# Fake Moon Landings

## Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

I think i might have an extra 0 by mistake.

It says now 4194.26 miles per hour which is still wrong.

We are both answering each other at the same time. So it all looks crazy!

If

2 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

it says 6750 km/h per hour for the speed 3 days for 486000 km

Follow my method of converting to Km to miles first then divide by 72.

Ill try in km now but should get the same answer but in kms

##### Share on other sites

OK sorry for making the calculation mistake, it makes it seem now that 6750 km/h is not fast haha. Still on the way back they were going 8100 km/h during reentry. 486000 over 2.5 days.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SimonTV said:

OK sorry for making the calculation mistake, it makes it seem now that 6750 km/h is not fast haha. Still on the way back they were going 8100 km/h during reentry. 486000 over 2.5 days.

I think, but don't know without checking, that the speed going to the moon sounds reasonable. Going on the basis of Land and air speed records etc.

The hardest part is getting out of the Earths atmosphere. Hence the ridiculously sized fuel tanks etc.

Once outside the Earth atmosphere the gravitational influence and vacuum will play a part in dictating the velocity and fuel consumption of any man made object.

Im not arguing that this proves you wrong. For me its about understanding if its really possible and if so how.  More that the maths probably gets a lot more complex once in space.

##### Share on other sites

I get that chatgpt will be despised by most here. I have been asking some really complex questions and getting ultra detailed responses in seconds.

This was most of its response when I asked how out of the Earths atmosphere would change velocity.

Conditions in space can have a significant impact on man-made propulsion vehicles. Here are a few examples:

Lack of atmosphere: Unlike Earth, space has no atmosphere, which means there is no air resistance or friction to slow down a spacecraft. This makes it easier for a propulsion system to accelerate and reach high speeds.

Vacuum: Space is a vacuum, which means there is no air pressure. This can affect the operation of some types of propulsion systems, particularly those that rely on air intake, such as jet engines. In space, propulsion systems must carry their own oxidizer to provide the necessary combustion.

Temperature extremes: In space, temperatures can vary greatly, from extreme cold in the shade to extreme heat in direct sunlight. This can impact the performance and durability of propulsion systems, particularly those with moving parts or those that rely on temperature-sensitive materials.

##### Share on other sites

What protection would a craft in space need to resist heat and radiation issues

To protect a spacecraft from heat and radiation in space, there are several measures that can be taken. Here are a few examples:

1. Thermal insulation: To protect the spacecraft from the extreme temperatures of space, it can be insulated with materials that have low thermal conductivity, such as multi-layer insulation (MLI). MLI is made up of many layers of thin sheets of reflective material, separated by small gaps of air, which helps to reduce the amount of heat that can be transferred to the spacecraft.

2. Radiator systems: To prevent overheating of sensitive equipment and components, radiator systems can be used to dissipate heat. These systems use heat pipes or other heat transfer mechanisms to move heat away from the spacecraft and release it into space.

3. Shielding: Radiation shielding can be used to protect the spacecraft and its crew from the harmful effects of cosmic rays and other high-energy particles. This shielding can be made from materials with high atomic numbers, such as lead or tungsten, or from water or other materials that can absorb the radiation.

4. Active radiation protection: In addition to passive shielding, active radiation protection can also be used, such as using magnetic fields or plasma shields to deflect or absorb radiation.

5. Redundancy and hardening of electronics: To protect the electronics and other critical components of the spacecraft, they can be designed with redundancy and hardening in mind. This means that multiple backups of critical systems are included, and the systems are designed to withstand the harsh conditions of space.

6. Proper mission planning: Finally, proper mission planning can help to minimize the exposure of the spacecraft to heat and radiation. This includes careful consideration of the timing and trajectory of the mission, as well as the use of instruments to monitor and analyze the environment in real-time to detect and respond to any potential hazards.

##### Share on other sites

I get that chatgpt will be despised by most here. I have been asking some really complex questions and getting ultra detailed responses in seconds.

This was most of its response when I asked how out of the Earths atmosphere would change velocity.

Conditions in space can have a significant impact on man-made propulsion vehicles. Here are a few examples:

Lack of atmosphere: Unlike Earth, space has no atmosphere, which means there is no air resistance or friction to slow down a spacecraft. This makes it easier for a propulsion system to accelerate and reach high speeds.

Vacuum: Space is a vacuum, which means there is no air pressure. This can affect the operation of some types of propulsion systems, particularly those that rely on air intake, such as jet engines. In space, propulsion systems must carry their own oxidizer to provide the necessary combustion.

Temperature extremes: In space, temperatures can vary greatly, from extreme cold in the shade to extreme heat in direct sunlight. This can impact the performance and durability of propulsion systems, particularly those with moving parts or those that rely on temperature-sensitive materials.

