It's not a new phenomenon. When I was in high school (class of '52) there were two brands of sports cars; the little one's were MGs and the bigger ones were Jaguars. When we kids would say something like "No, that's an Aston Martin" the answer was usually "you know what I mean." It's like any plane smaller than a 737 is a "crop duster".

__________________
"Everybody's playing the Game
But nobody's rules are the same
Nobody's on nobody's side." (Tim Rice)
No matter how strong, or brave, or pure of heart you may be; sometimes the dragon wins!

i want to enter in to your discussion forum...can anyone briefly explain about this topic...

Sure. In 1969 we landed on the moon using the Apollo spacecraft (specifically, the Lunar Module, or LM). The space shuttle has never, and will never, land on the moon.

Some people think we didn't actually land. They are wrong.

Brief

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

I think you're confusing different methods of radiometric dating. There was radiometric dating of lunar samples, but not carbon dating. See for example:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/167/3918/466

Carbon dating just doesn't come into the picture, though. Among other issues, C14 has far too short a half life to matter for this purpose.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Just to clarify the "unsuitable" (before it is misquoted and used against you by a Moonhoaxer :-) ).

The wings are useless weight and may create some problems in balancing the craft for a landing, but I don't think they would make it somehow impossible.

I think you mean <40Ka) :

Pete

Edited 'cause I didn't notice that there was another page ..heh

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Even if the wings were removed, the remainder of the orbiter is entirely
unsuitable for landing on the Moon. While it has three big engines, there
is no fuel for those engines, and they are not designed for the task of
lowering a spacecraft to the surface of the Moon. The two far smaller
Orbital Manuvering System engines don't have anywhere near enough
thrust to support even the weight of a wingless orbiter against lunar
gravity. Of course, some kind of legs would be needed to keep the
engines from smushing into the "ground" on landing. And unless the
payload bay doors were left open, there are no windows for the pilots
to see where the craft is headed during landing.

I wouldn't even bother to argue against lifting a Shuttle off the surface
again -- it would be destroyed on landing anyway.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Pete, were you talking to Van Rijn? I don't know what "Ka" is.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Sorry, I was responding to Jon Clark and I didn't notice there was another page, so my post didn't come directly under his.

ka would be kilo years (40 000 yrs)

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

The original question seems to have been subverted here by errors in terminology and understanding of the space shuttle and carbon dating. To answer the original OP, there is not now, nor was the ever any credible controversy over whether the moon landings actually took place. The only sources of such controversy originate in the nut fringe who are always ready to embrace the possibility of a conspiracy when they have too little understanding of or interest in the more mundane realities (if you can call landing on the moon mundane). Most such people are highly paranoid, so there is no getting through to them with real evidence in any event. Their ravings do not constitute controversy.

__________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately, it kills all its pupils. Hector Berlioz

"To complete the picture all the photons can be seen to be synchronising friction on and off throughout the overall cone which itself is synchronised to the equal and opposite reaction of equilateral triangulation"... by a scientificator in ATM, too priceless to be lost to posterity.

What's your source for this? How can you date shell or coral using Carbon Dating? I have never heard of this.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

According to this site:
According to this site:
According to this site:
Are you sure you aren't talking about a different kind of dating technique?

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

I explained the special case of STS-1 to my brothers.
Off topic: The white tank in those pictures looks almost unnatural to me, but I guess that's because I'm so used to seeing orange.
All space shuttles are rockets, but not all rockets are space shuttles.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

Nope!

C14 dating of speleothems http://www.jstor.org/pss/1551239

Of calcrete http://search.datapages.com/data/doi...48000102C1865D

Of dissolved inorganic carbon in groundwater http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00004/art00259

Of corals (inorganic carbon of biologic origin) http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00002/art00013

Interesting turn to the thread. I thought carbon dating was a mature technique. Didn't expect disagreement.
I'll lurk and learn...

I may be reading this wrong, but it appears they are able to carbon date these "due to additional gas uptake from decaying organic matter, and plant root and bacterial respiration in soils above the cave". Isn't the same thing as dating the organic carbon?

Not sure if I'm missing something here but I can't see where it says the age of these sands were dated using the carbon-14 process, although all I see is the abstract.


The other links were pretty interesting. Looks like they are finding ways to use inorganic carbon for dating purposes, but it isn't easy, especially in the case of the ground water.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

The reason that most of us jump on errors is because it leads to understanding rather then letting misunderstanding continue. Much of the reason some people believe in things like a Hoaxed Apollo is because they don't understand the science. By getting their misunderstandings cleared up, we hope they'll start to see why they are wrong. Letting people that beloeve in Apollo's reality get things wrong just doesn't helpthings, so it's better to clear that up too and in the process we all often learn things.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Carbon from all sorts of sources move round in cave waters. But the precipiation mechanism for the dated speleothems is inorganic, and speleothems themselves are inorganic structures.

Another paper is http://gs.wustl.edu/archives/goldsch...1-END/7460.pdf

Remember that almost all carbon sooner or later is cycled through organisms, either as organic matter or carbonate.


Grr, it did not come through. Try this one http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2021932

Dating groundater by any method is hard because concrentrations are so low. Cl36 is the other method used. Which you use depnds on whether the waters are chloride or carbonate/bicarbonate rich, and how old you think they might be.

Anything that extracts carbon from the air is amenable to carbon dating.
Whether it is done by living creatures or plain chemistry doesn't matter.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

talk.origins is a good place for infor on Carbon Dating, they have some top guys on the newsgroup.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The re-entry speeds from a mission from moon, as the ones used in Apollo program were a compromise on the available technology/payload. Of course the Shuttle could enter in an earth orbit before the reentry.
Plus, the shuttle could carry a lander on it's cargo bay and after moon orbit, the lander could descent by itself. Still, I have doubts about radiation shielding of space-shuttle in outer space. Another requirement is fuel. An additional fuel tank would required for the trip to the moon. Maybe the cargo bay was enough, I don't know

When coming back from the moon, you'd need to have enough fuel for the delta-v required to go to earth orbit.

Radiation shielding of the shuttle in "outer" space would be the least of your worries. Plenty of spots where there's a lot of stuff between you and space.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Of course, and it would use what fuel to do that?
Do you want the shuttle to transport TONS of fuel from earth up in orbit to the moon down to its surface, up again and then back to earth?
This would turn your "Shuttle" into a fuel truck.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Fair call, but as Laguna2 said: fuel. (It's not about the Orbit, but the slowing down.)

Sure, but the OP was implying the Shuttle itself landing. (And in effect that OP was about what had already landed, anyway).

I have nothing at all to base this on, but from a very poor knowledge of the structures of Apollo craft and the Shuttle, I'd be surprised if it was a problem.

When I said "stores" I meant oxygen, fuel, tube-o-stew and all that.

This additional fuel tank would need equipment they don't currently have.

So where's that lander going to fit?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

I was wondering about that too.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Of course the Shuttle could enter in an earth orbit before the reentry.

That's a maneuver on the order of 3,000 ms^-1. Please compute the fuel requirement and specify which engines on the orbiter will complete the Earth orbit insertion burn with a sufficiently short impulse.

Plus, the shuttle could carry a lander on it's cargo bay...

Not if it is liquid-fueled. STS safety rules prohibit carrying liquid-fueled payloads. There is also a limit on the total amount of fuel mass of any type.

An additional fuel tank would required for the trip to the moon. Maybe the cargo bay was enough, I don't know

The shuttle-to-the-moon scenario has been well-studied. It's just not very feasible. You have to modify the STS system extensively, and at unsustainable cost.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

And possibly end up with giving up with the task and instead build an Apollo Type Craft because the cost-benefit meter would point to its "bottomless-pit" label.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Oh my! I can't stop laughing! Thanks for that thread, it's full of win lol!

If there was a Woo-woo Hall of Fame around here, Moon Man would have been elected in the first round of voting.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Jay is right. It is possible, but it is simply not practical.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf