Mythbusters on the Moon Hoax Topic - Page 2

Nicolas · #31 (**permalink**) 23-January-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Heh, if you asked then I'd have to correct my first statement; the heavy part of the moon faces toward Earth.

Our moon still has some mysteries

. Even if one assumes it has two hemispheres

.

I read about the difference in crust thickness theoy on the daily space picture page (or what's it called

).

Cl1mh4224rd · #32 (**permalink**) 24-January-2006, 04:25 AM

Hmm... The last explanation I heard for the difference between the near and far side of the moon was that objects cruising past Earth in the general direction of the moon would get a gravity assist, causing objects impacting on the near side to do so with greater force.

Of course, that was some years ago, so it may have taken a back seat or been discarded completely.

Tog_ · #33 (**permalink**) 24-January-2006, 09:10 AM

I was always under the assumption that the maria were made when really large impactors hit and punched through flooding the crater floor with molten rock, and that this happened all over the Moon, long before tidal locking took place. After the tidal lock was fixed, the remaining impactors hit the far side obliterating the maria there.

R.A.F. · #34 (**permalink**) 24-January-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

Any chance for a BA cameo? Heck, any chance we could get Adam or Jamie to post here?

Heck...I'm just hoping that the BA has his camera handy at TAM...

In case Adam and Jamie decide to blow something up.

hhEb09'1 · #35 (**permalink**) 24-January-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Heh, if you asked then I'd have to correct my first statement; the heavy part of the moon faces toward Earth.

And even then, only approximately, I think it's off by over twenty degrees IIRC.

Just ran across an old paper by Barricelli and Metcalfe (in The Moon, 12:193-199, 1975) that mentions a theory of J. A. Wood that the asymmetry was formed when the moon was ten times closer to the Earth than it is now--and both of their theories seem to have the more impacts on what is now the near-side, occurring when it was the leading face of the moon, then having the moon rotate into its current configuration.

korjik · #36 (**permalink**) 24-January-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Of course nothing would convince the woowoos. After all, NASA has had over 30 years to plant all the evidence on the moon since the hoaxed "landings". In their reasoning.

I am ready to launch a new theory claiming the far side of the moon is hoaxed. The moon has no far side, it has only one hemisphere. Prove me wrong. Photo's, measurements and the like don't count as they can all be framed. Orbital mechanics around the moon say nothing. The gravity field is the same as for a round standard moon. And besides the claimed orbital mechanics are framed.

It's obvious to the layman: you only ever see one side of the moon because it only has one side!

Do pay me 6$ by the way if you have read this.

your $6 is in the mail. however, a flat side is still a side

Nicolas · #37 (**permalink**) 25-January-2006, 12:32 AM

You're thinking too conservative. You think "so we have one hemisphere only, that means the other side must be flat". Nono sir, we have one hemisphere, and that's it! The other side isn't even flat, there IS NO OTHER SIDE! What the moon actually looks like then? I'm afraid I'll have to refer to my 60$ paper on the subject...

Hugh Jass · #38 (**permalink**) 25-January-2006, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

I am planning on asking them about this at The Amaz!ng Meeting this week.

So you're going to travel 900 miles to ask a question of a couple guys who are normally 60 miles away?

Count Zero · #39 (**permalink**) 25-January-2006, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

You're thinking too conservative. You think "so we have one hemisphere only, that means the other side must be flat". Nono sir, we have one hemisphere, and that's it! The other side isn't even flat, there IS NO OTHER SIDE!

Wasn't there an Arthur Clarke story with this premise? I think it was called "Wall of Night", but I'm not sure.

publiusr · #40 (**permalink**) 25-January-2006, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extravoice

Adam Savage replied, "Jamie and I have done the research, and figured that the only way to end the debate about the "myth" of the Apollo moon landing is to go there, and bring back something that was left there during one of the Apollo moon landings."

In this episode of Mythbusters:

Jamie and Adam build an HLLV in (on) their shop.

Adam:
"We had to move our facility out to Russia, at the behest of our guest...some guy who calls himself "publius" something. We sent him on a hunt to gather as many HB-ers as he could and move them to our new Kolyma forced Labor camp in Siberia. He is quite good with the cat o' nine tails. He got our first stage built with only forty casualties."

[muffled sounds of screams being cut off]

Jamie:
"Just don't ask him what he makes the heat shields out of over dinner."

Nicolas · #41 (**permalink**) 25-January-2006, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Zero

Wasn't there an Arthur Clarke story with this premise? I think it was called "Wall of Night", but I'm not sure.

I wouldn't know, I neaver read his works

(I mainly read news reports and technical or technical/historical works).

mickal555 · #42 (**permalink**) 26-January-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

Any chance for a BA cameo? Heck, any chance we could get Adam or Jamie to post here?

OOOOOOOOOOO

That wouled be sooo cool

A guy at our school does mythbuster comics- one of the things is that in every episode adam asks
"what about safty"

"well I'm not too concerned about that"

snabald · #43 (**permalink**) 29-January-2006, 04:39 PM

I say the moon is a hoax, it's just a balloon painted to look like "the moon" no one can convince me that it is there, it's all one big hoax.

Buy my book about it, it explains how all through history mankind has been duped into believing there is this big ball of rock in the sky!

...I am kidding of course.

The Incredible Bloke · #44 (**permalink**) 29-January-2006, 04:51 PM

That would be great if the mythbusters could do that! But alas not possible

But I wonder if it would be possible today for a private individual, one with vast resources(like a multi-billiionaire) to make their own manned moon mission.

Delphi · #45 (**permalink**) 29-January-2006, 06:22 PM

These "mythbusters" have been trying to disprove the moon landing since it began. Their cessation never gives in.

The only thing that matters to me now is that the moon IS there now and people are able to land on it as to this day. I could care less about way back then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snabald

I say the moon is a hoax, it's just a balloon painted to look like "the moon" no one can convince me that it is there, it's all one big hoax.

Buy my book about it, it explains how all through history mankind has been duped into believing there is this big ball of rock in the sky!

...I am kidding of course.

Almost had me wondering there!

01101001 · #46 (**permalink**) 29-January-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphi

These "mythbusters" have been trying to disprove the moon landing since it began.

Surely not these Mythbusters.

The Incredible Bloke · #47 (**permalink**) 29-January-2006, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphi

These "mythbusters" have been trying to disprove the moon landing since it began. Their cessation never gives in.

The only thing that matters to me now is that the moon IS there now and people are able to land on it as to this day. I could care less about way back then.

I think you are thinking of the wrong "mythbusters."

You don't care that people were able to go to the moon 30+ years ago? It was a great achievement for science and engineering.

The Supreme Canuck · #48 (**permalink**) 29-January-2006, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snabald

I say the moon is a hoax, it's just a balloon painted to look like "the moon" no one can convince me that it is there, it's all one big hoax.

Buy my book about it, it explains how all through history mankind has been duped into believing there is this big ball of rock in the sky!

Poppycock! The Moon is a large rubber skin filled with inflated seal bladders, and it is named Samuel. The British constructed it and put it in orbit in 1802 during the Peace of Amiens in case the war with France continued. The plan was to de-orbit Samuel and bounce it off of Paris (thus destroying it) in case of French invasion. Luckily, this never happened, and Samuel was never deployed.

Since the Admiralty was left with an enormous orbiting sphere after the war's end, they decided to put it to good use. They created the myth that the "Moon" had always existed through history and used it as a munitions depot. It's still in use today.

Beat that!

KingNor · #49 (**permalink**) 30-January-2006, 04:21 AM

Bush already knew about the moon. He let the moon happen so we could go to war.

It's pretty obvious when you look at the FACTS.

Delphi · #50 (**permalink**) 30-January-2006, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Incredible Bloke

I think you are thinking of the wrong "mythbusters."

You don't care that people were able to go to the moon 30+ years ago? It was a great achievement for science and engineering.

You misunderstood. If it is a hoax, which is what this topic is about, it affects me in no way as we are able to do it in modern day technology.
And I was talking about mythbusters in general. Yes, they have been around for 30+ years.

Swift · #51 (**permalink**) 30-January-2006, 03:16 PM

I still don't know what you folks are talking about with this "moon" thing (or Samuel). I looked during the day yesterday and didn't see it. I looked last night and all I saw were clouds. I didn't see it this morning either. So, I've checked three times and no moon. Pu-lease, save it for the kids along with Santa and the Easter bunny.

SolusLupus · #52 (**permalink**) 30-January-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphi

You misunderstood. If it is a hoax, which is what this topic is about, it affects me in no way as we are able to do it in modern day technology.

And I was talking about mythbusters in general. Yes, they have been around for 30+ years.

There's an error in communication here.

Mythbusters is a show where they bust myths; like the idea that "Dandy Long Legs" have a very potent venom, just that they can't bite through the skin (which is a myth), and other ideas. Please, look at the website that was linked earlier. I suggest you try to watch the show; it is very entertaining, especially since the creators know engineering and "movie magic", using that to bust myths. Some of them are very intriguing, and definitely good for my story material.

We are not talking about the people that claim that the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

Grey · #53 (**permalink**) 30-January-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Incredible Bloke

But I wonder if it would be possible today for a private individual, one with vast resources(like a multi-billiionaire) to make their own manned moon mission.

Google says that the Apollo program cost about $135 billion when corrected for inflation (for 2005). Wikipedia says Bill Gates was the wealthiest man in the world, with a net worth of $51 billion, as of September, 2005. So, it would appear that the answer would be no. However, a group of very wealthy people working together, or a decent-sized corporation could probably pull it off.

The Supreme Canuck · #54 (**permalink**) 30-January-2006, 06:04 PM

Well, one also has to realize that Apollo was a series of Moon shots. A single mission would cost less.

Extravoice · #55 (**permalink**) 30-January-2006, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphi

I could care less about way back then.

Sorry Delphi, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

<nitpick mode>
I believe the term you meant to use is "I could not care less"

</nitpick mode>

nomuse · #56 (**permalink**) 30-January-2006, 10:22 PM

"Today on MythBusters: Are all those kids really Jove's? Special interview with Europa (cow-to-mortal translation provided)."

gwiz · #57 (**permalink**) 31-January-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

Well, one also has to realize that Apollo was a series of Moon shots. A single mission would cost less.

Not a lot less, by the time you've designed, built and tested the first set of hardware, you've spent most of the money, extra sets of hardware are much cheaper, and the cost of using already built hardware even less. That's what made the cancellation of the last few Apollo missions such a poor decision. They could have doubled the science return for a few percent extra cost.

BertL · #58 (**permalink**) 31-January-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snabald

I say the moon is a hoax, it's just a balloon painted to look like "the moon" no one can convince me that it is there, it's all one big hoax.

Buy my book about it, it explains how all through history mankind has been duped into believing there is this big ball of rock in the sky!

...I am kidding of course.

Heh, that reminds me of an interview on Google Video: Ali G asked Buzz Aldrin something like this: "Now there is this question I've been wanting to ask for a while. Is the moon real?"

PhantomWolf · #59 (**permalink**) 31-January-2006, 01:04 PM

I believe that the overall cost included the Mercury and Gemini programs as well. (Possibly even the unmanned probes)

Grey · #60 (**permalink**) 31-January-2006, 03:03 PM

And of course since technology in general has advanced considerably since then, there might be many places where you could use tools and techniques that have already been developed, rather than having to build so many things from scratch. So it might be barely possible.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode