ekineme:


Thanks for the link, it's content is quite educating but I will like if you can go through Stevonics comments objectively, there are some important facts he pointed out that has not been addressed.
Secondly how were they able to survive the Cosmic Radiation, let's assume they are shielded by the LM, but the thickness was so thin, my question of what kind of glue was used to hold the parts together considering that riveting and Welding won't be possible in such scenario.
Google is not giving me the answer I need hence I seek opinions from knowledgeable individual.

stevonics:

You must be a fool to believe that conspiracy.
Please explain how to communicate from moon, at what frequency, short wave, amplitude, pulse, modulation, is it a line- of-sight. Where are the moon booster repeaters, the power and how can that bring them back. Mumu man.
All the equipments on earth that sends a craft to space, are required in moon to send a craft to space and back to earth. That is not even enough, because your entry into moon can damage the craft.
Why am I even re weplying stupid kids that refused to learn.

omale88:
well it's his opinion,I have no time to trade words with people today,he was smart enough not to mention me,so I respect that,the landing mark as I have said and Rover tracks can be seen from earth,Neil Armstrong and the other astronaut placed a mirror on the moon as evidence which sends back laser signals to earth it ,what this guy failed to know was that Tesla has perfected radio transmitters and recievers long before then and the Roswell UFO crash of 1947 has pushed Americans to the edge of scientific research since then, Nikola Tesla himself already created a flying saucer by then so what's ordinary rocket? And radio? That would be a problem?just because they control the kind of technology you get in the market doesn't mean sophiscated ones don't exist,thats called market control,I am an inventor so I have no time to trade words with people who are oblivious to the facts before them,the Chinese, japanese and Russian government didn't debunk these claims,I am sure the Same dude would also believe the earth is flat just because his holly books say so.there was not just one mission to the moon as I have said there were three more missions to the moon after the first..

stevonics:

Bro, I love how civil you are. He was actually referring to me as a business registration agent, "the band wagon factor". I would not like to boast here. I have a book called The Boundary of Science. But non scientists believe any thing is possible with the likes of United States. The moon gravity is one sixth that of earth. You need refuelling and moon station to propel out. After using a space craft the walls gets weaker due to Ablative defects. The craft must have spent fuel to get to space first. To manoeuvre close to moon requires just electric/solar powered propulsion, moons gravity can trap you to its orbit if you don't have enough propelling force to escape back to your space station. Now if you intend to move into moon and land, you force your craft through moons centrifugal forces and get pulled by its gravity, the only safe landing will involve balloons (as simulated for mars). Getting to moon surface, you must have cruised your craft to Ablative defect, which either renders it useless or requires repairs. I remember when Challenger burst into flames due to this phenomenon during reentry to earth. Just imagine experiencing that into moon and you are not yet done (coming back)
I love this your topic. We have brains in Nigeria. Some are not where they should be.

truthCoder:


Dear students, graduates, lecturers, staff and governing council of FUTO, one of your Engineering graduates is making claims that the Hubble telescope and the Moon Laser Ranging Mirror is one and the same. He is very confident based on his extended studies and research on the subject in FUTO.

Do you guys agree with him?

larryUG:

Are you implying that the moon has atmosphere? What will cause the ablative defect upon approaching the moon?

ITbomb:
The problem is not going there, the main issue is landing and taking off from the moon, that's what Elon is trying to overcome with the Super Heavy Booster

qwertyboss:

Can you then explain how NASA communicate with it fly by probe that discover the new planet ultima-Tule and how they send back colour pictures from a probe on Mars?

larryUG:

Are you implying that the moon has atmosphere? What will cause the ablative defect upon approaching the moon?

truthCoder:


Now that you have indirectly agreed that it is possible to communicate from the moon despite your initial claims, we can move to the other subjects.

To propel out of the moon, you dont need the exact equipment to push you from earth to the moon.

First, the gravity of the moon is only a sixth of earth's.
Secondly, there is no atmosphere on the moon. You are not fighting against a huge force to leave.
Thirdly, the lunar module had the main ship in orbit just 69 miles above it so all it needs to do is propel at exactly the right time to reach, join, egress and dump.

If your team of electronics wizards cannot recreate a simple radio, how then can you fathom space travel?