Thing is chatgpt is likely learned on the NASA facts about science because NASA's facts are what everyone believes.

• 2
• 1
##### Share on other sites

If you accept that NASA has lied about their space travel. Then how can anything they say be trusted as fact. Sure they are very smart people (a lot of the time) so do come up with some very convincing and likely sounding facts but most of it is just educated guesses because they have not been in to space to verify that.

• 1
• 1
##### Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

Thing is chatgpt is likely learned on the NASA facts about science because NASA's facts are what everyone believes.

Absolutely. I questioned it about who it’s founders, sponsors and philanthropist donours were. All the usual suspects.

Im not trusting the response more that it seems logical given the parameters I have set it.

Im trying to use it as a tool to advance my off grid efficiency. I think if you ask it questions that are based around what’s going on etc you will get a party line type response. If you word better and don’t get too obvious it seems that it will give answers.

on the flip side. I was trying to design a perpetual power system based on using rain water. By chatting back and forth it came up with theory, method and items needed. This was massively time saving. I was able to confirm the validity of its response quickly afterwards. Also I didn’t even know if it was possible. Usual problem of using more energy than produced.

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

If you accept that NASA has lied about their space travel. Then how can anything they say be trusted as fact. Sure they are very smart people (a lot of the time) so do come up with some very convincing and likely sounding facts but most of it is just educated guesses because they have not been in to space to verify that.

You’re totally right imo. The problem is that I have no realistic way to prove it otherwise. I’m just looking to question the party line. I try investigating bits of the problem first.

Im not a Flerther or heliocentrist. Just studying what the heck is really going on!

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

If you accept that NASA has lied about their space travel. Then how can anything they say be trusted as fact. Sure they are very smart people (a lot of the time) so do come up with some very convincing and likely sounding facts but most of it is just educated guesses because they have not been in to space to verify that.

I certainly think it is telling that in the 50’s and 60’s, with supposedly far more inferior tech, the supposedly achieved so much in “space.”
I don’t buy the cost argument as USA prints money to order.

##### Share on other sites

You’re totally right imo. The problem is that I have no realistic way to prove it otherwise. I’m just looking to question the party line. I try investigating bits of the problem first.

Im not a Flerther or heliocentrist. Just studying what the heck is really going on!

Where do you ask chatgpt questions?

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SimonTV said:

Where do you ask chatgpt questions?

I have an old phone and sim card which I used to sign up. Also a unique email only for that purpose.

It is open about its sources. I have asked it what information it used to generate its responses. It replied with sources from books and scientific pages. I don’t doubt that it will be biased. When you have Microsoft, Musk and Amazon all as major contributors one way or another it’s going to be hard left.

As I mentioned before. Try asking about things that wouldn’t be affected by political or nefarious bias. ( If that’s possible in todays world).

If you don’t like the answer or want more detail just ask it.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SimonTV said:

Here is one for peter.

If the stage 3 propulsion fuel was so big, how did the tiny service module with its tiny propulsion fuel travel the same distance back from the moon with less fuel?

The escape velocity required to leave Earth is approx 25,000 mph, whereas the escape velocity required to leave the Moon is a lot smaller, at approx 5,300 mph.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

The escape velocity required to leave Earth is approx 25,000 mph, whereas the escape velocity required to leave the Moon is a lot smaller, at approx 5,300 mph.

Says NASA. The question I have is how many of these space facts are defined in such a way as to make NASA's space travel viable.

Edited by SimonTV
##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SimonTV said:

Even if I accept this, at some point on the 384000 km journey they would have been far enough from the earth that the atmosphere would not be affecting the temperature and they would be in a pure vacuum in the suns rays for days. Even if we accept the ridiculous notion it took them 3 days to travel 384000km, which is like 33k miles per hour haha.

So you basic explanation is ambient surface heat in a vacuum. Interesting.

I think there is a misconception with the term the vacuum of space as space certainly isn't a vacuum

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, peter said:

I think there is a misconception with the term the vacuum of space as space certainly isn't a vacuum

So there is resistance then? from the debris and the gases floating in space?

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SimonTV said:

If believe NASA's CGI photos yea i guess.

Its not about CGI pictures of the craft themselves ,it's about the data streams still being sent back about interstellar space ,the bow shock encountered at the edge of our solar system and many other interesting artifacts if you think it's bullshit fine

##### Share on other sites

What is also funny is apparently when travelling at these high speeds, they were not affected by the speed and they were able to casually look at the windows. I am sure they have an explanation for that one, might want to ask chatgpt.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SimonTV said:

Here is one for peter.

If the stage 3 propulsion fuel was so big, how did the tiny service module with its tiny propulsion fuel travel the same distance back from the moon with less fuel?

