Why didn’t Stone age man go to the moon?

So they took a shot at the moon and missed because they didn't have all the equations solved correctly? That's the first time I've heard that proposed.
Or, understanding their ignorance of LaGrangian math they pulled a Hollywood fake... Or did they just fake it to win a battle in the cold war?
My list of acquaintances with NASAs programs goes beyond knowing people who know someone. One of my good friends was chief communications engineer for the Apollo programs for some time. He has no doubt about what they did for he had to work out the non-trivial tasks of data and voice (and video, of course!) communications with moving spacecraft, ship to ship comms during separation, etc. So either they faked it good enough for him, as chief communications officer or he's a liar.
I also know another old-timer NASA flight engineer that would have to be lying to me as well.
Incidentally, I have a cousin that is quite high up in the management chain on the ISS. Are they faking that too? Great fake, I've seen it's silvery streak as it passes overhead occasionally, far faster than a jet.
What else are "they" faking? Huge skyscraper buildings? Atomic weapons? (Who has seen one of these things in action personally?) Molecular biology?
What makes it so hard to accept a huge milestone in human achievement?
With all the evidence out there, I wouldn't discount it due to some show on Discovery (saw that one myself). As to your physicist friend, I have no basis to argue with his assertion as I don't know what equations and assumptions NASA had to work with back then. Nor do I have enough physics and math in that area to dispute. I've studied these equations and even had to solve some of this while in college but that has been a long time ago and only a student's exercise.
No doubt there were some horrendous technical and scientific problems to solve and we all have benefited from these developments.
Of this I am certain: One man could not, on his own, understand all the things that go into such a mission. Therefore, one man's opinion as to how it was "impossible" does not hold.
Beyond that, I have no "credible evidence" for you Mr. Beano. But I encourage your skepticism as it keeps us all honest!
David

Academics can and do seek popularity be it in Universities or the intellectual circles they move in—equally, which is just as satisfying being unpopular—by being opinionated rather than being learned, mine being the latter.

Regards,

Beano

Beano,

What is your explanation for Apollo 13?

Why did they fake a failure?

quote:

Originally posted by Basil:
Beano,

What is your explanation for Apollo 13?

Why did they fake a failure?

Basil,

I don't have an explanation or reason, as reason itself is fallible is it not; what I'm saying here is... putting this fallibility into some kind of logic despite all the links posted, which are a host of logical information.

And is probably me being negative toward the man on the moon theory.

When there's a lunar eclipse the man on the moon has a day in the sun.

Regards,
Beano

I sometimes wonder what really is at the galaxy's edge and whether any of the Human toys that are drifting about have been gathered.

Well, with Apollo 13 they didn't LAND on the MOON! Much easier to fake.
But then there's Eddie Van Halen's belt again... And that pesky French math...
Beano, I do not wish to discredit your friend and hope I did not offend with that. It is in very poor taste to discredit those that have past on, for they can not defend themselves!
David

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:
Well, with Apollo 13 they didn't LAND on the MOON! Much easier to fake.
But then there's Eddie Van Halen's belt again... And that pesky French math...
Beano, I do not wish to discredit your friend and hope I did not offend with that. It is in very poor taste to discredit those that have past on, for they can not defend themselves!
David

David,

Don't feel bad it's only an opinion at the end of the day, and I brought him into it, when all said and done he was a scientist working in the realms of theory. confusing theory for me at least

Paul

Perhaps Stone Age Man wasn't so daft and knew that the moon was made of cheese and that Aiken Drum already lived there

Brad

I believe NASA developed the Bon Jovi modulator to get them through the Van Halen belt. It had to be versatile so it used an AC/DC power supply.

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
I believe NASA developed the Bon Jovi modulator to get them through the Van Halen belt. It had to be versatile so it used an AC/DC power supply.

Van Halen eddies could make sense too, they would be very large eddies.

Well after reading various sources of information, my late professor friend may have been trying to change my healthy scepticism by attempting to prove something that can’t be proven by disapproving something else. If that makes any sense!

I’ve even learned a bit about Bremsstrahlung (Braking Radiation all to do with going through the Van Allen Belt)

Beano now open minded.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank F:
Hi Beano,

Stay open minded.

Good advice for anybody. However being open minded and gullible are not the same thing.

I might have said that anyone who thought the moon landings had been staged in a studio was gullible in the extreme until I saw a TV documentary which showed photographs that raised several questions which NASA completely failed to answer. The point here is that many seemingly bizarre occurances are, in fact, easily explained when one has a little scientific knowledge but what impressed me in the documentary was that NASA was offered the chance to make a rebuttal but the chap applointed to do this singularly failed to do so. I would not suggest anyone was gullible for believing either camp as there is 'evidence' to support either camp. I have not looked into the matter and there may be devestating rebuttals elesewhere. I am not particularly interested in digging into it and retain an open mind on the issue.

I'm sure you'll agree Tom, one can be too trusting or easily deceived though!

Beano

OK, enough is enough. The answer to my original question seems to be:

Although the material required to go to the moon was as available then as it is today, the population was such that not enough people were able to get together to start the cycle of thought that would take them through the various levels of mental growth that would be required to make the leap to moon missions.

In no exact or complete order these were:

• Grouping together for protection and support
• Farming not just hunting
• Having stable’ish homes i.e. villages, towns, etc. where groups of like minded people could regularly meet.
• Understanding the movements of the sun and planets and the fact that earth is not the centre of the universe.
• Whilst there might be a god he/ she only provides our environment he/ she does not control everything we do and say on a daily basis.
• Have the technology for widespread sharing of thoughts and ideas i.e. language, writing, formal methods of education, etc.
• Advanced art and literature
• The renaissance
• The industrial revolution
• World wide wars, and the advancements in technology that resulted
• The Cold War
• And much more besides

Of course some of these activities actually did start way back but were lost for a while along the way. For example, the achievements of ancient Greece and Egypt.

But still we got there in the end. Or maybe we didn’t.

Like all of you I have heard and read the theories about whether we did or did not go to the moon. However, and clearly unlike some of you, I also saw a TV program where all of the so called evidence proving the moon landing were a fake were gone through one by one and proven to be bunk. This program not only included reputable scientists but the distracters, the doubters and the conspiracy theorists. This program also had direct input from NASA themselves.

Whilst I cannot remember all of the points they covered, they did include demonstrating why there were no background stars on the photos of the Astronauts taken whilst on the surface, why the Flag was waving as if it was being blown, why shadows were not parallel and much, much more.

And of course, had this really been a fake, the sheer number of people involved would certainly make any kind of cover up unmanageable and a book would have been written by one of them by now. If an ex-MI6 spy, who worked on his own in the old Soviet Union, can write a book about his exploits then someone, if not nearly everyone, involved in this ‘play’ would have done so by now.

Finally on this point, I once had the pleasure of dining with Fred Haise, a member of the Apollo 13 mission. You will recall that he was the guy who was taken ill on the return flight. Although they didn’t land on the moon, they did pass through the Van Allen belt, both on the way out and back, and 67 at the time I met him, he was still fit, able and around to tell the tale.

And if he is a liar, then he is the best I have ever knowingly met.


Regards

Tim

quote:

Originally posted by TimCarter50:


And of course, had this really been a fake, the sheer number of people involved would certainly make any kind of cover up unmanageable and a book would have been written by one of them by now. If an ex-MI6 spy, who worked on his own in the old Soviet Union, can write a book about his exploits then someone, if not nearly everyone, involved in this ‘play’ would have done so by now.

This is always the clincher for me and can be effortlessly applied to all kinds of conspiracy theories.

quote:

Originally posted by Beano:
I'm sure you'll agree Tom, one can be too trusting or easily deceived though!

Beano

Of course. And I'd put those following the conspiracy theorists entirely into that camp. For some reason they choose to ignore what the evidence and the entire scientific community say in favour of the lies, half truths and just plain bonkerishness espoused by a few nutcases.

I just cannot understand why some people are so willing to put down probably the greatest scientific achievement of the 20th or any other century because of such nonsense. No wonder NASA choose not to get involved.

quote:

I just cannot understand why some people are so willing to put down probably the greatest scientific achievement of the 20th or any other century because of such nonsense. No wonder NASA choose not to get involved.

EXACTLY.

BTW, Mr. Van Allen himself just passed through his own belts... RIP
James Van Allen

