Skeptomania - Paranormal / UFOs, etc.

enigma · Deputy Dawg

We've all seen this... the supposed Moon Landing Hoax Theory.
It's an absolute MUST for the Conspiracy Forum.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

I personally believe that we really did land on the moon, but enjoy hearing thoughts from the other side... anyone?

Lola · Lost Cause

I believe that they did land on the moon as well. However, I admit that there was part of me for a while that did question it, when I got into reading conspiracy theories.
I snapped out of it though. Very Happy

I R Speshul · is sexy

There should have been twelve feet of dust on the moon, gathered from the, quote, unquote, 'billions of years' it's been around. Two conclusions:
1) We didn't land on it.
2) The universe is a buttload younger than we thought.

Anonymouse · Living impaired

Someone's been lying to you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

edit: wrong link. YECs are so similar it's easy to get their hyrdras confused...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html

I R Speshul · is sexy

The earth collects around ten million pounds of space dust per year. The original thing I heard, way back when in Middle School, was that the dust should have been a hundred feet thick. I did the math myself.

If the surface area of the Earth is 510,950,815.6 square kilometers...
And the Earth collects 12,000,000 pounds of dust per year...
The Earth collects .23 pounds of dust per square kilometer per year.

Now, because the Moon is so close, we can assume it collects dust at the same rate.
The surface area of the Moon is 37,938,288.64 square kilometers. However, only the dark side of the moon collects dust, because the side that faces us ALWAYS faces us. So that side of the moon is 18969644.32 square kilometers in surface area, give or take.
Multiply that area times the .23 pounds of dust per sq. KM per annum, and you get 4,363,019.1 pounds of dust per year, give or take, all falling on that one side of the moon.
Multiply that times years. Four billion, on the light side.
17,452,070,727,700,000 pounds of dust since the Moon's forming. Look at that figure and tell me that it won't become thick.

Anonymouse · Living impaired

Try reading links...

You forgot two things. Things can leave. Things can compress into rock.

I do see the irony in light of the remark I made in another thread. But I'll let these two observations be most prominent.

I R Speshul · is sexy

Things would only leave when they go too far out of the Moon's gravity well to be contained by it. That would be, what? A mile?
And it's not exactly like there is a lot of pressure with so little gravity. I bet I could stand at the bottom of sixty feet of dust on the Moon and feel almost none of the ill effects that I would here on Earth.

I R Speshul · is sexy

Just outside. Actually, the moon is rather nice, what parts I can see of it. Good weather. We're finally having that cold front roll through. Man, the temperature got up to 80-something today. Not many clouds, so I can see the stars fine. But the trees seem to be up to some extra movement. I don't get many glances at my favorites.

Anonymouse · Living impaired

The moon's gravity goes to wherever there is mass. Just try double-checking your data, or reading the YEC website I posted.

Lucifersarmpit · Beyond Damned

If we did land on the moon with the technological capability of a pocket calculator, then why is NASA spending billions of dollars for another planned landing in 13 years time? Why don't they just do what they did last time - spend a few million, stick a casio to an old nuke and hey presto! they can play golf, watch their flag blowing in the breeze and pop back for afternoon tea.
Why has the shuttle programme never expanded to orbit the moon?

Gren · God Of Oreos

One downside to democracy is that long term scientific projects get politicized. The decision to go to the moon in the first place was a less than serious political comment made by JFK to bolster American pride and self-confidence during a period when we were perceived to be behind the Russians in space tech.

We now have the sort of technology that makes human spaceflight obsolete, on purely scientific grounds that is. We can send instrumentation instead of humans and not have to provide artifical environment for human astronauts. Not having to take food, air, toilet paper, etc., greatly extends capabilities.

I R Speshul · is sexy

Anyone with modern scientific ability could tell you that the Apollo missions were fraught with danger.
Apollo 1 blew up, for one, and then Apollo 13 was a total fiasco...

And now, that there is all that political fallout from the shuttle exploding, NASA has to take special care that every single part of that shuttle is absolutely perfect. Probably is gonna cost a lot of money, too.

Raven · Google Meister

Ok... the moon landing has always been one my favorite conspiracy theories. I do have some doubts, but... only shadows...

I R Speshul:
Basically... what Anon said... the moon, unlike Earth, doesn't have an atmosphere, it's gravity is barely anything compared to Earth. But... some parts, the moon is covered with enough dust where we've screwed up some bots because they went too deep (mostly in craters), not the whole moon. Some of the dust, as Anon said, can compress and turn to rock (the reason science bothers studying moon-rocks is because they know that they're studying large spans of the solar-system+ from studying those rocks that were years collected dust). And, as Anon said, the dust can be over taken easily by a larger mass... our tides are altered by the distance of the moon from the Earth, did you not think that Earth could have an effect on the moon too?

Lucifersarmpit:
Basically, what Gren said... why would politicians want to trying getting tax payers to pay for fuel to get the shuttle to orbit the moon and back, when they could just pay for it to orbit the Earth. Try to remember that NASA isn't a very stable association... pretty much anything they do wrong or costs the tax payers more than they want to pay puts NASA on edge of being capped... the last shuttle explosion reminded a lot of people of that.

Anonymouse · Living impaired

Basically, manned space travel isn't profitable. If there was money to be made, people would be jumping on it.

Yaish · Intel Chief

And its not that the shuttles 'dont' go to the moon, they CANT go to the moon. Its simply a case of 'you cant get there from here' when it comes to the technology.

Just like you arent going to make a non-stop round the world flight in a cessna, you arent getting to the moon in the shuttle. Only the comparison is even worse. The shuttle is more equivalent to jumping off your roof in a hang glider than a cessna when it comes to lunar distances.