The fact that you dont understand how it was done does not mean smarter people dont.

stevonics:
We are talking about 1961 technology which used tubes and shortwaves

stevonics:
It was a propaganda video to intimidate Russia.
Someone said they succeeded. But no. As someone vast in electronics and it's developmental generations, I know the technology then cannot take them to moon and back. Mars would have been visited by man now.

Christian36:
Don't say that, the cost of going to the moon is expensive, that is why after the last project, Nasa and other bodies incharge of space travels sees it as a waste project.

shogotermies:


Tell me more sir.

Christian36:
There is no propaganda in it. The project was successful. The reason why no body including Nasa want to repeat that project is because I) the project is expensive ii) there is no monetary benefits on such project ( beside, how do you expect NASA to embark on a project that has no gain after spending billions of dollars, it is like throwing such money in fire to burn)

Jamesbiodun:
Neil Armstrong moon landing is a scam...
A whole NASA doesn't have the video and claim they lost the data

stevonics:

Bro, if manned moon landing was successful, there a lot of benefits and experimentations. See how they are using Antarctica.
A moon station should be similar to an earth station and not space station.
Because you need a propulsion to overcome gravity from such stations. You don't need such in space station, which serve best as control and monitoring unit.
So to escape moon gravity, you need exactly all the equipments, materials and fuel you used on earth in moon to eject you first to space before you proceed to earth.
The Technology and equipment were not there. No body had entered the moon. The mirror people are talking about is a Hubble Telescope which NASA even trained some Africans to go and repair when it had issues. One of my friend then in Futo was among.

Alusiizizi:


I stopped reading your nonsense right after the bolded snippet above. You are not " someone vast in electronics and it's developmental generations", but just another idi0t who believes that he knows something.

Rocket technology was the principal essential technology needed to get to the moon, a technology which was well advanced by the Germans during WW2 and further perfected by Werner Von-Braun to sophistication sufficient enough to carry payload to the moon. Another important knowledge needed was Newtonian physics(I don't need to get into this here, unless you know something that no-one else on the planet is aware of). Outside of these essentials, the only challenge that remains is life-support, which was well within 1960's capabilities(I mean submarines that carried people in deep under-sea journeys was about 100 years old at that time already).

Alusiizizi:


I stopped reading your nonsense right after the bolded snippet above. You are not " someone vast in electronics and it's developmental generations", but just another idi0t who believes that he knows something.

Rocket technology was the principal essential technology needed to get to the moon, a technology which was well advanced by the Germans during WW2 and further perfected by Werner Von-Braun to sophistication sufficient enough to carry payload to the moon. Another important knowledge needed was Newtonian physics(I don't need to get into this here, unless you know something that no-one else on the planet is aware of). Outside of these essentials, the only challenge that remains is life-support, which was well within 1960's capabilities(I mean submarines that carried people in deep under-sea journeys was about 100 years old at that time already).

Christian36:
Can you list one benefit of setting up a space station on the moon? The control and monitoring unit you are talking about is what artificial satellites around the earth are doing, why going to waste such huge amount of money on the moon when the satellites around the earth can do same work.
Again, you don't need all the technology and equipment when coming to earth because the gravitational force of attraction of the earth is so strong to the point of dragging any object that comes closer towards it. Hope you know that the force of attraction between the earth and the moon enables the moon to revolve round the earth and that of the earth is more pronance. You just have to get to a certain level above the moon then you feel the attraction of the earth, remember that it took Armstrong and his fellow 3days to get to the moon. It is easy to come back to the earth than to leave the earth.

larryUG:

Are you implying that the moon has atmosphere? What will cause the ablative defect upon approaching the moon?

stevonics:
you cannot read or make your own research, but you replied some where as a Futo Graduate. Moon has Atmosphere. Google the 2013 NASA LADEE project when their doubt was cleared. how can NASA send man to Moon in 1960's only to start sending robots for lunar atmospheric and Dust experimentation and exploration of the Moon in 2013

stevonics:
We are not talking about just launching rockets, submarines or those old planes used in ww2. The science of overcoming moon gravity to relaunch a landed craft that has spent it's initial fuel to orbit is the issue. Academic class need the physics on how the escape velocity was attend.

stevonics:

I will again add to my initial post.
Go to https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news and read about Apollo 17 that happened more than a decade after the manned moon landing claim of 1961. NASA 2013 LADEE project with a robot proved that moon has atmosphere which they admitted was against their assumption.

stevonics:

How can NASA send a man to moon in 1961 and kept battling to understand the moon atmosphere between 1972 (Apollo 17 and 2013. Such practice goes against every known scientific experimentation/exploration procedure. Under study the Mass exploration procedure.

