[LiquidTurbo]

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/1095/5147778073_7646512c13_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/5148382090_37a0d022ec_o.jpg

Thankfully these never had to be used.

Source: National Archives

[TekDragon]

The things we never think about when everything goes right.

[RRxtar]

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-content/uploads/2008/02/newyorkgiants-win-superbowl-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.

[Berzerker]

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

:troll:

Berz out.

[LiquidTurbo]

^:facepalm:

[LiquidTurbo]

The most dangerous part of the trip was not landing the little module on the moon, but in launching it back up to the mother ship. If that failed, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin could not be rescued. Mission Control would have to ''close down communications'' and, as the world agonized, let the doomed astronauts starve to death or commit suicide.

Nixon aides H. R. Haldeman and Peter Flanigan told me to plan for that tragic contingency. On July 18, 1969, I recommended that ''in event of moon disaster . . . the President should telephone each of the widows-to-be'' and after NASA cut off contact ''a clergyman should adopt the same procedure as a burial at sea, commending their souls to 'the deepest of the deep,' concluding with the Lord's Prayer.'' A draft Presidential speech was included.


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.

[RRxtar]

makes you apreciate the risk a little more

[StylinRed]

^:facepalm:

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[shenmecar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H8bnKdf654

[twitchyzero]

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

[jigga250]

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.

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

[JD¹³]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[MindBomber]

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

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

[StaxBundlez]

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

[sonick]

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-content/uploads/2008/02/newyorkgiants-win-superbowl-xlii.jpg



The losing team's merchandise are sent to impoverished countries.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[bengy]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

[murd0c]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

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

[JD¹³]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
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/science-at-nasa/2005/11jul_lroc/
And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.
And yet the Hubble telescope is able to get this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg) 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.

[LiquidTurbo]

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/science-at-nasa/2005/11jul_lroc/

And yet the Hubble telescope is able to get this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg) 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.

http://www.google.com/moon/

[seakrait]

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.

[RRxtar]

^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?

[Soundy]

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.
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.

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 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?search_query=mythbusters+moon+landing+hoax&aq=f

[Bouncing Bettys]

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? 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.

[KingDeeCee]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Soundy]

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/missions/clementine/images/img5_lg.gif

[Soundy]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Man used to think the moon was made of cheese.

Then we went to there and discovered it wasn't.

We haven't been back since.

BEHOLD THE POWER OF CHEESE!

[Manic!]

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

I think the lack of oxygen would get them first.

[Manic!]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Ever watch the Big bang theory

Skip to 2:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8iKRTGNUts

[Soundy]

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
No, they aren't. http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=objectives

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?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications

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/science-at-nasa/2005/11jul_lroc/
Yeah, did you actually read that?
Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.

And yet the Hubble telescope is able to get this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg) 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.
Apples and oranges. Hubble is different technology, different optics, different design and mainly, different objectives.

Focal length on LROC's narrow-field cameras is 700mm (about equivalent to a high-end SLR camera lens). Hubble's is 57.6m - over 82X higher "zoom". LROC primary mirror diameter is 195mm... Hubble's is 2.4m (over 12X the diameter and over 150X the surface area).

I can't find any specs on the actual dimensions of the LROC orbiter, but Hubble is a beast - the whole thing weighs over 12 TONS.

Seriously, you're comparing a VGA-resolution cell-phone camera to a 35MP medium-format SLR here.

Or more in keeping with the site: a bicycle with a little gas chainsaw motor on the back wheel, vs. a Veyron. Not really a fair comparison.

[Ilagon]

If you guys really want to watch a good documentary about this mission, go watch For All Mankind. You really get the understanding of what was going through the mind of these astronauts. This is available on Netflix BTW.

http://www.criterion.com/films/599-for-all-mankind