Did we actually go to the moon?

[Jarhead0331]

Let me preface this post by saying I have always been 100% of the belief that in 1969, US astronauts landed on the moon, without any reservation or thought that this could be anything other than absolute fact. Additionally, I've always scoffed at the notion that the moon landing could be a hoax and really looked down on those who questioned the landing as fools, idiots, conspiracy theorists or worse.

However, recently, I've seen some things that have started to get me thinking...is it possible that the landing was staged and, in fact, never actually happened? In the video below, there is a discussion over recent statements made by Elon Musk about the quantity of rocket fuel it would take in order to get to the moon. These statements seem to be corroborated by NASA engineers. There is also some claim made that much of the data and technological hardware of the Apollo program was lost or purposefully destroyed by NASA ostensibly so that investigators could not prove that the trip was technologically impossible. I quickly fact checked this and some of the claim seems to be true, although the data loss does not seem to be nearly as pervasive or complete as alluded to in this video.

Still, this is the first I've seen the fuel argument raised, and it seems pretty compelling. If the landing did occur, how the hell did they do it, considering the unassailable requirement of an astonishing amount of rocket fuel requiring multiple rocket launches in near earth orbit before making the trip to the moon, down to the surface and back again?

Curious about your thoughts. And please keep in mind, this is just for discussion and fun, so lets keep it civil and friendly.   

[Redwolf]

I though you can see some of the equipment left behind from Earth?

As for fuel quantity, the distance to the moon doesn't matter that much. Escaping Earth's gravity and atmosphere is what counts, once there you won't need much fuel to go places.

I've never seen anything making me doubt the landing, and Musk isn't likely to convince me of the opposite. He's not a rocket scientist and has repeatedly made nonsensical statements about SpaceX rockets, too.

Also, if we can get to Mars with a lander with basically the same rocket technology why not get to the moon?

[Jarhead0331]

I've never seen anything making me doubt the landing, and Musk isn't likely to convince me of the opposite. He's not a rocket scientist and has repeatedly made nonsensical statements about SpaceX rockets, too.

This is what I'm looking to avoid in this thread. To be clear, Musk did not directly challenge the legitimacy of the 1969 lunar landing. He simply noted the quantity of fuel that would be required to escape the earth's atmosphere and get back from a landing on the moon with technology today, and it requires several rockets larger than the Saturn V. This has been mathematically corroborated by NASA engineers, as noted in the OP. This also seems to have been noted by Wernher von Braun. So this really has nothing to do with Musk. His statement on this issue simply led to people wondering, wait a second, if it requires that much fuel today in 2025, how the hell did they do it in 1969?

Just for purposes of the record, although Musk may not be a "rocket scientist" he is no slouch when it comes to science and physics. He does hold a bachelor's degree in physics, and he was accepted into Stanford's PhD program in energy physics/material science (although he did drop out early in the program to go become a billionaire). 

[Pete Dero]

As for fuel quantity, the distance to the moon doesn't matter that much. Escaping Earth's gravity and atmosphere is what counts, once there you won't need much fuel to go places.

Once you achieved a certain speed you maintain that speed in space (once you leave Earth's gravity).
You would only need fuel to slow you down once you reached the moon.
Escaping the Moon takes far less fuel because the Moon's lower gravity and the much smaller weight of the landing module.

There are also reflectors left on the moon that return a beam of light send from Earth.
One of them is left behind by Apollo 11 !

Some amateur astronomers have successfully conducted laser experiments with the Moon's retroreflectors but it requires advanced equipment, careful planning, and a good understanding of the necessary optics and timing (see 2nd video below)
Most successful attempts have been carried out by well-equipped research institutions rather than individual amateurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon

And now for real :

[Jarhead0331]

So what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.

[Redwolf]

So what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.

Again, how do we get to Mars today if escaping the Earth needs that much fuel?

The rocket equation is reasonably simple but a differential equation, so it is a bit uncomfortable to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation You could probably calculate if the Saturn's fuel load could escape Earth even without taking into account that the rocket gets lighter from burned fuel. But if it doesn't it won't answer the original question.

In any case, it is bogus to say that several launches with extra fuel would be needed. Almost all of the initial weight of the Saturn launches is fuel. So you wouldn't be able to launch a lot of fuel for refueling with secondary launches. If the Saturn's initial fuel wasn't sufficient then a refueling project would not help.

[Jarhead0331]

So what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.

Again, how do we get to Mars today if escaping the Earth needs that much fuel?

The rocket equation is reasonably simple but a differential equation, so it is a bit uncomfortable to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation You could probably calculate if the Saturn's fuel load could escape Earth even without taking into account that the rocket gets lighter from burned fuel. But if it doesn't it won't answer the original question.

In any case, it is bogus to say that several launches with extra fuel would be needed. Almost all of the initial weight of the Saturn launches is fuel. So you wouldn't be able to launch a lot of fuel for refueling with secondary launches. If the Saturn's initial fuel wasn't sufficient then a refueling project would not help.

