Have we landed on the moon?

[WinkAllKerb'']

voting tips: close your eyes pick one at random, press enter/return, most people do that nowdays ; this or selecting the revert of what they really think

@magnemoe don't bother i was just poking around a scif fiction polar book plot i m not gonna write ^^

*slight side off topic on/off*

Edited February 3, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Most of people just don't care about most of problems outside of their personal sight, unless somebody begins to propagate something they didn't care themselves.
So, an opinion of the most people on almost any theme not differs very much from a random noise.

For most of people there's just no difference between the space flights or a last year football match. 
Not that they "don't understand the difference", but this difference objectively plays no role in their life.
So, they just bet nothing on their opinion themselves. The moon-schmoon is just a one more blah-blah for them. They even aren't believing/disbelieving, but just not giving a fake about this. 
This is normal, this is a slop and ballast. An intellectual laziness is a natural protection from crazy ideas. If a person isn't interested in something, better let him keep away from the theme than to feed demagogic leaders.

Even if a person is interested and has a strong opinion about something, very few of them are really significant to deal with about this theme. 
So, his opinion could play any role if crowds of his like-minded fellows got possessed with that idea.

And exactly because of this, almost always a representative democracy has pushed out the primitive direct democracy, leaving for her only simplest and uncertain questions.

There are many strange and freaky ideas in the world, and almost any person has at least several of them in mind, just treats them as normal.
Also they indeed can be normal for 50% of people, while abnormal for 50% others.
So, living with real people you will anyway deal with those who has ideas disgusting for you, and thus you most probably would not pay too much attention for someone's else brain cockroaches.
Otherwise there's a risk to stay a shining standalone mountain peak of perfection.

Not much people have yet been killed for the lunar expeditions theme, so it's unlikely a real reason to reject somebody from your life just for this.
Another one can be agreed that there were lunar expeditions, but be sure that they found UFO when being there.

 

Note that in an pol with the question "Do you believe we landed on the Moon"  or other nuttball questions like "do you believe in vampires" you will get an significant amount of trolls and joke answers. 
This is one of the dirty secrets with pols, you can trap some of the effect giving an cool but impossible option like I have played KSP for 10 years.
The ones making professional polls don't like this as it show errors they don't like and its impossible to know the number of trolls in the Moon landing or vampire question. 

However we have the infamous jedi religion on censuses in Australia, also in the first census Russia after Soviet union elves and hobits ended up as significant ethical minorities, note that this is an census where you are named, not an random anonymous poll.

Another factor in polls is boredom and indifference, this is more true in longer ones where you just want to get done with it. 
 

[Guest]

I feel like this could be relevant

[ZooNamedGames]

I've actually had this discussion with several people on Imgur and the common thread of ideas seem to stem from a basic paranoia about the government. However I still strongly believe that the majority of those who believe it are just under the 'bandwagon' effect and just do it since it seems popular since when you question them on the topic them seem to easily cave into not having much to believe.

The common questions they have is; why does the flag on the Apollo mission wave in space?; and, why are there no stars visible from the lunar surface?

[StupidAndy]

17 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Apollo mission wave in space

they waved the flag manually and since its a vacuum it cannot stop

 

17 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

why are there no stars visible from the lunar surface?

Distant Object Enhancement does a good job with this, where if you look at Kerbin, the stars disappear and so do the planets, if you move away from the planet, they become visible again. that

Edited February 4, 2017 by StupidAndy

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, StupidAndy said:

they waved the flag manually and since its a vacuum it cannot stop

 

Distant Object Enhancement does a good job with this, where if you look at Kerbin, the stars disappear and so do the planets, if you move away from the planet, they become visible again. that

I know the reason why these things happen, but it's their questions.

[StupidAndy]

I was explaining, I know you probably know the answers

[razark]

16 minutes ago, StupidAndy said:

they waved the flag manually and since its a vacuum it cannot stop

What amuses me is the number of people that bring up the flag waving in a vacuum. 

