The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Round fact on April 15, 2016, 08:37:37 PM
-
http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html
This should be investing.
-
That photo doesn't look like anything that would indicate foot prints or where a space craft would've landed or taken off from.
Does it to you?
-
That photo doesn't look like anything that would indicate foot prints or where a space craft would've landed or taken off from.
Does it to you?
Where in the link does it say the picture shows foot prints or even the decent stage of Apollo 15?
It DOES say the confirmed the landing and the place of the landing.
-
Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?
-
Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?
I am and I am messing with you a bit. The article explains the image and it is clear where the foot prints are and are not.
I was hoping you'd you go back and look with an open mind. My bad
-
Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?
In an article about verifying the Apollo 15 landing, they illustrate with a photo of an entirely different part of the moon? (The caption calls it "over the polar region", which is nowhere near the Apollo 15 landing site) What the hell! It would have been better to have NO photo, than an irellevant one.
(https://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/640/5480_640.jpg)
-
Here is a picture the article linked did not use for some reason.
(http://www.vssc.gov.in/VSSC_V4/images/imagegallery/spacescience/chandrayaan-1fig3-1.jpg)
"Three-dimensional view of Apollo-15 landing site by TMC showing front of Apennine Mountain, parts of Rima Hadley Rille and ‘halo’ around the landing site of the Apollo-15 Lunar module. [Ref: Prakash Chauhan et al. Current Science, 97, 630-631, 2009]"
http://www.vssc.gov.in/VSSC_V4/index.php/chandrayaan-1/55-science/1005-chandrayaan-1mission
Here is one from China's Chang 2:
(http://astrosociety.org/abh/images/ABH12-b.jpg)
It was taken with an higher resolution camera and easier to see stuff.
Japan's Selene also took some pictures.
-
Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?
In an article about verifying the Apollo 15 landing, they illustrate with a photo of an entirely different part of the moon? (The caption calls it "over the polar region", which is nowhere near the Apollo 15 landing site) What the hell! It would have been better to have NO photo, than an irellevant one.
(https://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/640/5480_640.jpg)
Rounder keep in mind the article was written by a reporter NOT a scientist.
I remember Walter Cronkite, CBS News' claimed "Expert" reporter/anchor on the Apollo Space Missions. And I remember him being corrected by Robert Heinlein over and over and over again.
I don't think Cronkite could have found a Full Moon on a cloudless night in middle of the ocean with all the ship''s lights off.
-
Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?
In an article about verifying the Apollo 15 landing, they illustrate with a photo of an entirely different part of the moon? (The caption calls it "over the polar region", which is nowhere near the Apollo 15 landing site) What the hell! It would have been better to have NO photo, than an irellevant one.
(https://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/640/5480_640.jpg)
Rounder keep in mind the article was written by a reporter NOT a scientist.
I remember Walter Cronkite, CBS News' claimed "Expert" reporter/anchor on the Apollo Space Missions. And I remember him being corrected by Robert Heinlein over and over and over again.
I don't think Cronkite could have found a Full Moon on a cloudless night in middle of the ocean with all the ship''s lights off.
So thanks for the pointless article then.
-
Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?
In an article about verifying the Apollo 15 landing, they illustrate with a photo of an entirely different part of the moon? (The caption calls it "over the polar region", which is nowhere near the Apollo 15 landing site) What the hell! It would have been better to have NO photo, than an irellevant one.
(https://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/640/5480_640.jpg)
Rounder keep in mind the article was written by a reporter NOT a scientist.
I remember Walter Cronkite, CBS News' claimed "Expert" reporter/anchor on the Apollo Space Missions. And I remember him being corrected by Robert Heinlein over and over and over again.
I don't think Cronkite could have found a Full Moon on a cloudless night in middle of the ocean with all the ship''s lights off.
So thanks for the pointless article then.
Are you calling the article fake just because the reporter called it the polar region when he should have said northern latitude?
-
He called it "pointless", which is not the same as calling it "fake". I have little doubt he believes it to BE fake, but that's not what he said.
The reason it is pointless is that the photo WAS of the polar region, which is pointless in an article about an Apollo mission. They should have used the photo OF the Apollo site, not some other photo taken by the probe.