David

I think we are proving here that humanity typically takes more than two paces backward to take one pace forward. I have enjoyed the fun discussion (argument?) which has run and run over these 3 pages, but there have'nt been many flights of fancy trying to suggest our future.
Granted there are enough forward steps to outweigh the backward ones but our pace of progress has been painfully slowed since day one by the human condition.
Why did'nt stoneage man go to the moon? well apart from all the missing enabling technology he was probably too busy putting food on the floor (stone age table) and bashing anybody that tried to steal his hard won meal over the head.
We have lurched to potential "liftoff" of technical innovation several times over the long eons. As`pointed out ancient civilsations got some fair momentum going. I recall reading in some tome that they had discovered what they reckoned was a Greek Steam Engine circa BC 200. However some folks on teh other side of the mountains always decided they fancied a punch up and it got out of hand and another dark age rolled in.
Another irony is that the greatest motivation for innovation is war and if we look at the pace of invention during the 20th century it has leapfrogged immensely because of the drive to defend or attack on a massive scale.
Another thing that is needed are the steps along the way. You can't miss out many of them. A good modern exampe is the stepwise increase in computing power. You need a certain computing capacity to design a more advanced computer and then you need that more advanced computer to design the next perfromance level and so on. What I want to know is how did they make the first lathe? Once they had one it was hellava lot easier to make more.

Well having ranted on I guess I better make a stab at answering the original question where could we go from here.

There is some nifty work I am involved with to harness the thermal energy of the human body to drive very efficient
microelectronics. An MP3 player that never has to be switched off perhaps?

Medical science has new tools like minature devices such as blood pressure monitors and medicine delivery systems which can be put in the body and possibly can trigger medicinal "repair" like an instant heart attack fix etc.

They may make the break through on organ regrowth pretty soon. Add that little lot together and immortality may be an option within a 100 years. trouble is that would create a serious space problem.

So we need some brave souls to head for the new frontier by which I mean the one captain Kirk always talks about as the final one. What we need is someone to find a way round Einstein's relativity and break the light (speed) barrier else it's going to be a hellava a long journey say 100 years + to the nearest star that looks promising so it will have to be done in the "generational" ships that the SiFi guys write about or by "immortals" if they can stay cooped up in a tin can for that long and not go mad and kill each other.

Then there's teleportation as a substitute for air and road travel etc. If they can convert you into bits of data and promise not to loose any on the way you can be transmitted at the speed of light and reassembled (I seem to recall a slight problem with a fly on that one) but atleast it would cut down the use of fossil fuel and the attendant pollution.

The possibilities are endless.

regards
Geoff

About crackpot science/conspiracy theories and scepticism, people think they're immune from crackpot theories but arguments are often made from the safe position where you know in advance you're right.

It's easy to underestimate how convincing and intelligent the books can be that try to sell some crackpot / conspiracy theory, and how hard it is to work your way back out on your own power once you allowed yourself to be thoroughly 'exposed' to the theory.

It's a nice excercise to do a 'How do you know?' interrogation on things you know you can rely on.

I once thought up a thought experiment that went like this: take 50 people ,
give them a lot of knowhow and dump them without anything on a friendly desert island(or planet)
with a technological challenge, eg build a radiotransmitter or an airplane.
This to get a feel of the enormous power of technological infrastructure that's available.

quote:

I suspect that the modern human race may just destroy the planet in a hundred years

Pedant point:-
It might get to the point that the human race could not survive on Earth. I don't think that even a race as stupid as ours could actually destroy the whole planet.

Dear Howard,

Be as pedantic as you like!

It will not be the whole human race that destroys the planet, 'as a habitable place for mankind,' but a tiny minority of idiots who run the place. I am prepared to believe that GW Bush, for example is quite capable of sacrificing the well being or even survival of future generations for whatever plans he holds currently.


I doubt if he is the only one...

Fredrik

PS: I doubt if Werner von Braun would have been taken seriously in Stone age times...

quote:

Reading you post about the need for space and extended space flight reminded me of Richard Adams and his books when he told of the space ship on a long journey from earth that was full of telephone mouthpiece sanitisers etc.

You mean Douglas Adams, creator of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"?

....Huh....Good question....Why didn't the Stones go to the moon?...because of Keef's drug problems?...

Tim, re-reading your last post on this found me thinking again about this.
I agree with most of your assertions but mainly have problems with your preamble:

quote:

Although the material required to go to the moon was as available then as it is today

They had atoms back then too (presumably, unless these also have been faked by NASA), so why didn't they have atomic power or even nuclear weapons?
My mental challenge to you is this:
Given 100 contiguous acres of land, in a "untouched by humans" state, anywhere of your choosing, tell me how, without any metal tools (stone-age, after all), you would construct propulsion device capable of throwing ANYTHING, no matter how small, "up" to the moon.
Simply having raw materials is enough.
Maybe a better project would be to build a movie studio out of that 100 acres of material so our stone-aged ancestors could fake a launch!
I applaud your conclusion (allow me to paraphrase): Vision is what propels us into a better future.
And the corollary: Lack of vision precludes great things.
David