NASA prepared in advance, moon disaster speech
 

Pretty interesting read. In the event that Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were stuck/died on the moon, the president at the time, Nixon has a speech prepared.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1095/...46512c13_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/...a0d022ec_o.jpg

Thankfully these never had to be used.

Source: National Archives

The things we never think about when everything goes right.

the things that get put together and never used.


Like what happens to the championship hats and shirts for the losing team.

http://btr.michaelkwan.com/wp-conten...rbowl-xlii.jpg


also, I once read an article on the huge last minute behind the scenes report the government put together incase Quebec voted to separate in the 90s.

Moon Landing was a Hoax... just saying..



Berz out.

^:facepalm:

Geez. What kinda mindset would you be in being stuck on the moon knowing that no one could ever rescue you. NASA would "close down communications". They probably had suicide kits ready.

makes you apreciate the risk a little more

well science does back up that it was highly unlikely
buzz and the other guy were just on acid jumping around a tv set :D
Posted via RS Mobile

man you'd think they would prepare this letter shortly after an accident happens..almost like a jinx for such a groundbreaking expedition.

I REALLY hope so....starving to death would be the worst way to go

Whether or not man landed on the moon is relatively simple to prove. All someone has to do is research the exact locations of the numerous landings and point a high-powered telescope at them. The bottom half of the lunar landers, flags, and rovers will still be there. Has anyone ever done this? If so where are the photos and the proof.....?
Posted via RS Mobile

I believe they were given cyanide pills to carry with them.

science never took us to the moon. those keebler elves did.

The losing team's merchandise are sent to impoverished countries.
Posted via RS Mobile

yep my thoughts exactly. It's weird how thats never been done;)

I saw that page after posing the question. Is NASA trying to tell us that they sent a satellite up there to take photos specifically of the lunar landing sites and all they came back with are photos as grainy and low-res as the ones the astronauts took from orbit 40+ years ago? With modern technology those photos are the best they got?

I call BS. I'd also prefer to see imagery from a 3rd party source. On the NASA website they mention photographing the lunar landing sites here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...05/11jul_lroc/
And yet the Hubble telescope is able to get this image from an area of the night sky smaller than a 1mm by 1mm square of paper held 1m away from your eyes. Seems like a glorious contradiction to me.

i like how the letter ignores Command Module Pilot Michael Collins orbiting in Columbia. I suppose this letter was for a crash of the Eagle upon descent or if the Eagle couldn't take off from the moon back to dock with Columbia.

^they figured the likely hood of the orbiter returning was very good but the likelyhood of lander returning was quite low in comparison.




as for someone taking a picture of the landing spots with a telescope, im not sure exactly how it works, but i believe the same half of the moon is always visible from earth, we never see the other side. is it possible the landing sites were on the other side?

The LEM was never tested for liftoff. Couldn't be. It was designed to be able to lift off from 1/6 of Earth's gravity. They could test that it created the necessary thrust, but that's all. There was also the chance that the second-stage motor could be damaged in a hard landing, or that it wouldn't start in the cold. LOTS of potential reasons that they wouldn't be able to lift off again.

The moon rotates at exactly the same speed as it revolves around the Earth, thus the same side is always facing the Earth. Humans never saw the far side until we went into space.

AFAIK though, all the Apollo landing sites were on the visible side. At least one of them, they set up a reflector for a laser to bounce off, to allow super-accurate measurement of the distance.

Really... Mythbusters already tested the most common theories about the landings being fake, and soundly busted all of them. http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ding+hoax&aq=f

As was answered, the landings were on the visible side. The far side of the moon is shielded from Earth's radio trasmissions. I'd imagine for an orbiting astronaut, the "dark side of the moon" would have been a tense time. If anything went wrong, they would only have themselves to figure it out until they were out of the moon's shadow.

I'm not going to trust myself on this one, but I was listening to Joe Rogans podcast and he said something about this radio belt that would rip the skin off any normal person? I don't know if this is true or not. He also brings up a good point of why we haven't been up there ever since.
Posted via RS Mobile

They'd only have to plot the command module a polar orbit to keep it in constant radio contact with Earth.

Another problem with landing on the far side, they would have been open to bombardment from meteoroids. If you look at pictures of the far side vs. the visible side, the far side is heavily cratered and doesn't show the open expanses of the "seas" that we see all the time. The near side is largely protected from space rocks by the Earth... the far side, not so much.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...es/img5_lg.gif