And then they bring up a photograph to show it.

[WinkAllKerb'']

20 minutes ago, razark said:

What amuses me is the number of people that bring up the flag waving in a vacuum. 

And then they bring up a photograph to show it.

will probably stop very slowly because gravity ... kinda like kessler syndrome and saturn ring ... just very slowly ...

Edited February 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
:3 oh you :3

[Ten Key]

On 1/30/2017 at 2:04 PM, PayadorPerseguido said:

It gets on meh nerves when i hear she saying the moon landings were too hollywoodian. 

I can see that, actually. The space race, presented without context, does seem out of place, almost as if it popped out of a Hollywood movie set. In order to understand the space race (and Project Apollo), one must fully consider the context. Manned spaceflight was sparked by one world changing technology. . .and it was ended by another.

In the aftermath of World War II, decades or even centuries of military theory were suddenly replaced with the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, a "stand off" state in which no one has the ability to win a nuclear war. The fear is thus: If your opponent ever believes they can win a nuclear exchange, they might be tempted to risk a first strike before their window of opportunity closes. In such an environment, the perceived reliability of your nuclear arsenal becomes paramount to your survival.

Here's what the timeline looks like. . .

• 1957 -- Launch of Sputnik 1 and 2
• 1958 -- Launch of Explorer 1
• 1958 -- Founding of NASA
• 1959 -- Atlas Missile Enters Service as America's First ICBM
• 1961 -- April 12th, Orbital Flight of Yuri Gagarin
• 1961 -- April 17th, Bay of Pigs
• 1961 -- May 5th, Suborbital Flight of Alan Shepard
• 1962 -- Orbital Flight of John Glenn
• 1962 -- Cuban Missile Crisis
• 1961-1965 -- Unmanned Ranger Program Lunar Impactors. Nine attempts, only last three probes successful
• 1963 -- Titan II Missile Enters Service as ICBM
• 1963 -- Manned Orbiting Laboratory Announced
• 1963 -- John F. Kennedy Assassinated
• 1965 -- First Manned Gemini Flight (Grissom/Young) 
• 1965 -- Manned Lunar Mapping and Survey System Initiated
• 1967 -- Apollo 1 Fire
• 1967 -- Soyuz 1 Crash
• 1967 -- Unmanned Lunar Orbiter Program successfully maps lunar surface. Manned LMSS Cancelled
• 1967 -- Outer Space Treaty Signed
• 1968 -- First Successful Test of Poseidon SLBM
• 1969 -- July 20th, First Manned Lunar Landing
• 1969 -- July 31st, Mariner 6 Unmanned Mars Flyby
• 1969 -- Manned Orbiting Laboratory Cancelled
• 1971 -- Poseidon SLBM Enters Service
• 1971 -- Mariner 9 Successful after being reprogrammed remotely to adjust to unanticipated dust storms
• 1972 -- Last Manned Lunar Landing
• 1976 -- Unmanned Viking Mars Landers
• 1977 -- Unmanned Voyager 1 and 2 Probes launched

 

All right, now, watch this time lapse video of every nuclear test through 1998. Pay attention to the dates, particularly the first satellite launches (1957) and the first manned spaceflights (1961). These nuclear tests are essentially the US and USSR attempting to prove to the other side that their nuclear deterrent works and that nuclear war is unwinnable.

But of course, proving the bombs work is only half of the equation. It doesn't do you any good if you can't also prove that you can reliably deliver those bombs. If it seems like the space race was born from the mind of a Hollywood propaganda director, well, it kind of was. The Jupiter rocket that launched Explorer 1 was a nuclear missile. The rocket that launched Sputnik was a nuclear missile. The rocket that launched Yuri Gagarin was a nuclear missile, as was the Redstone that launched Alan Shepard. The Atlas that launched John Glenn was America's first ICBM, capable of reaching the Soviet Union from launch sites in the US. The nuclear deterrent of both nations relied on these missiles, and what better way to show them off in a non-threatening manner than manned spaceflight? See? We are so confident in our missiles that we're going to put people on them and shoot them into space!

