Is it possible that NASA faked the moon landing?

GrowUrOwnDank

Well-Known Member
Gravity is the attractive force between two objects at a fixed distance r. The strength of gravity is proportional to the mass of the two objects and inversely related the distance between them. A larger massed object has a greater gravitational force than a smaller massed object does which explains the difference between the gravitational field of the Earth and Moon. The force of gravity between two objects decreases rapidly at a rate of1/r2. Thus, the gravitational force of two equal masses 1 meter apart is 100 times stronger than if the masses were 10 meters apart. Using the two parameters, mass and distance, we can understand how gravity operates in the universe and causes objects to appear as though they are experiencing zero gravity in space.

Earth’s gravitational pull is responsible for the moon’s orbit. Similarly, all planets, asteroids, and comets in our solar system orbit the sun due to this gravitational pull. The fact that celestial bodies millions of light years away orbit the sun debunks the myth of no gravity in space. The sun has a tremendous gravitational pull because it accounts for 99.86% of our solar system’s weight.

Why, then, are objects seemingly able to float freely in space despite the sun’s gravitational field? Remember, the force of gravity is dependent on the mass of two objects. The celestial bodies have enough mass to experience the gravitational pull of the sun. Objects with relatively little mass will experience less of the sun’s gravitational force than celestial bodies like Jupiter. In addition, small objects far from the sun experience a weaker gravitational force. Although gravity never reaches zero, it gets close. With this in mind we should be able to get between the earth and the moon and sit in one spot am I right?
I don't know man. I mean. We could go to the moon. But, they don't even have a Walmart or 7/11 there. What you gonna do? No McDonald's, no weed. Seems like it would be very lonely. Maybe I'll smoke some kief and visit it in imagination land.
 

RockStarGrower

Well-Known Member
Maybe our gov wants you to think sputnik was the first satilite? Lol. JK. But do you know we shot a russian sat with a F16 and a missle? It was the best thing we kept secret for a while. Sneaky russians. I bet they were pissed about that one.
 

a senile fungus

Well-Known Member
Dr. Pecker,

It has to do with angular momentum. I haven't take physics in a while, but I believe in order for the satellite maintain altitude that it's moment of inertia must equal the earth's gravitational force exerted upon it. Obviously there's more to it than that, but I'm stoned and haven't practiced physics in 9yrs, so take it easy on me...
 

Darth Vapour

Well-Known Member
Maybe our gov wants you to think sputnik was the first satilite? Lol. JK. But do you know we shot a russian sat with a F16 and a missle? It was the best thing we kept secret for a while. Sneaky russians. I bet they were pissed about that one.
There is no denying when it comes to rocket technology or air defense Russia is leap years ahead of USA these are many reasons why usa kept there ships a fair distance away just enough distance so that air support could be flown if need be when iran threatened blocked the strait of hormuz
Americans are not that stupid when it comes to countries that have Russian air defense in place

an Israeli US made F-16 fighter-bomber, flew into Syrian airspace brazenly and fired at Brigade 68 and, then, turned and flew back toward Brigade 90 in Qunaytra in order to insure a safe landing in occupied Palestine if the aircraft was struck. It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 “Grumble) super-air-defense missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16’s electronic countermeasures would first fix on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting. Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine. Russian built :)
 

Darth Vapour

Well-Known Member
lets have a brief look at what your government and media is not telling you

In the entire history of the human race, there has never been a weapon as destructive as the Russian SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). To understand the true power of this doomsday weapon, try comparing it to the nuclear warhead the United States used to obliterate Hiroshima.

The Hiroshima bomb had an explosive yield of ‘only’ 15 kilo tonnes (KT) or 15,000 tonnes of TNT equivalent, and yet it killed 70,000 people. In comparison, a single SS-18 carries up to 10 separate nuclear warheads of around 750 KT each. Some missiles are armed with one humongous 20,000 KT warhead.

During the early years of the missile age, the United States led Russia in technology and numbers but by the early 1970s when the SS-18 started entering service in significant numbers, Moscow had closed the missile gap and started pulling ahead inexorably. In 1990 Moscow had a stockpile of around 40,000 nuclear warheads (vs 28,000 for the US) but by just using the 3,000 warheads on its SS-18s it could wipe out all human life in the continental United States in 30 minutes.

