We can, and will go to the Moon again. NASA is not in the process of doing so.

A private enterprise? Do you realize that a private enterprise hasn't yet attained orbital flight, that a couple are investigating space flight only recently, and that being able to go to the Moon is a long, long way off for any private enterprise?

Why they can't is because they have to learn how, they have to fund the project, and they have to design and fabricate and test the machinery and systems that would be required to do so.

It's relative.

The Shuttle has capabilities and versatilities that Apollo did not have. And of course, Apollo was designed for one thing, which it did very well. The Shuttle is not in any way less capable than Apollo. It has different purposes.

The Shuttle can't go to the Moon. But Apollo couldn't haul 30 tons into Earth orbit, and install it onto an ISS.


The only thing that hasn't been worth it over the past several decades is dealing with short sighted leaders...which is the only reason that we are not now on the Moon, and pressing forward into planetary exploration.

All true, of course, Peri...

It's rather difficult for me to envision Apollo happening without a whole slew of non-NASA people intimately involved, which of course, they were.

I made no such claim, I am merely pointing out that YOUR opinion of what this term means does not constitute supporting evidence for your claims. Yet again you are ignoring YOUR burden of proof (you really have a problem with that concept don't you).


It tells me three things:

1. As it does not specify what type of missions, your claim that it MUST apply to lunar exploration is purely speculation.
2. As your argument is pure speculation it does not constitute evidence to support your contention that:
   QUOTE
   The VA Belt radiation hazards being studied is indeed considered relevant to future manned lunar missions. Not just LEO craft and crews
   so that also remains pure speculation.
3. The final thing it tells me is that you still can not differentiate between speculation and evidence.

Not at all. yet again the burden of proof lies with you. Your only hope is to prove your statements. You have failed to produce anything except your opinion. Also you "despite not" argument is clearly silly as it is reversible: if they considered it applicable to Lunar Exploration why not specify that, it it is what they meant?

Prove it! As it stands this is just supposition on your part. You have made a claim, you need to present evidence to support it. No one else is under any obligation to provide evidence that you are wrong.


Whose definition of "explore" is that, yours? I notice you don't provide a source for it. Here are a few more definitions of "explore" WITH SOURCES (I like to deal in facts):

Source: The free dictionary.com

Source: Cambridge Dictionaries Online

Source: AskOxford.com

Source: Dictionary.com

Source: Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary
Would you care to point out how ANY of these definitions of "explore" support your claim that the term "space explorer" can not apply to an astronaut, "orbiting Earth, over and over, as we've done countless times already" as you put it?


I'm still waiting for you to actually present one. All we have from you is opinion.

I'll repeat some questions you have been asked before:

• Can you present ANY evidence that the radiation levels found in the Van Allen Belts are sufficiently high that they would be a show stopper for a manned mission to the Moon?
• Can you explain (with evidence) why, if the Van Allen Belts are as harmful as you claim, that ISS astronauts can pass through the SAA several times each day and suffer no ill effects?
• Can you explain (with evidence) why dozens upon dozens of non-NASA satellites have passed through the Van Allen Belts (every single communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit for example) and yet the very delicate electronics of these satellites do not need a considerable amount of radiation protection?

The final point I would make is this:

You have repeatedly made the claim that we now now that the Van Allen Belts are more unpredictable and can be more harmful than was believed in the late 1960's. I am happy to accept this. You have provided evidence for this. However this does not in itself it constitute any evidence of wrong doing.

You have not shown that one of these unpredictable events actually occurred during any Apollo passage through the Van Allen Belts, nor have you shown that if such an event had happened the increased levels of radiation which can occur unpredictably are sufficiently intense to have caused harm to a crew inside an Apollo capsule during their short exposure. As a result all of the material you have provided, whilst interesting, does not support your belief that Apollo was faked in the slightest.

I would like to ask how can you possibly think your arguments are evidence of fakery? Surely this is evidence that supports the fact that NASA would have sent astronauts through the Van Allen Belts in the late 1960's? Why would NASA have lied about the Van Allen Belts if they actually believed them to be safe?

Either NASA knew that the Belts were dangerous and faked the flights, in which case why are they now admitting the belts are more complex than they first thought OR NASA didn't know that the Belts were harmful in which case their was no reason to fake the flights in the first place.