Why was America so panicked about the initial set backs in the Mercury Program? Because each failure of the Atlas missile called into question the reliability of our nuclear deterrent and, potentially, could have triggered a nuclear war. So the early acts of the space race could be considered a propaganda project that was very, very real. Today, 50 years removed from the events of the space race, this seems ridiculous. But it wasn't at the time. 

The Titan II that launched the Gemini spacecraft was also an ICBM, but by this time the development of submarine based missiles was beginning to change the nuclear deterrent equation. A dead president, bureaucratic inertia and the strange pressures of the Cold War kept Apollo alive long enough to realize a manned moon landing, but from there. . .

 

On 2/1/2017 at 1:44 AM, Darnok said:

And why technology developed during Apollo mission wasn't developed any further, instead they turned all their work into something very different like space shuttles. If you have super expensive, working and tested technology there is no reason to start absolutely new technological branch to achieve even smaller result.

 

Eleven days after Neil and Buzz took those historic first steps, Mariner 6 flew by Mars, followed a few days later by Mariner 7. It didn't get a whole lot of press at the time, but it was another step towards the end of manned spaceflight that had begun some years earlier.

Beginning in 1961, and culminating in 1965, NASA launched nine Ranger spacecraft at the moon with the intention of getting the first close up photographs of the lunar surface. The program was marred with failures, and was emblematic of the state of unmanned probes at the time-- only the last 3 probes actually worked. The early attempts at robotic spacecraft were very bad indeed. In 1963, the Air Force announced its intentions to develop the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (essentially, a manned spy platform) and in 1965, NASA and the NRO began work on the Lunar Mapping and Surveying System, a special module that would replace the Apollo LM and allow the crew to map the lunar surface from orbit. Then, in 1967, the Apollo 1 fire killed astronauts Grissom, White and Chaffee, and shortly thereafter the Soyuz 1 crash took the life of cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov. At the same time, the unmanned Lunar Orbiter Program successfully mapped the lunar surface, and the manned LM&SS was quietly cancelled. The Manned Orbiting Lab was cancelled in 1969. 

Then, in 1971, the unmanned Mariner 9 orbiter arrived at Mars to find the planet shrouded in global dust storms so severe that its mapping mission was placed in jeopardy. Earlier probes would have mindlessly photographed the storm, but controllers on the ground were able to reprogram Mariner 9 to wait out the storm and perform its mission once it had passed. In less than ten years, improvements in computing and electronics had shifted human astronauts from mission critical necessities to very expensive luxuries. The last Apollo landing occurred in 1972, and from then on it was clear-- human beings were no longer needed for space exploration. The military lost interest too, beyond robotic recon satellites. . .the US and USSR didn't sign the Outer Space Treaty because they were suddenly feeling charitable. They signed it because submarines had made space based weapons platforms obsolete. 

Manned spaceflight lingered on in the form of the space shuttle, but by and large the shuttle existed mostly to keep the people working on it employed. No President wants to take credit for killing that many jobs. The exploration never stopped though, and the technology developed during the space race would go on to drive dozens of robotic missions that would forever change our view of the universe and our place in it. 

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Ten Key
typo

[Nathair]

1 hour ago, Ten Key said:

The Titan II that launched the Gemini spacecraft was also an ICBM,

Jim Lovell's book has an amusing bit about flying the Titan to orbit. "[t]he Titan had a huge range of ballistic trajectories programmed into its guidance computer, which aimed the missile below the horizon if it was headed for a military target or above the horizon if it was headed for space. As the rocket rose, the computer would continually hunt for just the right orientation, causing the missile to wiggle its nose up and down and left to right, bloodhound-fashion, sniffing for a target that might be Moscow, might be Minsk, or might be low Earth orbit, depending on whether it was carrying warheads or spacemen on that particular mission." Since the Titan also preferred to do all its maneuvering while rolled ninety degrees to the right, so you'd be doing this bloodhound wiggling through eight g's while lying on your side, that sounds like a wild ride!

2 hours ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

will probably stop very slowly because gravity ... kinda like kessler syndrome and saturn ring ... just very slowly ...

If you watch the video you'll see that the "waving" stops after just a couple of seconds.

One thing that going to space has taught us is that almost everything "common sense" tells people, even many quite intelligent people, about what will happen to things in space is DEAD WRONG. As we all know, it took the New York Times until after Apollo 11 had taken off before they issued a retraction for their 1920 Article making fun of Goddard and explaining to him(!) that rockets can't fly in space.

[WinkAllKerb'']

witch video ? the one you've recorded yourself in 1960 with you'r tv and magneto ? a my bad no magneto back in the days in everyone home ^^ i m born later i don't care about that video, i ve not watched the tv myself back when it happened

anyway blabla about that video allow some to make business ... so ...

Edited February 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Nathair]

3 minutes ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

witch video ? the one you've recorded yourself in 1960 with you'r tv and magneto ? a my bad no magneto back in the days in everyone home ^^ i m born later i don't care about that video, i ve not wached the tv back when it happened

I'm not fully conversant with the delusions of Moon Mythicists but I believe that the flag in question is from Apollo 15, so that makes the date 1971 not 1960. (And, not that it matters, I was, in fact, watching that on TV.) The video of the "waving flag" is readily available on YouTube.

[WinkAllKerb'']

UTF-8#q=moon+video+sales+fact+various+media+world+wide

at least, it create some work, add a pinch of confusion and all, mostly my point, as said i don't care about the video in itself

Edited February 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Nathair]

2 minutes ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

UTF-8#q=moon+video+sales+fact+various+media+world+wide

at least, it create some work, add a pinch of confusion and all, mostly my point, as said i don't care about the video in itself

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what that meant.

[WinkAllKerb'']

nothing special it just mean the same as cesar(s) providing a show 2000 ago in the coliseum, then 300 and/or brutus happened (it depend the caesar their's many)

and nothing personnal @nat

Edited February 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
we autist surf our own network ; ) don't bother about that ^^

[Nathair]

3 minutes ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

then 300 and/or brutus happened (it depend the caesar their's many)

300, as in Thermopylae? Brutus and Caesar lived about four hundred years after Thermopylae. That's about the difference between Romeo and Juliet at the Globe and The Force Awakens at the IMAX.

In such matters of opinion, it serves us well to take the time. Watch the video for yourself, pick up a book, don't just skip the details of coming to a well informed opinion.

[WinkAllKerb'']

12 hours ago, Nathair said:

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what that meant.

the post explaining what i was meaning, been removed (without surprise) ; ) so ; ) and regarding your sig, chruch are like school it's just a matter of peop's able to read , able to make a proper meaning, or the need to have a reader because they don't now how to read

this it usually refer to the link between priest and monk ^^ monk tend to think that messie blood is beer frome the bee not wine from the crap (crop i mean)
 

13 hours ago, Nathair said:

...

If you watch the video you'll see that the "waving" stops after just a couple of seconds.

...

and then wut ? such advanced tech wooooooooooooooooaaaaaaahhhh  ... ... ... hoew an forgive the lite autistic typo ^^ but why make it complicated when there such simple tons of available explains

Edited February 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Nathair]

20 minutes ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

why make it complicated when there such simple tons of available explains

I'm not sure what alternative "simple explanations" you're suggesting are available. "The whole thing was faked and covered up by the biggest conspiracy in human history" is not a simple explanation. "The cloth suspended on the rod continued to sway for a couple of seconds because there was reduced gravity and no air resistance" is both simple and correct. Another simple explanation for this is that some people only want to confirm their own beliefs rather than to learn something new, even if they have to contort into pretzels to do it.

 

25 minutes ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

and then wut ?

And then nothing. The fabric in question is still hanging, motionless, from the rod. Unless the flagpole fell over when they launched, in which case it's lying on the surface of the moon, motionless. (LROC images of the site from Nov 2011 don't resolve the flag's shadow among the rest of 15's relics on the surface, so it is possible that it blew over during the ascent stage launch.)

[WinkAllKerb'']

so much dust they should have used a big drill for the main mast ^^ 
 

Spoiler

this is why in ksp when i land somewhere i always put a flag a reasonable +-500 or so meter from the landing site ^^

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Nathair]

They had better luck with 17's flag.

[DerekL1963]

17 hours ago, Ten Key said:

But of course, proving the bombs work is only half of the equation. It doesn't do you any good if you can't also prove that you can reliably deliver those bombs. If it seems like the space race was born from the mind of a Hollywood propaganda director, well, it kind of was. The Jupiter rocket that launched Explorer 1 was a nuclear missile. The rocket that launched Sputnik was a nuclear missile. The rocket that launched Yuri Gagarin was a nuclear missile, as was the Redstone that launched Alan Shepard. The Atlas that launched John Glenn was America's first ICBM, capable of reaching the Soviet Union from launch sites in the US. The nuclear deterrent of both nations relied on these missiles, and what better way to show them off in a non-threatening manner than manned spaceflight? See? We are so confident in our missiles that we're going to put people on them and shoot them into space!

The funny part is that all these missiles were already largely obsolescent...  Liquid fuels were already plainly on the way out, and so were the SRBMs and IRBMs that many early space launchers were based on.  Precision guidance, lightweight warheads, and reliable big high-energy solids were changing the game.  (SLBM's were a beneficiary as much a driver here.)
 

17 hours ago, Ten Key said:

The Titan II that launched the Gemini spacecraft was also an ICBM

Yes... and no.  The Gemini Titans were of a modified design and were produced on a separate, dedicated, production line in Baltimore.  (SAC Titan's were built in Denver.)  And really, that goes to some extent to all the I(C|R)BM's-cum-launch vehicles...  They weren't exactly production vehicles, they were specially selected, modified and handled.  The engines for the MR series, for example, were cherrypicked off the line after proof firing.

 

17 hours ago, Ten Key said:

A dead president, bureaucratic inertia and the strange pressures of the Cold War kept Apollo alive long enough to realize a manned moon landing, but from there. . .

Barely alive...  In '65-'67 the Apollo budget was sharply trimmed, by '69 the program was running on fumes, force of habit, and (as you say) inertia.

[NSEP]

Srsly tho. Most of the Moon hoax nuts are actually people who only believe the Moon Landings were faked because of some stupid article on the internet, or some stupid friend, they dont research it or anything, they just believe anything they hear. So ignorant.

I also dont get why 30% of US ppl disbelieve in their own glory, its just strange. You should be proud, but no! There is a totally not photoshopped picture of a rock with a C on it so screw the history books, those 35 pixels totally disprove 400.000 people's totally not hard work on a totally fake cardboard rocket.

 

[YNM]

Interesting that this thread is still standing.

Is it the net so the forum won't be full of (dis ?)believers and instead put their rant here ?

[DerekL1963]

23 hours ago, Ten Key said:

But of course, proving the bombs work is only half of the equation. It doesn't do you any good if you can't also prove that you can reliably deliver those bombs. If it seems like the space race was born from the mind of a Hollywood propaganda director, well, it kind of was.

Something I forgot to add earlier, but something I've been saying for years - "If you don't understand why we haven't been back to the moon, you don't understand why we went in the first place".

I am curious though, why you count SLBM from Poseidon rather than Polaris.  (Myself, I don't rate MIRV *that* highly...)   I'd go no later than Polaris A-2.  (A-1 was something of a kludge, rushed to sea to get something out there and on patrol to deter the USAF.)