Codenamed Satan by NATO, the SS-18 weighs a gargantuan 209,000 kg. The highly accurate Russian missile can not only penetrate and destroy American missile silos, which are hardened to 300 psi, but its own silos are hardened to a stupendous 6000 psi, making the missile all but impregnable. Amazingly, for a missile of its weight and length (102 feet) it can sidewind (move in a series of S-shaped curves to evade antimissile defences) and its micro-electronics are hardened to function even under nuclear attack.


Russia to start building prototype of new heavy ICBM in 2014


The Satan’s reported ability to dig up strategic missile complexes became known as America’s “window of vulnerability”. The frightening power of this missile sent shivers down the collective spine of the American leadership, and quickly forced Washington to the negotiating table. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks of the early 1970s resulted in a drastic slowdown of the hitherto uncontrollable arms race.

Target Satan

Because the SS-18 posed an existential threat to the United States, the missile became a focal issue in arms talks between the two superpowers. The Americans offered to cart away their strategic missiles based in Europe if the Russians agreed to deep cuts in their rocket forces. From 308 SS-18 launch silos in 1991, Moscow reduced the number to 154 to conform with the START I treaty.

START II was to eliminate all SS-18 missiles but it did not enter into force and the missiles remained on duty. From Russia’s point of view the delay proved to be fortuitous. As relations with the US kept nosediving over NATO’s expansion ever closer to Russia’s borders, Moscow decided to hold on to its super weapons. Now that the fake Russia-US romance of 1991 is a distant memory, it is now abundantly cIear to the Kremlin that ICBMs in hard silos are mandatory to maintaining deterrence.

Now suddenly like a blast from the past, the SS-18 is back in the news – caught up in the tit-for-tat sanctions war. In response to wide-ranging American-led sanctions, when Moscow announced it would discontinue the sale of rocket engines to the United States, if those engines could be used for military purposes, some members of the US Congress proposed a dangerous gambit.


Read section:
Defence and Security

US lawmakers want their government to begin talks with the Ukrainian government aimed at ending long-standing cooperation between Kiev and Moscow on the maintenance of the SS-18.

The Americans could be in for a rude surprise. The missile may be a product of the military industrial complex that was based in Ukraine’s Yuzhnoye Design Bureau, but the Federation of American Scientists says, “Russian enterprises provide maintenance for SS-18s which are currently in inventory”.

Even if the Ukrainians are involved in the maintenance of some Russian strategic rockets, the US may not have much leverage in the matter. Viktor Yesin, the former chief of staff for Russia’s Strategic Missile Command, told Nezavisimaya Gazeta that the Ukrainian enterprise “mainly exists due to the money Russia pays for providing warranty oversight” for the missile system. “These economic ties are valuable, regardless of who comes to power in Ukraine. And I do not foresee that this inter-governmental agreement will be revoked.”

At any rate, trying to upend Russia’s strategic missile defence is a good example of civilisational hara-kiri. The United States is playing nuclear roulette and not factoring in the Kremlin’s ability to retaliate.
 

Darth Vapour

Well-Known Member
Mind blowing huh what little people really know when it comes to sure brut strength usa with 15 kilo ton nukes compared to 10 warheads in one missile @ 750 kilo ton or one @ 20,000 kiloton lets break this down 1333 times more powerful then the hiroshima nuke lol that is fucking incredible

It seems the shrill campaign against the SS-18 in Washington is primarily because of atavistic fears among Americans of the ultimate doomsday weapon which frustratingly is not in their control but in their rival’s possession.

But in the 21st century when Russia is no longer a mortal enemy, such fears are baseless. A US Department of Defence (DOD) report on Russian nuclear forces, conducted in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, says even the worst-case scenario of a Russian first strike would have “little to no effect” on the US ability to retaliate.


Launch of the SS-18 ICBM. Source: TV Channel "Zvezda".

The report concludes Russia “would not be able to achieve a militarily significant advantage by any plausible expansion of its strategic nuclear forces, even in a cheating or breakout scenario under the new START treaty”.

US Congressmen it seems are stepping up the rhetoric because they are simply ill-informed, ignorant and churlish to boot.

Satan lives on

Meanwhile, 50 years after its first deployment, the SS-18 remains ready as ever. While Russia’s strategic missile forces will receive more than 400 new missiles within 10 years, as part of a modernisation programme, the Satan looks set to easily survive into the 2040s after upgrades.

Strategy Page reports: “Test firings for most of the last decade have been successful, and other quality-control tests have come back positive. Despite the post-Cold War collapse of the Russian military, cash and quality personnel kept going to the missile forces, which are the final defence of the largest nation on the planet.”
 

Dr.Pecker

Well-Known Member
I love science I love talking about
Dr. Pecker,

It has to do with angular momentum. I haven't take physics in a while, but I believe in order for the satellite maintain altitude that it's moment of inertia must equal the earth's gravitational force exerted upon it. Obviously there's more to it than that, but I'm stoned and haven't practiced physics in 9yrs, so take it easy on me...
You have earth and the moon. The moon has less mass less gravity than the earth. If you moved closer to the moon there should be a point where the two gravitational fields cancel each other. In other words you wouldn't be pulled towards the moon nor would you be pulled towards the earth.
 

a senile fungus

Well-Known Member
I love science I love talking about

You have earth and the moon. The moon has less mass less gravity than the earth. If you moved closer to the moon there should be a point where the two gravitational fields cancel each other.

Yes. But remember that the moon is orbiting the earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun. If the space station weren't in orbit then it would be left behind. The station has to remain relatively close in order for the back and forth travel to occur.

Make sense?
 

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member


Gravity is the attractive force between two objects at a fixed distance r. ...............snip.......
The planets aren't perfectly suspended there is perturbation, it becomes a calculus issue. Let me tell you when I got to Calculus and found out all the LIES I'd been told damn! Essentially we are made of particles in constant motion we wiggle by nature (us and planets), and we get tides and other things thanks to that.

Wow I'm fucked up on the GG #4! So I hope some of that makes sense @cannabineer should be here soon with the actual skience.
 

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
I read from NASA they took a measly 2.5 days to get to the Moon. The Moon is roughly 240,000 MILES away from Earth.

So the astronauts traveled.....a slow 24,000+ MILES PER HOUR to get there!!!!
Yea right! Man who would believe this? In 1969 you think in a aluminium sheet metal, pop riveted capsule that they traveled 24,000 mph you need YOUR head examined!

You think they had enough fuel to go 240,000 miles doing 24,000+mph and had enough fuel to get back to earth on the spaceship rocket that they showed all of us? I'm laughing right now typing up this ridiculousness.

They didn't have the technology and still don't. That's EXACTLY why no other country has done it since! Because they can't!

If America were to now try and go back they'd have to nail it because if anything were to go wrong everybody would be like, "Well 40+ years later things should be a breeze compared to back then."

The rocket couldn't take the kinds of heat that going 24,000 would generate, their suits couldn't take it either.
Take a physics class and get back to us. And, no, I don't believe you have; you certainly have no grasp of momentum, acceleration, velocity and friction.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
There are points where the gravitational forces balance. But they are dynamic, constantly moving in response to chaotic forces. (That is why we cannot map orbits precisely for long.) As Annie said, we are all in constant motion both entire and in all our components. So a satellite parked there (say, at the balance point between Earth and Moon) will slide out slowly, then faster, unless it actively adjusts speed and location.
There are two stable Lagrange points, points of balance, in a two-body system. They are to be found at the vertices of the two equilateral triangles that can be drawn with the a-b distance as a baseline ... and in the orbital plane. These are called "Trojan" points, for the asteroids named for Iliad types and found 60 degrees ahead of and behind Jupiter in its solar orbit.

Our satellites, stations etc. in circular orbits carry reaction mass for many small and necessary corrections.
 

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
There are points where the gravitational forces balance. But they are dynamic, constantly moving in response to chaotic forces. (That is why we cannot map orbits precisely for long.) As Annie said, we are all in constant motion both entire and in all our components. So a satellite parked there (say, at the balance point between Earth and Moon) will slide out slowly, then faster, unless it actively adjusts speed and location.
There are two stable Lagrange points, points of balance, in a two-body system. They are to be found at the vertices of the two equilateral triangles that can be drawn with the a-b distance as a baseline ... and in the orbital plane. These are called "Trojan" points, for the asteroids named for Iliad types and found 60 degrees ahead of and behind Jupiter in its solar orbit.

Our satellites, stations etc. in circular orbits carry reaction mass for many small and necessary corrections.
Told you guys without Calculus and Physics you wouldn't understand LOL...... but you asked to hear it. Thanks cn
 
Top