What's new

Russia suggests USA never landed on the moon, calls to investigate moon hoax

Do you think USA did landed on the moon?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 46.4%
  • No

    Votes: 15 53.6%

  • Total voters
    28
The US can really do the world a favour and just use 1969 technology and put a man to the moon. The fact they are hesitant or not do it will not make this claim go away any time soon. And in the future when another country go there and can prove the US never landed on the moon, this can open up a new can of worms for the US.
China Proves Conspiracy Theorists Wrong With High-Resolution Moon Photos
this is kinda funny considering China Change'2 proved we landed on the moon 100%

10184809_f260.jpg



but by all means great dragon go to the moon first and prove us wrong.
 
. . .
Please try to appreciate the difference of gravitation and atmosphere between earth and moon.

Moon g field is 1.6, earth is 9.8.

As a rule of thumb to simplify calculation (it is more complex)

Using potential energy = mgh

If 100 unit of fuel is needed to carry someone from earth to space,
one need around at least 20 unit of fuel to carry a person from moon to space.

The Lunar module is maybe 1% the size of Apollo rocket.

Not possible to come back home from that.
 
.
Moon g field is 1.6, earth is 9.8.

As a rule of thumb to simplify calculation (it is more complex)

Using potential energy = mgh

If 100 unit of fuel is needed to carry someone from earth to space,
one need around at least 20 unit of fuel to carry a person from moon to space.

The Lunar module is maybe 1% the size of Apollo rocket.

Not possible to come back home from that.
No, the moon has minimal (as per recent research) to no atmosphere hence a little push and you are already into space compared to earth where you need significant amount of fuel to push something into space.
 
.
No, the moon has no atmosphere hence a little push and you are already in space compared to earth where you need significant amount of fuel to push something into space.

Air resistance is negligible in energy consumption compared to escaping gravity.

When I did my physics, we never take into account of air resistant, to simplify the problem.
 
.
Moon g field is 1.6, earth is 9.8.

As a rule of thumb to simplify calculation (it is more complex)

Using potential energy = mgh

If 100 unit of fuel is needed to carry someone from earth to space,
one need around at least 20 unit of fuel to carry a person from moon to space.

The Lunar module is maybe 1% the size of Apollo rocket.

Not possible to come back home from that.


the moon landing and getting back was a miracle

 
. .
China Proves Conspiracy Theorists Wrong With High-Resolution Moon Photos
this is kinda funny considering China Change'2 proved we landed on the moon 100%

10184809_f260.jpg



but by all means great dragon go to the moon first and prove us wrong.

the article did not go to detail. It just said:
"And yes, evidence of the Apollo landing was spotted by the scientists."

Dude, seriously don't quote me with the 21st century version of National Inquirer

Moon g field is 1.6, earth is 9.8.

As a rule of thumb to simplify calculation (it is more complex)

Using potential energy = mgh

If 100 unit of fuel is needed to carry someone from earth to space,
one need around at least 20 unit of fuel to carry a person from moon to space.

The Lunar module is maybe 1% the size of Apollo rocket.

Not possible to come back home from that.

No humans can survive pass the Van Allen belt on the way to the moon.
 
.
This is how you come back. Make sense?
no the appollo servive/command module with some 20 tons of rocket fuel brings u back
lunar modules ascending stage just takes u to lunar orbit
+
let me give you the overview of moon and earth

earth moon
diameter 12800 diameter moon 3500 k
atmosphere present no atm.
escape velocity 11.2 km 2.4 km/s
gravity g g/6

do the math urself
 
. . . .
No humans can survive pass the Van Allen belt on the way to the moon.

Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory
"Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory and how they avoided the heart of the radiation belts"

"A common claim of the moon landing conspiracy theorists is that Apollo was impossible because the Van Allen Radiation Belts (VARB) form an impenetrable barrier to human space flight beyond low Earth orbit. Aside from the fact that the man after which the VARB are named, Dr. James Van Allen, has specifically repudiated the claim, there are several things wrong with this theory. One reason is specifically relevant to this web page - the Apollo missions didn't fly straight through the teeth of the VARB, they mostly went around them.

The Van Allen Radiation Belts are a torus of energetic charged particles circling Earth around its magnetic equator and held in place by Earth's magnetic field. The VARB are split into two distinct belts, with energetic electrons forming the outer belt and a combination of protons and electrons forming the inner belt. The energy and density of the particles varies by many orders of magnitude depending on where inside the VARB one is located."
 
.
Didn't US bring back Lunar Samples??
Testing them would reveal everything.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom