## 1074: "Moon Landing"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

rhomboidal
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

### 1074: "Moon Landing"

Title Text: Ok, so Spirit and Opportunity are pretty awesome. And Kepler. And New Horizons, Cassini, Spirit and Opportunity, Curiosity, TiME, and Project M. But c'mon, if the Earth were a basketball, in 40 years no human's been more than half an inch from the surface.

Someone should ask Blake Griffin if he's up for switching careers from basketball to aerospace. NASA could use a 360 slam dunk.

whateveries
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:14 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

and the hoop would be where?
it's fine.

glasnt
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am UTC
Location: SQUEE!

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

whateveries wrote:and the hoop would be where?

The event horizon.

engsci
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:18 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

"But c'mon, if the Earth were a basketball, in 40 years no human's been more than half an inch from the surface."

That immediately struck me as an odd statement, as the ratio of the average lunar distance to the radius of the Earth is much greater than the ratio of half an inch to the radius of a basketball. By my calculations, if the Earth were a basketball, the moon would be approximately 8 yards from the surface. Am I misunderstanding something?

whotyjones
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:28 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

So, r/R=m_B/M_E or m_B=(M_E*r)/R

M_E=362,570E3m (at perigee)

So:

m_B=(362,570E3m*0.119m)/6378.1E3m~6.79m~22ft.

22ft>>0.5"

QED

Much farther than half an inch.

michaelmalak
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:35 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

There has already been another fake: 9-11.

whotyjones
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:28 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

I rescind my earlier comment. I misunderstood the point Mr. Munroe was making. We haven't been more than half an inch from the surface SINCE we've been to the moon

Kallio
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:36 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

When I consider that if the Earth were a basketball, the average human would be approximately 10 nanometres tall, that half an inch starts to look pretty impressive.

SchighSchagh
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:16 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Randall forgot Hubble in the tooltip! Shame!

EDIT: If the earth was the size of a basketball, most people would also be less than ~350 atoms tall, so half an inch is actually really fucking far.
Last edited by SchighSchagh on Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:17 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

B-Caff
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:37 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

A second what? Sorry if I'm kinda dense right now, DXM hangover is a bitch.

PACrivellaro
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:05 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

B-Caff wrote:A second what? Sorry if I'm kinda dense right now, DXM hangover is a bitch.

A second 'great accomplishment'. If NASA were willing to fake great accomplishments, don't you think they'd have a second great accomplishment by now?

Drink water. Beware the CCC's.

jalohones
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:12 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Title Text: Ok, so Spirit and Opportunity are pretty awesome. And Kepler. And New Horizons, Cassini, Spirit and Opportunity, Curiosity, TiME, and Project M. But c'mon, if the Earth were a basketball, in 40 years no human's been more than half an inch from the surface.

Yeh, but the world isn't a frickin' basketball. It's the size of a planet. And people have been hundreds of thousands of kilometres from the surface. Damned analogies, makin' our species' achievements look small.

IonStorm
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:14 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Strange list in the mouseover. Spirit and Opportunity are listed twice, TiME is still in competition with CHopper and InSight. Stardust, OSIRIS-REx, Pathfinder, LRO, MRO, MESSENGER, Voyager, etc. are all great robotic missions. Given the t-shirt I had expected COBE, though not planetary like the other listed missions. Regardless, NASA does fantastic robotic missions to study the Earth, Sun, solar system, and universe. Lately, much less interesting are the missions with people onboard.

Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

You do know that they faked the 'Fake Moon Landing'(TM) to cover up the successful Mars landings.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

kevinjardine
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:26 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Why is lifting flesh an accomplishment but lifting metal not? Given that NASA has a limited budget, an expensive human mission (to Mars?) is bound to take resources away from missions that actually contribute to human knowledge. I think that NASA has had its priorities correct, except for the International Space Station, which has been a huge waste of money and time.

