Think of railway tracks. They seem to converge towards the horizon, although they are always guaranteed to be parallel. This is true on earth and also on the moon. There are other points that moon landing deniers make about dust, radiation or shadows. But there is no reliable evidence to suggest a moon landing conspiracy.
So the bottom line is: The moon landings took place, and not even the Soviets questioned it back then. And that meant something in the Cold War era. Also, a total of about , people worked on the Apollo missions.
So there were enough witnesses, and one of them would have mentioned something at some point. According to NASA research, the moon is slowly losing heat, which causes its surface to shrivel up like a grape turning into a raisin.
But that's not all: its interior is shrinking! The moon has become about 50 meters feet "skinnier" over the past several hundred million years. Conspiracy theorists believe that the lunar landing was a fake, and that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked around on July 21st, , on a soundstage instead of the moon.
They point to the fact that the flag planted by Aldrin waved as if moved by the wind, which would be impossible in space's vacuum. NASA's explanation: Aldrin was twisting the flagpole while planting it in the ground. If it's summer in your neck of the woods, you might be sweating right now. But just remember: temperatures are little more extreme on the moon.
When the sun hits its surface, it can get up to degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit hot. Without the warm glow, temperatures can drop down to degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit. The myth of a person living on the moon has existed for almost as long as Earth's satellite itself. Some people see a face on the surface of the full moon, composed of the dark lunar plains and the lighter lunar highlands.
Many cultures have tales about an actual person who committed some kind of misdeed and was banished to the moon for it. Astronauts are yet to encounter them, though. The moon is drifting away from Earth at a speed of almost 4 centimeters 1. The farther away our satellite is, the smaller it appears to us.
In about million years, it'll look too small to ever "cover" all of the sun, even at its closest position to Earth. That'll mean no more total solar eclipses. Ah, howling at the moon — no old-timey scary movie is complete without it. But in fact, wolves do not intensify their howling when a full moon rolls around, and they don't direct their howls at the moon, either.
They simply yowl at night, which is also the time when a full moon is most visible. That could be one reason our ancestors drew the connection. While they come from various professional fields, they have a couple of things in common: All of them are American, all of them are white and all of them are men. It was an American mission to land on the moon. But it would have been impossible without the rest of the world. The Apollo program relied on a global network of tracking stations and their engineers.
The moon landing in would not have been possible without this German rocket pioneer. In his past, however, von Braun had built a "miracle weapon" for Hitler's Germany that led to thousands of deaths. Visit the new DW website Take a look at the beta version of dw. Every time something big happens, somebody has a counter-explanation. It turns out British people love conspiracy theories, too. Last year, the daytime TV show This Morning welcomed a guest who argued that no one could have walked on the moon as the moon is made of light.
Now, in the age of technology, a lot of young people are now investigating for themselves. One is the fact that no stars are visible in the pictures; another is the lack of a blast crater under the landing module; a third is to do with the way the shadows fall. Yet until his death in , Kaysing maintained that the whole thing was a fraud, filmed in a TV studio. With complete success? He was right about that at least.
When the Soviets launched Sputnik 1 in October followed one month later by Sputnik 2, containing Laika the dog , the US space programme was all but non-existent. If you have ever been to the Science Museum in London, you will know that the lunar module was basically made of tinfoil.
That is until you compare it with the difficulty of maintaining a lie to the entire world for five decades without a single slip from any Nasa employee. You would also have to imagine that era special effects were available to Nasa in and not one of the million TV viewers noticed anything amiss.
It genuinely was simpler to film on location. So is SpaceX , which says it will use the Starship rocket that the company is currently developing in South Texas for the moon gig. Read: Can we still go to Mars? Whatever the target, it would behoove NASA officials to decide sooner rather than later.
Deadlines are good—a clear finish line, coupled with a buoyant atmosphere, is a better motivator than a nebulous future of somedays and soons. The next crew of American astronauts on the moon will differ from the first visitors, and not only because of their outfits. The astronauts that NASA has selected to train for future moon missions come from a mix of backgrounds ; half of them are women, and about as many are nonwhite.
Beyond that time horizon reside too many unknowns. Within it, no foreseeable technology will be able to overcome the obstacles of physics, politics, economics, and human physiology that now preclude routine human spaceflight. Two distinct realities suggest the challenges facing enthusiasts of Moon tourism. First, the technology of spaceflight currently favors machines over people. Anything useful we might want to do in space—including exploration—costs ten times as much if we send people to do it.
This was true during the space race to the Moon in the s, and it is even more true today. Thanks to the microelectronics and AI revolutions of the last half century, automated and remotely controlled spacecraft can do anything in space that humans might do, and they can do it better, at less risk and lower cost. Placing people aboard a spacecraft immediately converts it from whatever mission it might have had to a life-support and life-saving mission of bringing the people back alive.
Aboard the aging space station, astronauts mostly serve as human subjects of scientific study, measuring the baleful impact of weightlessness, isolation, and radiation. The second obstacle to a colony on the Moon is investment. What human collective—nation, corporation, or community—will pay the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to plant people on the Moon?
And what return on investment might they expect? Nothing on the Moon would repay the cost of sending people to get it. Using the Moon as a way station to Mars raises the ante without answering the question of return on investment. Colonizing extraterrestrial bodies with current technology mimics colonialism on Earth, without the lure of getting rich. Better investments beckon. None live at the bottom of our oceans. Both realms are much easier and less expensive to reach, simpler and safer to inhabit, and more useful to explore and exploit.
Rather than ask when regular people will be able to go to the Moon, it might be more revealing to ask if anyone will go to the Moon in the next fifty years. Based on my own experience and a recent audit by the GAO Government Accountability Office , the chances of that happening on schedule are low. Once NASA and the Artemis partners do land, it will likely be some years before a paying customer could do the same.
I will note that the pace of purely commercial human flights does seem to be accelerating. SpaceX and Axiom are planning one relatively soon. The historical evolution of the astronaut suggests that it will be sooner rather than later.
0コメント