It makes as much sense as me telling you I went to Texas, and illustrating with a photo of Oklahoma. Sure, I went there too, but photos of other places don't prove I went to Texas.
-
Objection! Relevance?
Objection noted and sustained. I'll delete the post
-
http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html
This should be investing.
Okay, so their magic spacecraft proved the existence of another magic spacecraft? How convenient.
-
http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html
This should be investing.
Okay, so their magic spacecraft proved the existence of another magic spacecraft? How convenient.
So saying something that is proved to exist, doesn't exist, makes it not exist? Does that fantasy work in reverse?
-
http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html
This should be investing.
Okay, so their magic spacecraft proved the existence of another magic spacecraft? How convenient.
So saying something that is proved to exist, doesn't exist, makes it not exist? Does that fantasy work in reverse?
It's like saying I proved that faeries existed by using my fairy wand.
-
http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html
This should be investing.
Okay, so their magic spacecraft proved the existence of another magic spacecraft? How convenient.
So saying something that is proved to exist, doesn't exist, makes it not exist? Does that fantasy work in reverse?
It's like saying I proved that faeries existed by using my fairy wand.
Well as least you admit your proof of a fake Space Program is a fairy wand.
What I don't understand is why you're terrified of the truth to point that you believe just saying something is fake will make is so. It would seem some part of you, no matter how small knows your FE is fantasy.
I had the unfortunate job of having to deal with a brilliant engineer that one day just jumped off the sanity train. Stark raving nuts and when I had to deal with him, he'd been nuts for almost 13 years. But one thing that always struck me, he KNEW he was nuts and he'd tell you so. Some sane part of him, even after all that time was screaming to get out. Whats your problem?
-
Well as least you admit your proof of a fake Space Program is a fairy wand.
What I don't understand is why you're terrified of the truth to point that you believe just saying something is fake will make is so. It would seem some part of you, no matter how small knows your FE is fantasy.
I had the unfortunate job of having to deal with a brilliant engineer that one day just jumped off the sanity train. Stark raving nuts and when I had to deal with him, he'd been nuts for almost 13 years. But one thing that always struck me, he KNEW he was nuts and he'd tell you so. Some sane part of him, even after all that time was screaming to get out. Whats your problem?
Ironic for you to accuse someone of being terrified of the truth.
You do realize the phenomenon of confirmation bias is a lot stronger the longer someone holds a particular belief.
You've believed in the moon landing ever since you watched it in black and white on one of the three channels in 1969.
You can't possibly fathom such an obvious motive to fake it as 'winning' the space race against a nuclear arch enemy.
You so willingly accept any piece of information to support your belief, no matter how poorly written or factually wrong.
Space fantasy and patriotism is so core to who you are, you accept nothing that jeapordizes that. Who is terrified here?
-
Well as least you admit your proof of a fake Space Program is a fairy wand.
What I don't understand is why you're terrified of the truth to point that you believe just saying something is fake will make is so. It would seem some part of you, no matter how small knows your FE is fantasy.
I had the unfortunate job of having to deal with a brilliant engineer that one day just jumped off the sanity train. Stark raving nuts and when I had to deal with him, he'd been nuts for almost 13 years. But one thing that always struck me, he KNEW he was nuts and he'd tell you so. Some sane part of him, even after all that time was screaming to get out. Whats your problem?
Ironic for you to accuse someone of being terrified of the truth.
You do realize the phenomenon of confirmation bias is a lot stronger the longer someone holds a particular belief.
You've believed in the moon landing ever since you watched it in black and white on one of the three channels in 1969.
You can't possibly fathom such an obvious motive to fake it as 'winning' the space race against a nuclear arch enemy.
You so willingly accept any piece of information to support your belief, no matter how poorly written or factually wrong.
Space fantasy and patriotism is so core to who you are, you accept nothing that jeapordizes that. Who is terrified here?
I'm not the one shaking in my boots, making false statements based on debunked "evidence" just to hold to a fantasy of a mathematically impossible FE.
Your "proof" boils down to "because I said so."
But, yeah I watched landings. Yep I watched Saturn V engines being tested (we lived less than 10 miles from the test site in the Santa Susanna Hills, above Simi Valley; my dad built the engines) I have talked to BOTH Armstrong and Aldrin,(Apollo 11) and Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7) is a friend of family close family. I met others when I was in the Air Force. NOTHING about them says liar. They can back up what happened, with more than; FOOT STOMP, TEARS, POUTING, "Because I said it was a lie and THAT settles it." FOOT STOMP sudden arms folding across the widdle chest and more pouting.