Well, Waspie, that certainly shuts my mouth!
( )

Certainly not my intention. I admit I read turbo's points and went sraight into composing a reply before reading what anyone else had said. Not a good tactic I admit.

This is true but requires some caveats.

No private company has yet developed a manned orbital ability, however fair paying passengers have been flown into orbit. Space Adventures (a private enterprise) sells flights on board Russian Soyuz missions to the ISS. So far 5 people have had this tourist trip of a life time at a cost of $20 million (the price has just been raised to $21 million).

As for going to the Moon, it is not necessarily as far off as MID implies. A fact totally ignored by hoax believers is that the Soviet Union had a manned Lunar Programme. It faild not because of any of the reasons they claim make Apollo impossible but simply because they could not get their rival to the Saturn V (the N-1) to work. The Soyuz space craft was actually designed for Lunar missions and was tested (unmanned) for them under the name Zond (the Zond 5 mission successfully carried living animals through the Van Allen Belts and returned them to the Earth, this does not fit in with the hoax believers picture so they ignore this fact too). The up shot of all this is that the current Soyuz vehicle needs very little modification to fly around the Moon. Space Adventures are already selling such flights. I imagine they will need to fly a test flight first, but the capability to fly around the Moon is just a short time away. The cost of such a flight is a cool $100 million.

Whilst I realise that this is only a circumlunar flight and not a mission to land, it does rather show that experts in this field have a different interpretation of the dangers of the Van Allen Belts to that of the Hoax believers.

Link to Space Adventures Site

Oh, no...not at all!
What I meant was that I could add nothing to that analysis!
It was pretty darm good, Waspie!

• Between 1976 and 2003 fare-paying passengers could cross the Atlantic at speeds greater than Mach 2. Now they can't do it at even half that speed and there is no planned replacement for Concorde.
• Between 1960 and 1968 the X-15 made 199 flights reaching altitudes of greater than 100 Km and speeds in excess of 4,500 mph. Today there is no known aircraft capable of reaching these altitudes or this speed and no plans for one.
• Between 1964 and 1966 the USAF test flew a series of prototype bombers called the XB-70 Valkyrie. This aircraft was capable of flying at more than Mach 3. Today the USAF's fastest bomber is "the B-1b lancer, capable of flying at only Mach 1.25 and no plans for a Mach 3 bomber to be built.
• On 28^th October 1971 the UK launched a satellite into orbit on it's indigenous Black Knoght launch vehicle. The UK has not launched a satellite since and today does not have the ability to do so.
• In 1997 a British jet powered car, Thrust SSC, set an official land speed record of 1227.986 km/h (763.035 mph) which is supersonic. In the decade since no other car has exceeded Mach 1.
• Between 1968 and 2000 it was possible to make a crossing of the English Channel by Hovercraft in a time as quick as 22 minutes. Today a sea crossing requires a ferry and a journey time of 90 minutes.

This is just a brief list of examples of the type of technological "regression" that you claim only happens with space technology. These are just the first few that came to my head (hence the slight British bias) but I am sure with a bit of research I could find many more.

turbonium, would you claim that Concorde, the X-15, the XB-70, the Black Knight programme, Thrust SSC and Channel Hovercraft services were all fakes? If not would you please explain why the fact that we can no longer do now what was done in the past is evidence that Apollo was faked but not evidence in these cases?

If you are prepared to accept that there are legitimate reasons why all of the cases I have mentioned above seem to show regression, why are you not prepared to admit the same for manned lunar missions?

You repeat your claim of technological regression over and over again but it is just more meaningless opinion. The choice not to do something is not the same as the inability to do that thing. All you demonstrate is that NASA has not yet returned men to the Moon, but we knew that already. Unless you can demonstrate WHY they haven't returned to the Moon we are left with a rather circular argument:
"I believe that NASA hasn't returned to the Moon because they couldn't go in the first place. My evidence that NASA couldn't go to the Moon is the fact that they haven't returned."

Unless you can prove Man is incapable of landing on the Moon rather than has simply choosing not to all we have is yet more of your opinion. Where is all this evidence you claim to base your belief on, because you are sure not sharing it with the rest of us?