Kevin

VestyPantsuit
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:32 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

jalohones wrote:Yeh, but the world isn't a frickin' basketball. It's the size of a planet. And people have been hundreds of thousands of kilometres from the surface. Damned analogies, makin' our species' achievements look small.

Sure people "have been hundreds of thousands of kilometres" up, but I don't think we've gone past 650 km in the past 40 years. We peaked fairly early.

Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

jalohones wrote:
Title Text: Ok, so Spirit and Opportunity are pretty awesome. And Kepler. And New Horizons, Cassini, Spirit and Opportunity, Curiosity, TiME, and Project M. But c'mon, if the Earth were a basketball, in 40 years no human's been more than half an inch from the surface.

Yeh, but the world isn't a frickin' basketball. It's the size of a planet. And people have been hundreds of thousands of kilometres from the surface. Damned analogies, makin' our species' achievements look small.

We're still talking about lightseconds here. Mars is half a lighthour away, and the universe itself makes lightyears look dinky.

So no, it's not analogies, it's just the overwhelmingly vast scale of the universe making our achievements look small.
mu

FourTael
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:36 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Oh, Neil DeGrasse Tyson... how I love you sometimes and hate you with the power of a thousand burning suns other times.

As to the comic...

Y'know, I tried to argue, but I find that I'm unable.

We got to the moon so soon after simply achieving heavier-than-air flight. And now... nothing. It's actually rather sad. Of course, he's made similar points about NASA before.

jalohones
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:12 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Max™ wrote:So no, it's not analogies, it's just the overwhelmingly vast scale of the universe making our achievements look small.

Yeh, well, the universe is a jerk. And you can tell it I said so.

keithl
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

If we can put men on the moon, why can't we put brains in the landing denier's heads?

The original von Braun plan was two dozen astronauts to Mars, huge numbers of launches, and (though he wasn't very good at cost accounting) multi-trillion dollar expenses. As it was, the moon landing probably came in 2 to 3x more (\$160B adjusted for inflation) than the estimates that started the program. If Kennedy hadn't made the promise (to recover US prestige), and died before he could retract it, we would never have gotten there.

Meanwhile, the actual Mars landings we've made, with machines, will accomplish more than two dozen astronauts for a brief stay. We can iterate the process at a much lower cost, and take much higher risks. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s for a spiffy video simulating the landing of Curiosity, scheduled for 1031pm PDT August 5 . The landing looks way too complex - I expect something to fail - but we will learn a heck of a lot, improving the next mission. These machines can't do everything a human might, but they can put in a lot more years of exploration per dollar, and the human explorers get to go home at the end of each day. The prestige is the same - we are still showing off U.S. technological prowess.

Humans will return to the moon, and on to the planets, but they will be preceded by millions of tons of machines, discovering resources and creating a habitable niche from them. When the first humans arrived in North America, they did not need to bring food, water, and air. We sometimes do extreme things because "they are there" - but in a practical sense, the Moon and Mars aren't really there yet.

Ryan1729
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:15 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Using a generous estimate for the diameter of a basketball, and not being sure if the distances are from center to center or surface to surface I got this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%2812+inches+%2F+earth%27s+diameter%29+*+%28distance+from+earth+to+moon+%2B+earth+radius+%2B+moon+radius%29
around 30 feet or slightly more than 9 meters for a distance from a basketball sized earth to a moon a similarly adjusted distance away. A far cry from a half an inch

Am I missing something?

kaidenshi
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:09 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Okay, something doesn't fit here, unless RM is making a joke based on acceptance of the faked Moon landing conspiracy theory. Which he most likely is given that he would know a basketball-sized earth would have a baseball-sized moon about 30 feet away, not half an inch.

(Why yes, I have been called "Captain Obvious" many times in the past, how did you guess?)

Zalcorus
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:08 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

He is referring to the fact that we have not been to the moon in nearly 40 years (40 years this December).

I think the farthest a human has been since then is to repair the Hubble, which orbits at about 559 km. The radius of the earth is about 6379 km. The regulation basketball is about 4.7 inches in radius.

559/6379*4.7=0.411 inches.

nahtanoj999
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:23 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Dear Randall Munroe,

Sincerley,
nahtanoj999

jalohones
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:12 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

kaidenshi wrote:Okay, something doesn't fit here, unless RM is making a joke based on acceptance of the faked Moon landing conspiracy theory. Which he most likely is given that he would know a basketball-sized earth would have a baseball-sized moon about 30 feet away, not half an inch.

But we haven't been there in 40 years.
Last edited by jalohones on Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:13 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

ijuin
Posts: 1104
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

I think that the point was that after having last visited that baseball sized Moon 10 meters away, we haven't returned since 1972 despite all of our new technology since then--all of our Shuttle/Soyuz/Shenzhou missions have only gone a mere 2 cm from the surface at most on this scale.

carolineee
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:26 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

kaidenshi wrote:Okay, something doesn't fit here, unless RM is making a joke based on acceptance of the faked Moon landing conspiracy theory. Which he most likely is given that he would know a basketball-sized earth would have a baseball-sized moon about 30 feet away, not half an inch.

(Why yes, I have been called "Captain Obvious" many times in the past, how did you guess?)

But the ISS would be half an inch away and the moonlanding was more than 40 years ago, so no mistakes there.
I'd love to see space travel get to the next level, but I guess we'd need a new economy system first.

matrix3509
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:29 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

kevinjardine wrote:Why is lifting flesh an accomplishment but lifting metal not? Given that NASA has a limited budget, an expensive human mission (to Mars?) is bound to take resources away from missions that actually contribute to human knowledge. I think that NASA has had its priorities correct, except for the International Space Station, which has been a huge waste of money and time.

Kevin

If you can't understand the desire to go somewhere yourself rather than stare at pictures all day, then I pity you.

RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Now everybody who reads "XKCD" knows that the moon landing was real, so I know I'm preaching to the choir here.  But if you'd like another proof that we landed on the moon when we said we did and it wasn't a fake, acted out in the Nevada desert, consider this:

• Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins (Apollo 11, July 1969) were in radio contact with Earth throughout the mission, the landing, and subsequent return flight.
• Five other missions between November 1969 and December 1972 (Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) also went to, landed on, and returned from the moon — complete with radio transmissions.
• It is reasonable to assume that these transmissions could be received by pretty much anyone with a radio set to the proper frequency — not only NASA, but also the Russian space program.
• Radio direction finding (RDF) is not new technology.
• It would be quite easy to detect if a signal is coming from the American Southwest as opposed to Earth's satellite a quarter-million miles overhead.
• If the Russians had been able to determine that the signals were NOT coming from the moon, they would have been screaming "FAKE!" from the top of the Kremlin.
• They were *NOT* screaming from the top of the Kremlin.
The landings were not faked.

Orlando
Loves all those arguments with the sexy sexy holes.
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:55 am UTC
Location: Londinium, Eng-a-land

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

I was taught journalism by a sharp and scrutinizing professor who'd been one of the first women to receive a PhD from her institution... she steadfastly insisted the moon landing had been faked. You can throw all the sound arguments you want at some people's skepticism, but they'll find a way to maintain it. My guess is hers was powered by cynicism towards the American political system more than anything else.

retrominge
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:31 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

I like the punchline.

kevinjardine
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:26 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

If you can't understand the desire to go somewhere yourself rather than stare at pictures all day, then I pity you.

Do you really think that the ambitious exploration of the solar system (and with Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer etc. the Galaxy and the universe) that NASA has undertaken for the last few decades is about "pictures"?

If so, I think you have a very limited view of science. With these robotic craft we have all actually gone very far indeed.

Kevin

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Orlando wrote:I was taught journalism by a sharp and scrutinizing professor who'd been one of the first women to receive a PhD from her institution... she steadfastly insisted the moon landing had been faked. You can throw all the sound arguments you want at some people's skepticism, but they'll find a way to maintain it. My guess is hers was powered by cynicism towards the American political system more than anything else.