The fact is the math, the photos, the testimony, EVERYTHING points to the US Manned Space Program is real and continuing flights.
One more fact, Ya got nada as proof. And saying it didn't happen won't change the fact that it did and still does.
I pity you for what you are missing in life.
You on the other hand are believing hearsay based on more hearsay all of which have been completely debunked for more that 50 years.
-
You do realize the phenomenon of confirmation bias is a lot stronger the longer someone holds a particular belief.
Oh hey, thanks for outlining the reasons why the FES continues to exist despite being proven wrong time and time again.
You can't possibly fathom such an obvious motive to fake it as 'winning' the space race against a nuclear arch enemy.
Yes we can. That's what it took to get to the moon within a decade. But we pulled it off, and we've proven it multiple times.
Space fantasy and patriotism is so core to who you are, you accept nothing that jeapordizes that. Who is terrified here?
Still you. You would know that there's no way the earth could be anything but round, if you had done even one scrap of unbiased research in your life.
You so willingly accept any piece of information to support your belief, no matter how poorly written or factually wrong.
Says the guy whose username is TheTruthIsOnHere.
[Ironic for you to accuse someone of being terrified of the truth. /quote]
I'm not sure it's possible to convey the level of irony that statement contains.
-
I have a unique view into aerospace from what I do. I have stated my feelings on the flat and round earth debate. However, even I will say it is strange they will zoom in on "foot prints and tracks" yet never once any left behind equipment anywhere. Let's instead try to find "disturbances" "foot wide tire tracks or show impressions". Though I don't know what orbit they are holding, so I can't speak with absolute certainly. I will say the moon landing never set right with me, I have had experience with too much aerospace propulsion systems, and their math of the mission bugs me.
However, this was in the 60s, still the old generation. People weren't argumentative little politically correct babies yet, spending all day whining and speaking about what could be done, but being too lazy and ignorant/arrogant (interchangeable) to do it. People of this time worked together and did what had to be done without excuse, still plenty of the world war 2 mentality was left when this happened. These are the people that made the country great and a success at the time. All bite, no bark. Also, NASA had a 20 billion dollar budget, and if requested more they would get it if it meant to win. So considering these two things, the moon landing is certainly plausible despite my doubts.
Also view it...with the old mentality and 160 billion dollars, what would NASA be able to do now?
-
I have a unique view into aerospace from what I do. I have stated my feelings on the flat and round earth debate. However, even I will say it is strange they will zoom in on "foot prints and tracks" yet never once any left behind equipment anywhere. Let's instead try to find "disturbances" "foot wide tire tracks or show impressions". Though I don't know what orbit they are holding, so I can't speak with absolute certainly. I will say the moon landing never set right with me, I have had experience with too much aerospace propulsion systems, and their math of the mission bugs me.
However, this was in the 60s, still the old generation. People weren't argumentative little politically correct babies yet, spending all day whining and speaking about what could be done, but being too lazy and ignorant/arrogant (interchangeable) to do it. People of this time worked together and did what had to be done without excuse, still plenty of the world war 2 mentality was left when this happened. These are the people that made the country great and a success at the time. All bite, no bark. Also, NASA had a 20 billion dollar budget, and if requested more they would get it if it meant to win. So considering these two things, the moon landing is certainly plausible despite my doubts.
Also view it...with the old mentality and 160 billion dollars, what would NASA be able to do now?
The link clearly shows the decent stage of the lander.
http://astrosociety.org/abh/images/ABH12-b.jpg
-
I have a unique view into aerospace from what I do. I have stated my feelings on the flat and round earth debate. However, even I will say it is strange they will zoom in on "foot prints and tracks" yet never once any left behind equipment anywhere. Let's instead try to find "disturbances" "foot wide tire tracks or show impressions". Though I don't know what orbit they are holding, so I can't speak with absolute certainly. I will say the moon landing never set right with me, I have had experience with too much aerospace propulsion systems, and their math of the mission bugs me.
However, this was in the 60s, still the old generation. People weren't argumentative little politically correct babies yet, spending all day whining and speaking about what could be done, but being too lazy and ignorant/arrogant (interchangeable) to do it. People of this time worked together and did what had to be done without excuse, still plenty of the world war 2 mentality was left when this happened. These are the people that made the country great and a success at the time. All bite, no bark. Also, NASA had a 20 billion dollar budget, and if requested more they would get it if it meant to win. So considering these two things, the moon landing is certainly plausible despite my doubts.
Also view it...with the old mentality and 160 billion dollars, what would NASA be able to do now?
The link clearly shows the decent stage of the lander.
http://astrosociety.org/abh/images/ABH12-b.jpg
That is pretty cool! I was raised by my grandparents they both recently are no longer with me. My grandpa lived to be 92 and he was still working on his own electronics until his fall at 90. Self reliance , do anything it takes to get the job done, and do anything for family (only family I had) no matter what it took. I suppose I should not be surprised this generation made it happen. He was even a part of the program (guidance and altitude control hardware)(also the reason i chose my career paths) pulled him out of the Navy for it. He retired there, then Texas instruments brought him on board which he worked on the same stuff ( gyroscopes, cruise missile guidance, laser guidance, radar control) and retired from there. 25 years military, 22.5 at TI, then 30 years raising my dumb ass lol, I certainly would have never voiced my concerns over the lunar projects to him lol. (I have always said if I could be half the man he was I would consider myself a success)
Kind of cool seeing that picture though, it's an awesome tribute to what people like him did at the time. Shows how strong that mentality was, and what we as a people need to strive for. Now I need to go reexamine my math and see why the questions arrived in my head as they did. Perhaps my math has errors in it. Might explain my failure in a simulated test flight of a prototype aviation piece last month *eye roll*...I blame the schools ha ha, gotta blame someone besides my own error, I love 2016 ideology ha ha..(sacasm so there is no possible misunderstanding)
-
I have a unique view into aerospace from what I do. I have stated my feelings on the flat and round earth debate. However, even I will say it is strange they will zoom in on "foot prints and tracks" yet never once any left behind equipment anywhere. Let's instead try to find "disturbances" "foot wide tire tracks or show impressions". Though I don't know what orbit they are holding, so I can't speak with absolute certainly. I will say the moon landing never set right with me, I have had experience with too much aerospace propulsion systems, and their math of the mission bugs me.
However, this was in the 60s, still the old generation. People weren't argumentative little politically correct babies yet, spending all day whining and speaking about what could be done, but being too lazy and ignorant/arrogant (interchangeable) to do it. People of this time worked together and did what had to be done without excuse, still plenty of the world war 2 mentality was left when this happened. These are the people that made the country great and a success at the time. All bite, no bark. Also, NASA had a 20 billion dollar budget, and if requested more they would get it if it meant to win. So considering these two things, the moon landing is certainly plausible despite my doubts.
Also view it...with the old mentality and 160 billion dollars, what would NASA be able to do now?
The link clearly shows the decent stage of the lander.
http://astrosociety.org/abh/images/ABH12-b.jpg
And to add, those "lines" are the tire tracks.
http://gizmodo.com/5837658/new-detailed-images-show-lunar-landing-sites-at-higher-resolution/
-
I will say the moon landing never set right with me, I have had experience with too much aerospace propulsion systems, and their math of the mission bugs me.
Hold up; what is it about the math that's bugging you? I've looked into a lot of different parts of the mission, and I haven't found anything that didn't sort itself out with a bit of research.
-
You do realize the phenomenon of confirmation bias is a lot stronger the longer someone holds a particular belief.
Oh hey, thanks for outlining the reasons why the FES continues to exist despite being proven wrong time and time again.
You can't possibly fathom such an obvious motive to fake it as 'winning' the space race against a nuclear arch enemy.
Yes we can. That's what it took to get to the moon within a decade. But we pulled it off, and we've proven it multiple times.
Space fantasy and patriotism is so core to who you are, you accept nothing that jeapordizes that. Who is terrified here?
Still you. You would know that there's no way the earth could be anything but round, if you had done even one scrap of unbiased research in your life.
You so willingly accept any piece of information to support your belief, no matter how poorly written or factually wrong.