I think you should be able to work that out yourself ,if your going to ask me a question at least make me think

##### Share on other sites

John Linder
Professor, Physics and Astronomy, The College of Wooster

It’s not the speed that kills you, it’s the acceleration, and speeds are relative.

Fifty years ago, Apollo astronauts reached almost 25 thousand miles per hour relative to Earth when falling back from the moon. But just standing on Earth’s equator, you travel about a thousand miles per hour relative to Earth’s poles, due to Earth’s spin, and 67 thousand miles per hour relative to the sun, due to Earth’s orbit, and so on.

You could use mid-sized black holes to gravitationally slingshot crewed spacecrafts to near light speeds, but you’d need infinite energy to accelerate a mass to light speed itself. That 670-million-miles-per-hour speed limit is invariant, and tension between the relative speeds of Newton’s mechanics and the invariant light speed of Maxwell’s electromagnetism is famously reconciled by Einstein’s modification of mechanics near light speed.

##### Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

So there is resistance then? from the debris and the gases floating in space?

There always is ,how much is the key,you said space is a vacuum,I reiterate that it's not

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jonathan Clark
Associate Professor of Neurology and Space Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, who worked at NASA from 1997 to 2005 and was a six-time Space Shuttle crew surgeon

Speed is just a distance-per-time-unit measure, so the constraints to speed are really dependent on other environmental factors.

The velocity isn’t the issue as much as the change in velocity, which is acceleration. When you go to space, you have to get enough speed to get out of Earth’s gravity field. To get to lower orbit, astronauts have to get to 17,500 miles per hour, and to do that they have to change their velocity. They launch such that they’re taking the gravity from the front of their chest to the back of their chest—that’s called the G direction. Typically, the best way to tolerate it is going from front to back, which is why astronauts launch on a couch, sitting down.

The other constraint of velocity is in the atmosphere. John Paul Stapp, when he did his sled run, got up to 46, 47 Gs, and he was probably going close to 5 or 600 miles an hour. If you looked at his face, you would see that it was being blown and heavily distorted, and that his hands were actually restrained on his lap so they wouldn’t flail around. Speed going through an atmosphere causes what’s called aerodynamic flail, and that can kill you.

When you’re in outer space you can go as fast as you want—but you need the protection of a vehicle, or a pressure suit, to keep you from the exposure to the vacuum of space.

We know that humans have gone 25,000 miles per hour going to the moon—the speed itself is not an issue, it was mainly the acceleration to get out of the Earth’s atmosphere that they had to endure.

Once they’re on their way and speeding up, there’s no constraints to speed. We’ll eventually send humans to mars and they’ll be going 35,000 miles per hour.

The two programs I was involved with, the Red Bull Stratus and the space dive—the goal was for a human without a vehicle to break the speed of sound, and that was accomplished because they wore a pressure suit. The reason they didn’t have aerodynamic flail issues was that there’s very little atmosphere above a hundred thousand feet

You can attain very high speeds—at least supersonic ones—as long as you’re protected, or (if you’re free falling from space) you’re at an atmospheric density that’s not going to cause that flail to develop.

Edited by SimonTV
##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

Jonathan Clark
Associate Professor of Neurology and Space Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, who worked at NASA from 1997 to 2005 and was a six-time Space Shuttle crew surgeon

Speed is just a distance-per-time-unit measure, so the constraints to speed are really dependent on other environmental factors.

The velocity isn’t the issue as much as the change in velocity, which is acceleration. When you go to space, you have to get enough speed to get out of Earth’s gravity field. To get to lower orbit, astronauts have to get to 17,500 miles per hour, and to do that they have to change their velocity. They launch such that they’re taking the gravity from the front of their chest to the back of their chest—that’s called the G direction. Typically, the best way to tolerate it is going from front to back, which is why astronauts launch on a couch, sitting down.

The other constraint of velocity is in the atmosphere. John Paul Stapp, when he did his sled run, got up to 46, 47 Gs, and he was probably going close to 5 or 600 miles an hour. If you looked at his face, you would see that it was being blown and heavily distorted, and that his hands were actually restrained on his lap so they wouldn’t flail around. Speed going through an atmosphere causes what’s called aerodynamic flail, and that can kill you.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peter said:

I think there is a misconception with the term the vacuum of space as space certainly isn't a vacuum

True. Especially as in theory nothing can survive inside a vacuum. There have been documented cases by Russians of living things on the outside of their craft.

##### Share on other sites

True. Especially as in theory nothing can survive inside a vacuum. There have been documented cases by Russians of living things on the outside of their craft.

If you think about it there is no such thing as a true vacuum,even if was possible to remove everything from a sealed container, every single molecule,the container would still be full of energy with regards to the sub atomic level

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.