Only by idiots. Rational experts estimate that humans will been back on the Moon for over 25 years and may well have made our first manned landing on Mars.

Thank you, but I doubt that turbonium and sunofone will see it that way.

Thanks a lot for explaining that, if you don't mind can you just clear up a few things for me.

Other than the fuel needed for OMS burns (and therefore the alterations to fuel systems/load carrying capabilities ) to alter orbit there is no reason why the shuttle hasn't been more than 380 miles up ?

The experiments performed onboard the ISS may be many and varied but the results are only 100% guaranteed and reproducable in LEO, or is it proven that there is no difference between LEO, HEO and outer space environments ?. If it is the case that there is no difference then why have unmanned craft performing other research in HEO, sounds like a waste of money as it could be done on the ISS.

I didn't know that the shuttle was only a part of a larger cancelled project and appreciate that it is good at what it does, however like you said it was equipment without a mission after the cancellations so why did they build it at all (or was it already well underway why the cancellations came?), are we sure its use in the ISS and servicing Mir wasn't a case of finding something for this expensive equipment to do after the fact, why would the russians or NASA use other kit when the shuttle is already there, capable and possibly even avaliable on the cheap to get the delivery "contract" ?.

To be honest the main reason for me asking these questions is not so much about whether the moon landings were fake or not, more about disapointment. I was born in the middle of the moon landing period and remember doing a big project in the early 80's about space exploration just when they were trumpeting the shuttle and where we are going next and it really blew my mind and I remember all the excitement but I have been waiting ever since for something to get really excited about. Crashing unmanned craft into comets or mars or shuttling payload back and to, to a vertical height that I could drive horizontally in an afternoon, just hasn't been doing it for me as I had visions of the shuttle building a number of space stations as stepping stones out into deeper and deeper space with each space station acting and being used as camps like on Everest for bigger and bigger pushes.

The Shuttle was originally going to be a fully re-usable vehicle, launched by a manned booster vehicle that would fly back to its launch site. This proved beyond the budget that NASA was given, hence the current partially re-usable vehicle with the solid rockets and external tank that caused the Challenger and Columbia disasters. At the time the Shuttle was designed, it was intended to launch all US payloads, civil and military. However, the military were never keen on a vehicle that they saw as over-complicated for their purpose and gave it less than full support while simultaneously requiring design features that increased the cost to NASA. The Spacelab payloads flown in the cargo bay were expected to lead in fairly short time to a free-flying space station, an evolution that in fact took some 20 years. Missions beyond low orbit were to use a family of "space tugs". Small and medium solid rockets were in fact used early in the programme for taking communications satellites to geostationary orbits and probes to other planets, but a larger liquid-fuelled rocket was cancelled after the Challenger disaster (it was to have been on the next mission) and a very large liquid-fuelled man-rated tug for returning to the moon never got development funding.

It's all a sorry story of ambitions outgrowing budgets. Where we would be today if the original programme had been followed is any-one's guess, but a Shuttle-launched manned moon programme in the late 1980s would have been a possibility.

Indeed. The military used the Challenger accident as an excuse to ditch the shuttle and return to expendable boosters*. This despite the fact that a new launch pad, known as SLC-6 (pronounced slick six) had been constructed, at vast cost, at Vandenburg Air Force Base. The VAFB would have allowed the shuttle to fly polar orbital missions, allowing it to reconnaissance missions and deploy spy satellites. The first VAFB mission had been planned for later in 1986 but the launch pad was mothballed and never used for manned flights. It is now used for Delta IV launches.

*In a huge irony on 18^th April 1986 and 3^rd May 1986 the US suffered the losses of a Titan 34D and a Delta. As the Delta contained many components in common with the Atlas launch vehicle this too was grounded. or several months in 1986 the US had no launch capability.


Sadly I think this has been the case with American space ambitions from the start (I don't wish to be too critical here because I am a huge fan of what has been achieved). If you look at the history of cancelled programmes and ask where would the US be if they had continued. What could have been achieved if the X-15 programme had been allowed to evolve further, or the Manned Orbital Laboratory actually flown? Or the X-20 DynaSoar built? The Constellation programme has long term goals. I hope it doesn't suffer too much from political interferrence because if it doesn't then it could lead to a period of stability for NASA's manned spaceflight divisions and we will see the "evolution not revolution" approach that has served the Russians so well for so long.

Anyway this has all rather got away from the topic, which is whether Apollo was faked and I apologise for that.

No apology necessary, Waspie. I don’t think this is at all off-topic. Seems to me that at the core of the Apollo conspiracy theories is a lack of understanding of the political, social, and technological evolution that shaped the U.S. manned space program during and after Apollo. In the four years between 1968 and 1972, we sent nine manned missions to the moon, landed six times, and then ... we stopped. The fact that humanity hasn’t been back to the moon for 35 years puzzles some people who don’t understand the history. If we could walk on the moon in 1969, why aren’t we doing it today? For a few, it has become easier to believe that we must never have been able to go to the moon rather than accept the rather sad truth that we stopped because the politicians and the public decided that they just didn’t want to go anymore.

We do have the shuttle, which is a truly amazing spacecraft. Yes, it’s a flawed system that never quite lived up to the promise of cheap, reusable access to orbit, but it’s still a technological marvel with enormous capability. Not at all a step backwards from Apollo – just a step in a different direction. I think that you, flyingswan, and MID have posted some great stuff to explain how we got where we are today, and that’s just as important for understanding the reality of Apollo as any of the other topics we’ve been discussing here.

Can you just clear those points up for me..cheers.

Why do you need more reasons? How many different ways does it need to be not possible? What could the shuttle achieve at, say 500 miles up that it can't achieve at 250 miles? This question is a bit like saying, apart from the engine not being powerful enough why can't my car not win the Indy 500? The short answer to that question and yours is simply because they are not designed to.

The shuttle was specifically designed for LEO and so that is what it does. There is simply no mission for it at higher altitudes. The shuttle was originally designed to take satellites into low Earth orbit and release them there. An attached upper stage would then take them into higher orbits if desired. It has since evolved into a vehicle that can construct and service a space station. With the exception of one servicing mission to Hubble that is what it will do until it is retired. There is just no mission for it at higher altitudes.



Actually this is the other way around. It is considerably more expensive to carry out experiments on the ISS than it is on an unmanned craft, this is why so many people argue that the ISS is a waste of money. There are also other problems with manned spacecraft, because there are humans constantly moving around inside they are not particularly stable platforms. Many experiments are better carried out away from a human presence.

It is horses for courses. Different satellites have different orbits depending on what there task is. Some satellites need to be in as low an orbit as possible, particularly if they are making Earth observations. Others will need to be in specific orbits to measure a particular space environment. Still others need to be in geosynchronous orbit more than 22,000 miles up. There is no one convenient orbit.

Well, of course there's the fuel capacity constraint you mention, which would be a costly mod, but there is another reason:
The Shuttle doesn't need to go any higher. It was designed as a versatile LEO utility vehicle, laboratory, and crew transport. The HST is as high as anything the Shuttle needed to service, so basically, that's about it. If you put more fuel and plumbing and such in her, her cargo capacity would be diminished, which kind of defeats the purpose.



I think this question implies that all research pertains to the LEO environment. That is not entirely the case. The ISS is designed to be a huge laboratory for studies in almost every scientific area you can imagine; from materials research to astronomy to the LEO environment to plant and animal biology to medicine. It's gonna be an amazing place. It is an amazing place!

However, I will say that there most certainly is a difference between upper orbits, lower orbits, and outer space environments. There are purposes to unmanned spacecraft studying the space realm in other areas.




Swanny touched on this in his post. It's rather complicated, but the Shuttle was a part of an expansive set of plans for human space exploration. It was indeed already on the drawing boards in one form when the Apollo cancellations came.
These expansive plans were all scrapped, and were relegated to the realm of dreams, including a manned station, after Apollo. It took quite some time to get a plan for future space projects. The Shuttle became Nixon's space legacy...at least that's what he wanted it to be. That didn't pan out for him, as he obtained another less-than-desirable legacy.

I will give you my opinion: when the Shuttle was finally completed and became operational, it existed for its own sake. It had no mission to speak of. It certainly could be used for purposes of research and such, and it was ostensibly the be-all and end-all to orbital transport (that too wasn't exactly true). It was built because it was in-work, NASA had to do something, and this was the project they had...albeit with a curtailed budget. It was a complex set of societal and governmental mechanics that rendered it to the state that it was in when it became operational.

