Story Comments
Posted by: Nixie 1 year, 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
Nixie1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Nixie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, the fact that they were able to land that thing ever-so-gently on the moon, but had to crash into the ocean when they came back to earth. And the fact that when we send people up now, it takes a tremendous amount of fuel to get up into space, how did the moon missions travel all the way to the moon, land, and then still have enough fuel in that little capsule to take off again and return to earth? And something else I heard on a documentary but have not really looked into; the radiation feild between earth and the moon. How did they get through it unscathed? According to the documentary, that question is still unanswered. Also, who was filming them getting out of the ship? Wouldn't the camera guy have been the first man on the moon? The whole film looks staged, written out and performed. There's just something odd about it. I'm not saying I doubt completely, but there are some questionable things about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been faked.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" Well, the fact that they were able to land that thing ever-so-gently on the moon, but had to crash into the ocean when they came back to earth."
It's this funny thing called gravity. There's not as much on the moon.
If you want to prove man has been to the moon, you can take a laser and aim it at the mirrors put in place on the moon by the astronauts way back when.
Go get some basic education in physics.
Reply-
-
Neutral
geokerkid1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow that was certainly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. First of all, the Moon is less than six times smaller than Earth so I'm sure they had an easy time landing a 200-pound spacecraft on the moon. The moon's surface is like sand which would make it easy to land. How do you think they landed Titan's probes? Mars' probes? I'm sure they didn't have any Oceans to land in.
The Ocean was used to make it easier to land but thats not necessarily the reason they used the Ocean. They landed the spacecraft in the ocean so the salt would kill any microbes that could be harmful to the population on Earth.
And what did you mean? "Gravity ????huh" what?! Don't you know what gravity is? If you don't then I suggest reading an easy-level book named "Outer Space" it'll explain the basics of gravity. Everyone knows what gravity is, jeeze.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The vehicle which landed on the moon, the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), was designed specifically for that purpose and was unable to transport the astronauts back to Earth. It was able to accommodate two men for a short period of time, while the third orbited the moon. The return to Earth was done in the three-man vehicle which carried them from Earth into moon-orbit. Reentry to Earth was therefore accomplished by a vehicle whose primary purpose was to withstand the stresses of liftoff and the rigors of traverse to the moon (including shielding its occupants from solar radiation). Because it was much heavier (and stouter) than the LEM, it was also able to withstand "crash(ing) into the ocean" upon return.
The"documentary" you saw must have been put together by a moron, if he did not realize that two separate vehicles were used, and that the LEM was part of the payload of the larger vehicle.
Reply -
Neutral
BuffaloJ1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"How did they get through it unscathed?"
They didn't...Numerous times during the missions, the astronauts would close their eyes and would see flashes of light - this was from cosmic radiation. Most of those astronauts have cataracks now...
When I was little I wanted to be an astronaut. Once I learned of the cosmic radiation and the lack of shielding my desire went away:)
Reply -
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Nixie the fuel needed in space to travel is less then on the Earth. Its because of the atmosphere of the Earth. The radiation field is actually not all that powerful compared to what some people like to think... it won't fry you, like was thought fifty years ago. The person filming WAS the first person on the moon. That was the second person on the moon you see leaving, no footage actually exists of the whole "small step for man" moment. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the flag, actually. That's been explained to be moving due to the wobble, no atmosphere=less resistance to a wobble when you force something into the ground.
Reply-
Neutral
Nixie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The flag doesn't bother me. I've heard people say "Why is it standing out? There's no wind to unfurl it!" and to me you can clearly see that there is a pole at the top to hold it like that. Who wants to see the American flag all folded up against the post? Makes sense to me. And the wobble makes sense.
This whole thread was a joke gone wrong anyway. I was kidding to begin with. But I did see a documentary a while back that brought up those questions, and they seem as logical as a lot of the conspiracies you hear. I don't really think they faked it, but if it was revealed that they did, it wouldn't shock me. If I really thought is was bogus, I would have looked into it more and known crazy retorts to the answers everyone gave. :D
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Heh, I see. The moon landing is one of those 9/11 conspiracies... its been debunked time and time again, but a few followers of it remain. Alot of the reason for that is because the debunking doesn't ever seem to get the same publicity as the actual conspiracy, particularly ones that make sense. I'm from Missouri and I don't believe most conspiracy theories in the end. I saw a documentary that gave both sides of the moon landing one not so long ago and basically showed point for point how the conspiracy was incorrect, even down to the lack of stars in the pictures (camera type, I always assumed they were on the daytime side of the moon myself).
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
netblogs
JessicaLaurie
TheRealizer
1-2-Oscar
miklkit
smithichie
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.