Says the guy whose username is TheTruthIsOnHere.
Ironic for you to accuse someone of being terrified of the truth.
I'm not sure it's possible to convey the level of irony that statement contains.
Just commenting on your incessant use of "we" in most of your posts.
Please tell me what you have actually done.
Do you always find a need to speak for an entire group? Are you part of some symbiotic consciousness I'm unaware of?
Also, it appears that you completely agreed with me about the confirmation bias bit. You do understand that anyone that actually is a flat earth "believer" most likely only had that belief for 2 to 3 years tops... You've been spinning your model globe since kindergarten. So which is it? Do you agree with me or not?
I love how research to you = looking at bias source of information. By research do you mean accepting whatever you're told by authority as truth?
The truth IS on here. It's not OUT THERE. More specifically, it's probably IN HERE.
-
I will say the moon landing never set right with me, I have had experience with too much aerospace propulsion systems, and their math of the mission bugs me.
Hold up; what is it about the math that's bugging you? I've looked into a lot of different parts of the mission, and I haven't found anything that didn't sort itself out with a bit of research.
Stuff really that I can comment on from the work I do, so mainly fuel supply and propulsion. The total amount of fuel brought on the mission compared to the total amount of oxidizer when you look at the oxidizer base. The fuel supply pumps that were used compared to the storage tank material, shielding, and temp, the inner lining of the combustion chamber and the outlet cap. The leveling and pitch system that was used during the actual landing on the moon. I suppose putting it simple, they should have ran out of fuel. They should have never been able to get off the moon once landed, or break orbit and the moons gravity to head back home. Also the leveling system they used, such a slim chance to be able to land successfully considering the orbit speed and angle chosen.
Not to mention the fact all this done the first go without flaw. However, a lot of the info disappeared with the video evidence, so it could be incomplete. I have more, but I haven't slept in 2 days and need a nap, I feel as if this will read as a kinder-gardener wrote this my brain is so fried. So I will keep it super simple as this for now.
-
I like your rational thinking babyhighspeed!
It's difficult as someone born in the 80's with a parent who believes most conspiracies but myself hold great regard for people in the scientific and mathematic field.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about all things in this flat earth debate. But I haven't seen or heard any evidence to suggest why it would be flat. The best I have seen would be photographic evidence. But like on the other side of the debate. Photographic evidence is likely faked. So how do we move on.
Or should we leave the debate to the learned folk and people who scraped through high school like myself should be happy to work 9-5 and retire at 70 and go cenile.
To me it feels like a religious debate. You can say God exists prove me wrong. And I can't. Like you can say the atmosphere is a dome and someone like me can't possibly prove it either way.
And I don't think an organisation like NASA who clearly knows its foundation for its research is going to ever come here and settle an argument.
This debate is hard because I myself like to question things. The moon landing too has never felt right to me (possibly due to my parents ideas about it)
But believing something that lacks evidence like ufo's or aliens and the flat earth is different to being open to new ideas of the logic behind it makes sense. Which for me most of the logic behind flat earth feels like the ufo debate too.
I wouldn't be surprised if it ever came out and NASA said they had to fake the moon landing to win the "race" for political and financial advantage.
But remember making that claim goes with it a massive MASSIVE world wide cover up of potentially thousands of not hundreds of thousands of people.
one other thing.
I said this to my mum when we got into an actual heated debate about flat earth which she now wholely believes.
I said
I think it's easier to watch a YouTube video where someone tells you that NASA faked it and the earth is flat look at these photos but disregard these ones,
Than it is to go to uni or study a subject and do your own experiments. Which we all could do if we REALLY wanted answers.
But it's easier and more fun to slide into YouTube and put on a conspiracy video and get riled up with many unconfirmed inaccuracies.
I know what it's like to be led by a crazy theory too. I went to church long enough and got sucked into its wormhole but started questioning everything about it and reading things amd talking to rational people about it all.
My mum also tried to say that movies and tv shows are putting the ideas I front of our faces like under the dome or game of thrones with the ice wall. But then I said well what about Stephen Kings other movies like the 99% of his low budget stuff that is terrible. That one with billy zane! Fuck me... Demon knight? I think it was called.
How far does this conspiracy actually go? Is it ingrained in every facet of life and history?
-
I like your rational thinking babyhighspeed!
It's difficult as someone born in the 80's with a parent who believes most conspiracies but myself hold great regard for people in the scientific and mathematic field.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about all things in this flat earth debate. But I haven't seen or heard any evidence to suggest why it would be flat. The best I have seen would be photographic evidence. But like on the other side of the debate. Photographic evidence is likely faked. So how do we move on.
Or should we leave the debate to the learned folk and people who scraped through high school like myself should be happy to work 9-5 and retire at 70 and go cenile.
To me it feels like a religious debate. You can say God exists prove me wrong. And I can't. Like you can say the atmosphere is a dome and someone like me can't possibly prove it either way.
And I don't think an organisation like NASA who clearly knows its foundation for its research is going to ever come here and settle an argument.
This debate is hard because I myself like to question things. The moon landing too has never felt right to me (possibly due to my parents ideas about it)
But believing something that lacks evidence like ufo's or aliens and the flat earth is different to being open to new ideas of the logic behind it makes sense. Which for me most of the logic behind flat earth feels like the ufo debate too.
I wouldn't be surprised if it ever came out and NASA said they had to fake the moon landing to win the "race" for political and financial advantage.
But remember making that claim goes with it a massive MASSIVE world wide cover up of potentially thousands of not hundreds of thousands of people.
one other thing.
I said this to my mum when we got into an actual heated debate about flat earth which she now wholely believes.
I said
I think it's easier to watch a YouTube video where someone tells you that NASA faked it and the earth is flat look at these photos but disregard these ones,
Than it is to go to uni or study a subject and do your own experiments. Which we all could do if we REALLY wanted answers.
But it's easier and more fun to slide into YouTube and put on a conspiracy video and get riled up with many unconfirmed inaccuracies.
I know what it's like to be led by a crazy theory too. I went to church long enough and got sucked into its wormhole but started questioning everything about it and reading things amd talking to rational people about it all.
My mum also tried to say that movies and tv shows are putting the ideas I front of our faces like under the dome or game of thrones with the ice wall. But then I said well what about Stephen Kings other movies like the 99% of his low budget stuff that is terrible. That one with billy zane! Fuck me... Demon knight? I think it was called.
How far does this conspiracy actually go? Is it ingrained in every facet of life and history?
To the true believer it does.
If you get the chance and are up late at night, listen to Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. He is syndicated all over the world. The show is funny if you just listen for entertainment. But far too many believe every word, even when the next show is at complete odds with night before.
-
Since I have seen someone questioning if the numbers add up.
Saturn V
Individual stage Total vessel
STAGE Total mass Dry mass Total mass Dry mass Isp Delta-v
1 LOX/RP-1 2,300,000 131,000 2,900,000 731,000 263s 3554.2 m/s
2 LOX/LH 480,000 36,000 600,000 156,000 421s 5561.5 m/s
3 LOX/LH 120,800 10,000 120,800 10,000 421s 8796.2 m/s
--------------
17911.9 m/s
Masses are in kg
Does not include delta-v calculations for the lunar lander but assumes the gross vehicle mass of the Saturn V.
(http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/delta-v.gif)
(http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/mission/solarSubwayTB.jpg)
(http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/mission/dvchart2.jpg)
Variations of the above are the result of assuming different orbits, launch sites, safety margins and different locations and burn times for maneuvers.
To go from the ground to lunar orbit and return takes around 17,500 delta-v. Which means you need something capable of altering its velocity that much either increasing or decreasing its speed.
The Saturn V assuming it is carrying the maximum payload it can is has 17,900 delta-v. Which leaves a surplus of 400 m/s of acceleration.
The Saturn V was capable of getting to lunar orbit and returning.
Here are the formulas I used:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/3/b/e3bda351ddb56f3aa952fdec4be815b9.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/9/8/598bad4a2f831bfcde4be7252b76387a.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/d/6/bd6577abc12a554a6142d16950ac5fb2.png)
Here is an explanation for the methodology I used:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/index.htm
So using formulas based on the current understanding of physics it results in telling, at least me, that the Saturn V was capable of carrying men to the moon and back.
I did not calculate the delta-v requirements myself and assumed since multiple sources, including non-government came up with basically the same answer are correct.