By around 1976-1977, it's mission was listed as boosting Skylab into a higher orbit. That too didn't pan out as it's development took longer than Skylab had to live on orbit!

Answering the question as to why it was built is complicated, and would take a book to describe! Suffice it to say that human nature had alot to do with it; what it was when it began its life, what it became, and what it is today...which is just plain impressive. Evolution.


As to the second part of your query, the Shuttle is imminently capable, versatile, and able. No other space vehicle in existence has its capabilities. It's use with Mir, and the ISS was essential. The ISS would not exist without it. We finally got a space station because the Shuttle was the vehicle that could build it. Yes, of course, components could be lofted by Russian vehicles, but beyond the first component, something had to have the heavy lift and articulating capabilities to actually stick the thing together. That became the purpose of the Shuttle, a noble and right purpose to which the vehicle has shown its worth.





Trust me, I understand what you feel.
I was born a little before the Moon landing period, and was able to live it. Ilived (and nearly died) through Challenger, and Columbia. As I say, what has happened is a complex issue involving social and governmental issues.


As to getting excited...I'd suggest investigating the ISS and where it is, and where it is planned to go in the next couple of years. It is truly astounding what NASA is doing today. And of course, Constellation. There is a source of inspiration, and excitement. The program is finally back on track. That is exciting!


Life is not about the past. It is about the present, and the present is showing us a NASA that once was, and is again. Given the mandate by the President, we are on the road to accomplishment. If the past 5 Shuttle missions don't excite...nothing will. Pay close attention to what is going on right now. It IS exciting, and it has been magnificent.

These people, who operate and control these missions, are the best we have, and they're proving it. This is a highly complex, risky, and demanding process, and these people have been incredible...

It's worth getting excited about. You will live to see the return to the Moon...but by all means, follow what is going on right now. It illustrates the best of the best doing what they do...impeccably.

Cheers for the explanations guys

I said...

Since they didn't specify LEO or lunar missions, or any other missions, what does your common sense (if applicable) tell you?



I was hoping, that since they didn't specify any particular type of mission, your common sense might tell you that it's probably because they didn't mean it to be mission specific.

That since they didn't specify LEO or lunar missions, or any other missions, your common sense might tell you that they meant it referred to all space explorers, period.

But common sense was clearly not applicable, as is quite obvious from your reply.



Space explorers are astronauts on missions of space exploration. Period. That refers to lunar missions, deep space missions, Mars missions, and so on - any and every mission of space exploration. You contend LEO missions also fit that category. But even if that was truly the case (which it isn't, in my view), it still includes lunar missions, Mars missions, etc. Which means my argument still stands.



You don't get it. My point was that no mission type(s) was specified. That means it must refer to all manned missions of space exploration - including lunar missions (and Mars missions, etc.). If only a specific type of mission(s) was relevant, then they would have noted only a specific mission type(s) was relevant. Common sense, even to schoolchildren.

I said...

What is the definition of "explore"? travel to or penetrate into; of unknown territory, for scientific purposes



The source (def.2)....

http://dict.die.net/explore/

Another source (def. 2) defines "explore" very much like the original source I cited...

travel to or penetrate into; "explore unknown territory in biology"

http://www.elook.org/dictionary/explore.html

Why are you so skeptical of the definition I posted? Google "explore definition" - it's the 4th hit that comes up, on page 1....!!



Oh, please...."WITH SOURCES"!! You "like to deal in facts"!! Spare me the condescending tone, it's rather infantile.

At any rate, these are some of the definitions culled from your own examples...

- To search into or travel in for the purpose of discovery: exploring outer space.

- to search and discover (about something)

- travel through (an unfamiliar area) in order to learn about it.

- to traverse or range over (a region, area, etc.) for the purpose of discovery: to explore the island.



Please tell me how this definition would apply to an astronaut orbiting Earth, over and over, as we've done countless times already...

travel through (an unfamiliar area) in order to learn about it

And consider the other examples I've included above - "to search into or travel in for the purpose of discovery: exploring outer space. - to search and discover - to traverse...for the purpose of discovery".

They all refer to the exploration of new or unfamiliar areas, as well. Which does not apply to LEO, which is not a new or unfamiliar region of travel for astronauts, is it?