You've contradicted yourself. If your professor clung to the belief that Americans faked the moon landing with exactly zero credible evidence to back the belief up then no, she wasn't "sharp and scrutinizing." She was, in fact, the exact opposite.

Demanding evidence in order to accept something only when it is convenient to what you want to believe doesn't make you scientific, it makes you a hack. You may respond that we all trust some things without real direct evidence at times, and that is certainly true, but me trusting that my car will start when I need to go to work tomorrow even though I have no idea what physical processes are involved in making that happen isn't something that is vehemently rejected by evidence available to me and that has sparked massive debate in order to denounce any utter stupidity involved on my part. If your professor really believes Americans did not land on the moon in 1969, she is either totally and willfully ignorant or has repeatedly been confronted with evidence to the contrary and continues to be an idiot about it in spite of that evidence.

EDIT: I want to add something to this. I am not saying that every person who believes any conspiracy theory out there is automatically ignorant and/or an idiot. Some conspiracy theories have bits of evidence that could, theoretically, support them. I'll leave it to others to decide what examples they want to use to apply that idea. But if there is one single piece of evidence to support the idea that Armstrong and Aldren were NOT on the moon in July 1969, I've never heard it. I've heard people claim they were in low orbit, but without any evidence to support it. I've heard they were in a TV studio, with no proof of course. Not wanting to believe something doesn't make it untrue, but your professor apparently thinks otherwise.

NiteClerk
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:22 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

jalohones wrote: ...
Yeh, but the world isn't a frickin' basketball. It's the size of a planet. And people have been hundreds of thousands of kilometres from the surface. Damned analogies, makin' our species' achievements look small.

Okay, for those of you who feel the need for feel-good analogies. If the Earth was the size of a red giant, then we have been ....(umm. Too early in the a.m. to do the research.)... really, really far from the surface.

bassguy
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:21 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

So I've been lurking here for months and finally had to register - did anyone else have sinking feeling as they read this one - "it's been forty years since we've been on the moon?!" - please god tell me I'm not that old...

Many things seem like they were just yesterday - yesterday is having to account for a larger and larger time frame... I swear it was just a couple years since all that moon stuff...

J

Splarka
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:24 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

IonStorm wrote:Strange list in the mouseover. Spirit and Opportunity are listed twice...

He probably likes them.

Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Applicant: I like rape.
HTTP/1.1 - 203

Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

I would have been much more impressed if this comic had been released on 20th December of this year. As it is, it's not quite 40 years since humankind last visited the moon.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

luthwyhn
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:42 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

If Earth were the size of a basketball, Voyager 1 would still be over 1000km away.

Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:46 am UTC

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

Registered for this... I can finally honestly say. Get out of my head randall. Been watching Neil Degrasse Tyson vids for the past week.

Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:57 pm UTC
Contact:

### Re: 1074: "Moon Landing"

RAGBRAIvet wrote:Now everybody who reads "XKCD" knows that the moon landing was real, so I know I'm preaching to the choir here.  But if you'd like another proof that we landed on the moon when we said we did and it wasn't a fake, acted out in the Nevada desert, consider this:

Here's another fun one: Moon landing hoax believers often make the claim that the shadows in photographs on the Lunar surface must be faked because they are not completely black, and "because the Moon has no atmosphere the only source of light is direct sunlight, so the shadows can't be grey."

So I ask them, "What? I don't understand!? I can see the GROUND in those photos!"

They look at me stupidly, and I explain, "If I can see the ground, the hills in the background, the rocks nearby, it means there is light being reflected from those surfaces."

They generally continue to look at me stupidly, but some do change the topic very quickly at this point. Some do try to claim that the indirect light from the lunar surface is insufficient, or insufficiently diffuse, to grey the shadows, but as soon as they find themselves required to make precise, quantitative arguments rather than "demanding explanations" for their own ignorance and stupidity they generally run away.
Coming on Midsummer's Day to a Web Browser Near You: http://www.songsofalbion.com