Alusiizizi:
You know, my initial disposition was to ignore this your reply full of such ignorance, not to mention unabashed condescension but as I have a bit of time to spare, I proceed despite my inclinations.



The "science" of overcoming the moons gravity to relaunch a landed craft is precisely the same kind of science used to launch from the earth, not one bit of change. Even the amount of fuel to carry to the moon in order to successfully execute a re-launch was a non-issue, the surface gravity of the moon(which was calculated to be one-sixth the surface gravity of the earth based on the inferred mass of the moon) was already known long before the trip to the moon using this science that you refer to. Oh, and by the way, those "old planes used in ww2" were propeller based planes(which has nothing whatsoever to do with this subject). The Germans, late into the war introduced jet-based airplanes in a bid to gain air superiority and historically, this development was of crucial importance to the eventual establishment of future space aspirations because it moved rocket science from the domain of enthusiasts and pranksters(i.e. Goodwin Goddard and co.) to one of gainful purpose and enterprise such that governments were ready to invest billions of dollars to progress.



I'm not sure what your point is here. The moon definitely lacks any "habitable" atmosphere(that is an atmosphere dense enough to sustain any purposeful activity) but if you are insisting on a strict definition, then sure, the moon will have an(albeit very thin) atmosphere. The proximity of the moon to the earth alone would imply that a very tiny part of the earths atmosphere will, after a long while, be captured by the moon.



NASA was not battlng to understand anything. The moon had no atmosphere(or a very thin) when they got there in 1961 and still has no atmosphere till this day. The only confusion in this matter is yours and the deception that your dubious reference was designed to effect.

stevonics:
i am not sure you read the NASA site i posted. Hydrogen, and other Rare gases were found in moon atmosphere, sodium and potassium constitute the dust. you agreed that a relaunch would be exactly the way it left earth. even if there is fuel available, have you taken your time to watch equipment assembly of space craft launching out of earth. guy i am tired to explain this things. Go to NASA website and read their submission on LADEE project of 2013 where a Robot was used. Relaunch equipments are not in moon. you can't just fall out of moon. i don't know your profession. when engineers consider atmosphere in planetary exploration, we are considering the effect it will have on the craft outer layer while cruising into a planetary body at high speed. we call it ablative effect. Challenger reentry from space some time ago got burst due to such. Habitation is far from what i meant.

Alusiizizi:


Ok, this is my final response to your posts, no use trying to put something through a block-head. Deuterium(A.K.A. "heavy hydrogen" ) discovered as hydrates in lunar rocks does not constitute an atmosphere. Go and actually read informative literature for once in your existence, try to understand what constitutes a hydrate. Deuterium was interesting because it is the primary fuel used in still progressing nuclear fusion reactors. There was even once speculation that the moon could house a large under-surface ocean at some point in time, yet more source for this deuterium. What was still true then and is still true now is that the moon DOES NOT CARRY ANY APPRECIABLE ATMOSPHERE! I think that I've gone as far as I am will to on this silly discourse. If you want to learn anything about the moon and what is/isn't true then you are going to have to search/discern the information out there on your own. Good Luck!

Victoronah1:
What you should be asking yourself is, why is it only NASA since then. So Russia, or China or even Japan can't also go to the moon themselves to see everything first hand. Lol only NASA, where world power is, lies and propaganda to remain world power.

Same way they came to Africa to tell us that our religion is the devil and that Jesus is the right god and then told us that Jesus is white. Conquered us and now some of us are following their nonsense. Just to feel superior and remain world power

stevonics:
A block head is one that refused to read NASA report but prefer to quote unknown literature. If you are finding it difficult to read. Just Google "Moon Atmosphere'. It will first display NASA report. Moon's atmospheric composition is almost proportional to its size.
"Appreciable Atmosphere" Kai how do we measure the "Appreciability", with what parameter ?, mr know all. Atmosphere is atmosphere.

truthCoder:


Because of funding and capacity.

Cost vs Benefit.

What does China stand to gain in spending almost 1 trillion USD on a trip to the moon?

While you are asking such questions, you can also ask why those countries dont have Aircraft carriers on the scale of US. Boeing and Airbus alone have technologies that many countries don't have.

You want to go to the moon but you cannot build efficient passenger planes or aircraft carriers?