We don't get to Mars today. We probably won't get their until 2031.

[Jarhead0331]

I'm doing a little more research on it and I think Musk's conclusions about the number of launches required to adequately fuel his trip to the moon today is not necessarily mutually exclusive of NASA having reached the moon in 1969. Some may be taking what he said about the theoretical trip today and misapplying the science behind it to the events of 1969. It does seem clear and indisputable that a trip today would take several launches to adequately fuel a rocket in earth orbit so that it could reach the moon, turn around and return.

[Redwolf]

So what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.

Again, how do we get to Mars today if escaping the Earth needs that much fuel?

The rocket equation is reasonably simple but a differential equation, so it is a bit uncomfortable to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation You could probably calculate if the Saturn's fuel load could escape Earth even without taking into account that the rocket gets lighter from burned fuel. But if it doesn't it won't answer the original question.

In any case, it is bogus to say that several launches with extra fuel would be needed. Almost all of the initial weight of the Saturn launches is fuel. So you wouldn't be able to launch a lot of fuel for refueling with secondary launches. If the Saturn's initial fuel wasn't sufficient then a refueling project would not help.

We don't get to Mars today. We probably won't get their until 2031.

We are flying pretty big rovers over there.

[Jarhead0331]

So what is to be made of the claim by actual NASA engineers (not just Musk) that several rocket launches are required for refueling in earth orbit? Is that, put simply, bull$hit? I'm aware generally how Newtonian physics work in a zero-g environment, but where is the mathematics and science to discredit that claim? I haven't looked.

Again, how do we get to Mars today if escaping the Earth needs that much fuel?

The rocket equation is reasonably simple but a differential equation, so it is a bit uncomfortable to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation You could probably calculate if the Saturn's fuel load could escape Earth even without taking into account that the rocket gets lighter from burned fuel. But if it doesn't it won't answer the original question.

In any case, it is bogus to say that several launches with extra fuel would be needed. Almost all of the initial weight of the Saturn launches is fuel. So you wouldn't be able to launch a lot of fuel for refueling with secondary launches. If the Saturn's initial fuel wasn't sufficient then a refueling project would not help.

We don't get to Mars today. We probably won't get their until 2031.

We are flying pretty big rovers over there.

There is a big difference from sending a rover and a manned vehicle. It's apples and oranges.

[Pete Dero]

If the mission is not to just go the moon but build a base on the moon, the payload of a rocket (and size of the rocket) will increase.  As a result more propellant will be needed to escape the gravity of Earth.
Unless you want to shorten the time for a trip by increasing the speed of the rocket I see no need for refueling (and relaunching).
Relaunching in space will require less fuel and gain more speed because of the lack of gravity.
But you will need more fuel to slow down when arriving at the moon if the rocket has a heavier payload and a higher speed.

[Pete Dero]

As I listened to the video again I'm starting to think he is misunderstood (and I believe on purpose to fuel the conspiracy).

He also used a clip with Von Braun (claiming you will need refueling) but forget to mention this is from 1955 !

What Musk meant, according to me, is that it will require multiple launches to get everything to the Moon with different rockets.
Not one rocket with multiple relaunches in space.

The failure in their explanation (and they know it - check their expression around 4 min 20) is that when you can't get a single rocket to the moon than you also can't get a second or third refueling rocket to a place between Earth & Moon.

The term "NASA lost the technology" is very misleading. We still have the knowledge, but the technology we originally used to go to the moon does not exist anymore, as in it has been scrapped. 
Why would you want to rebuild a rocket from 1969 today anyway ?

It is like saying that if you can't find a working Apple II computer today it means the technology can't exist.

[Redwolf]

We are flying pretty big rovers over there.

There is a big difference from sending a rover and a manned vehicle. It's apples and oranges.

Not from a rocket fuel standpoint.

[Jarhead0331]

We are flying pretty big rovers over there.

There is a big difference from sending a rover and a manned vehicle. It's apples and oranges.

Not from a rocket fuel standpoint.

Disagreed. The payload for a manned mission to Mars will be much larger and therefore heavier than the payload for a single rover. It will therefore require more rocket fuel to escape earth orbit, no? 

[Redwolf]

We are flying pretty big rovers over there.

There is a big difference from sending a rover and a manned vehicle. It's apples and oranges.

Not from a rocket fuel standpoint.

Disagreed. The payload for a manned mission to Mars will be much larger and therefore heavier than the payload for a single rover. It will therefore require more rocket fuel to escape earth orbit, no? 

It also has to work against the sun's gravity. That is why we have so few launch windows, we have to wait for the planets to be positioned the right way. Our current rockets could get nothing to Mars, not even a rice grain, if you wanted to go straight at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Launch_windows

I was comparing it to get people to the moon, though. I argue that if single rockets can get a rover to Mars they can get people to the moon. Especially on the rather large Saturn rocket.