6. Sep 10, 2004 #5

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But the astronauts did set up some mirrors on the moon that we can still bounce lasers off of.
     
  7. Sep 10, 2004 #6
    But we barely have the capability to see a small flag on the surface of the earth from a satellite in high orbit. I know there is much less distortion for looking at the moon from space(small atmosphere), but its also a lot farther away.
     
  8. Sep 10, 2004 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, this cinches things a bit I think.
     
  9. Sep 13, 2004 #8
    I am wondering if the US had enough technology in the 60's to actually land on the moon. We had just crashed a couple hundred million doller probe the other day due to its chute not opening. Also the two last mars missions had large air or nitrogen filled baloons surrounding the probe and equipment for the landing. I am not sure how the Astonauts back than could even of practiced for any type of landing not knowing exactly what they would encounter.
    I am not sure but during that Space race with Russia, the moon was the prize and the US would do anything to claim it.
    Never know. conspiricies aside the moon rocks were cool!
     
  10. Sep 13, 2004 #9
    Of course we had the technology because we DID go. Sheesh.
     
  11. Sep 14, 2004 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Prior to the moon landing, we also successfully landed robot probes on the moon. The airbag landing idea is a new innovation that saves fuel in landing (it wouldn't work real well on the moon anyway - there is no air for the parachute). Also, the astronauts did get to practice on earth - and from what I understand the spacecraft handled about the same.

    As dangerous as it is, yes, it is surprising that no one died in space during the Mercury-Apollo programs.
     
  12. Sep 14, 2004 #11

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, 3 people died in 1967 (Roger B. Chaffee, Virgil "Gus" Grissom, and Edward H. White Jr) when a fire started in an Apollo capsule on the ground.

    And remember that Apollo 13 was another close call. (good movie)
     
  13. Sep 14, 2004 #12

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The amazing thing is that in 1960, we didn't, but by 1969, we did. Amazing what billions of dollars, technical know-how, and political will can do.

    NASA has more successful missions than failures. Even the recent crash you mention (the Genesis mission) might be salvagable.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/09/10/genesis.study.cnn/index.html

    And Russia confirmed that the US made it to the moon.

    They may make for interesting fiction, but they do great damage to public knowledge/education and the moon hoax idea in particular is a slap in the face to the hard work of thousands of people as well as to the astronauts who risked/gave their lives.

    oops...how did this soapbox get under me? :smile:
     
  14. Sep 14, 2004 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Which is why I said no one died in space. :wink:
     
  15. Sep 15, 2004 #14

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The July, 2004 Astronomy magazine has an article on deep-space photos that Hubble took to get a look at extremely distant galaxies. It says, "... the faintest objects ever seen, reaching down to magnitude 30... At that sensitivity, Hubble could pick up the glow of a firefly on the Moon."

    Sunlight reflecting off the descent stage of a Lunar Module is far brighter than a firefly, obviously. But the exposure times for Hubble's deep-space photographs are minutes or hours long. If they tried a long exposure photo of an Apollo landing site, I suspect all they would get for it is a blank white rectangle due to extreme overexposure. If they cut the exposure time down enough to get features on the surface to show themselves, features the size of the lander would not show up.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2004
  16. Sep 15, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Caveat, Janitor - there is a big difference between light gathering capability and resolution. The lunar sites can't be seen because they are too small, not because they are too dim.
     
  17. Sep 15, 2004 #16

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No, they didn't have the technology. They literally developed it as they went, and, as Russ mentioned, it was amazing there were so few manned mission disasters (or at least close calls). They were planning the moon mission even before they had designed a lander, and just about everything else they did proceeded at the same fast pace.

    The Russians maintaining a lead in the space race for so long is even more amazing (and contrary to popular beliefs at the time, their program was just as 'safe' as the US). They had even less of a technological infrastructure to draw on than the US did.

    I'd say it was mid-70's at the earliest that the technological infrastructure as a whole was mature enough to make moon landings a truly 'realistic' endeavor. And probably only that soon because of the huge push made in the 60's - the technology developed for the race to the moon spilled over into many other fields (such as medical, etc) and raised the technological level of the country as a whole.

    All in all, the moon race was an example that the desire to do something is sometimes much more important than the capability to do something.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2004
  18. Sep 15, 2004 #17

    Ba

    User Avatar

    Agreed

    Back at that time the Nasa program was an offshoot of the Russian pressure, the Russians made it in the first manned orbit, and as Bob G said the technology was developed as it went. Nasa hasn't progressed as it did during that first decade, but they also are still trying to understand how everything works, back then as long as it did what they wanted it didn't need to be understood. Remember the lunar landing was not without it's problems.
    A big problem with probes though is that they have a time lag and there are interferance problems with solar bodies and radiations. In some ways somebody on sight to make decisions is a lot easier than transmiting signals and problems to earth and then earth making a decision and transmitting back.
     
  19. Sep 15, 2004 #18

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    d'oh! :redface:
     
  20. Sep 15, 2004 #19
    off-topic
    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtml

    after watching this how can you believe anything? :)

    It is hard to believe something just by watching a video of something that you have not witnessed in person ie space missions.
     
  21. Sep 15, 2004 #20

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    To possibly clarify what I meant, when I said "all they would get for it is a blank white rectangle," I meant the entire field of the picture would just be pure, featureless white.

    If several square miles of black matte film were laid around a lunar lander, with the lander itself being the only object above the matte material, do you agree with me that there would be some exposure time sufficiently long to cause one pixel to be "exposed" on the CCD or whatever device it is that the Hubble focuses its light onto? Obviously I would not expect the resulting picture to be able to show that the lander is square in shape, or that it has four legs, or anything like that which would require fantastically high resolution.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Landed on the moon?
  1. Moon landing (Replies: 9)

  2. Landing on the moon (Replies: 22)

  3. Fake NASA moon landing? (Replies: 39)

Loading...