As I said, NASA is spending millions, studying the VA Belts for several more years, in order to be able to "protect space explorers". And any astronauts on lunar missions would clearly be "space explorers". They wouldn't need to spend $100 million studying how to make the Belts safe for manned travel if they didn't consider it a show stopper.



As I said, if the Belts weren't considered harmful, then NASA wouldn't be spending so much money, and investing so much time, studying them, so that future astronauts will be protected when traveling through them.

The ISS does not orbit at high enough altitudes to go into (let alone right through) the VA Belts. It has an orbital altitude of 361km (perigee) to 437km (apogee)..

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/pdf/educator-observing_edu.pdf

The closest the ISS gets to the inner VA Belt is when it orbits across the SAA (300 km) - and that's why the radiation levels are higher in this region. But that hardly means the VA Belts are safe for astronauts!!



That's false, which you should already know from the articles cited in this thread....

Killer electrons are what scientists call the electrons trapped in Earth's outer radiation belt that can damage or "kill" satellites. Many satellites that have flown through the Van Allen radiation belts have confirmed their existence and measured them. Killer electrons have been blamed for many spacecraft failures.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solars..._electrons.html



Glad to know that, and you deserve credit for saying it.



That's true - it does not prove any wrong-doing, in itself. I want to be clear that I do not claim, or am suggesting, that it is a "smoking gun", in itself, of a moon landing hoax. But I do see it as something which helps support my overall argument of a hoax - certainly, as it stands right now. The VA Belts need to be studied for years, in order to understand the dangers and protect future "space explorers" when they travel through them. But that doesn't account for the Apollo astronauts going through them "safely".



I don't claim to have. And even if such an event did happen, and NASA knew about it at the time, it's not something that would be revealed to the public.



No, that is shown by the VA Belt studies being conducted now, and continuing for several more years from now. Future spacecraft will be better shielded than Apollo was, and if future crews aren't yet safe, than Apollo crews surely were not.



As I said, it's not evidence of fakery in itself. But it supports my argument of a hoax. That is, lying about the "safe" VA Belts was a necessity, in order to help sell the public on the greater success of the Apollo "event(s)". The Belts were "problem solved", as were all the other problems - environmental and technological - in landing men on the Moon. The 2020 missions are a genuine effort to land men on the Moon, whereas Apollo was staged - because it was so far beyond our reach, it had to be, or else we would have had to admit it wasn't anywhere near to becoming a reality.

The reality is now beginning to expose the illusion, from what I can see. The VA Belts are only one of the problems that will be exposed from now until we get closer to 2020. The technical hurdles are barely a fraction revealed, compared to what we'll see over the next decade. This point is, of course, all personal speculation on the future of the project - only time will tell.



Imo, NASA knew the Belts were dangerous, but did not reveal that to the public. Whether or not they knew how dangerous they are, as we do today? Who would know? It's obviously not something they would have revealed to the public, either.

But I think there were many more problems than just the Belts that prevented a manned lunar landing. If they really did believe the Belts were safe, it wouldn't mean the missions were then possible.

It may seem to be nitpicking to you, MID, but I'm just trying to clarify the meaning of "certainty", and "certain" - because I said I was certain Apollo was a hoax, you suggested it was now being used as a "relative" term.

As I said, certainty is based on the conviction one has in the belief in something. One may be a nut and be 100% certain about a nutty idea. As you alluded to, "certainty" is an inapplicable term regarding the point you want to make here.

I do understand your point, however. But again, I completely disagree with it. The knowledge you claim to have on Apollo's authenticity is not entirely knowledge based on facts, imo. I don't mean that as a snub on your intelligence, or as a personal insult, so please don't take it that way. I mean that there are claims which don't have much more than NASA's word for it. In large part, because they are claims which cannot be corroborated or replicated on Earth. But also because of claims which do not hold up to scrutiny. An example that just came to me is the footprints and lunar soil. The claim is that the footprints were created - despite no moisture present in the soil - because the particles are "sharp edged", and thus "latch onto each other" to produce the distinct imprints left in the lunar surface. AFAIK, they have never demonstrated this phenomenon with the Apollo soil samples said to have been brought back to Earth from the Moon. I'd like to see independent validation for this claim. Other claims are also unproven, which I'll bring up in detail sometime later on.

I don't base my certainty on unfounded belief, though you may think so.

As I said in another post - I think that only time will prove which side is right, once and for all. I do agree with you on this point - the next decade will really be something to look forward to.

I also hope it's a magnificent success. And this time, for real!

You see her is the problem. You claimed that this statement was evidence of your contention. However since it does NOT confirm your contention and relies on your intrepration it can not be considered evidence. You are using your opinion to try and back up your opinion.


I was hoping that you were smart enough not to fall in the conspiracy theorist normal argument of shouting "it's common sense", when failing to back up their argument with actual facts. The number of times you have used "common sense" and the total lack of evidence suggests that I may have over estimated you.

There is a reason why a trial jury is not told "go and deliberate on the case. Don't worry about the evidence, let your common sense guide you. There is a reason why scientists use evidence rather than common sense, it is because evidence points to the truth whilst "common sense" frequently doesn't. Common sense is a good thing to have but it loses out every time to FACT.


Opps, appealing to common sense again.

I get it perfectly, it is you that doesn't. Because no specific mission type is specified YOU CAN NOT apply the argument to any specific mission type. To do so as you have done is guess work. You simply can not apply your extrapolation on a statement and claim it as fact.



I'm sceptical of the fact that with so many different definitions to chose from you used only one and ignored all those that didn't support your case. This is dishonesty by omission. Does the phrase the truth THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth mean any thing to you? Ignoring that which disagrees with you is not the actions of someone searching for the real truth, it is the action of someone that has made up their mind and will not consider anything that differs with their opinion.


That's exactly what I though when you posted this:
You are living in a glass house turbonium, I suggest you put the stones down now.


The key word above is "culled". As usual taking onlt what agrees with you and rejecting what doesn't. It's a good job that you are not a research scientist because in that field such behaviour is considered fraudulent.


Are you claiming we know everything about the environment of low Earth orbit? There seem to be al lot of nations willing to spend a lot of money on researching an area that you seem to think we know everything about. And how does this fit in with you claim that NASA knows nothing of the Van Allen belts particularly given the fact that they did so low over the SAA?


You are going round in circles. The belts are known to be harmful. They have always been known to be harmful IF AN ASTRONAUT IS EXPOSED TO THEM FOR SUFFICIENT LENGTHS OF TIME. You have still not produce any evidence to support your contention that they are harmful in the short period of time that Apollo took to cross them.

Lets look at a possible scenario here.

NASA "claim" (I'll put claim in to keep both sides happy) that the are going to return men to the Moon. They are going to build a Moon base. They are going to go on to Mars. This will require regular manned flights through the Van Allen belts. So far (if Apollo is true) no human has made more than two trips through the Van Allen belts. But the effects of radiation are cumulative. It is perfectly with in the realms of believability that NASA had proven, by the late 60's that it was safe for Apollo crews to cross the Van Allen belts for their missions. It is also possible that NASA did not know how harmful REPEATED crossings would be. Things have changed in the world since 1969. Organisations in the developed world are expected to show a much greater duty of care for their employees. Is it unreasonable to believe that NASA may have good cause to re-examine the VABs to prevent astronauts receiving harmful doses of radiation after SEVERAL trips through them. Is it not reasonable to suppose that with only 9 missions passing through the VABs the probability of encountering one of your "unpredictable events" was fairly low, but with a sustained lunar programme this becomes a higher probability.

Now I am happy to admit this is all supposition on my part, but since you are offering up a contention you have the burden of proof to discount any alternatives to your contention.

In short, given my scenario above, is there any evidence to suggest that NASA's behaviour is inconsistent with them having landed men on the Moon and that they are planning to do so again?


But your whole argument centres on raised radiation levels = harmful = show stopper for Apollo. If you concede that it is safe for Astronauts to pass through regions of raised radiation (as you have just done) you render your entire argument null and void UNLESS you can produce the figures to show that the radiation flux is harmful to astronauts inside an Apollo capsule for the short passage through the VAB'S. Not one pro-hoax site has ever produced such figures and so far neither have you.


I am fully aware that satellites which orbit WITHIN the VABs for long periods of time are sometimes damaged as a result. This is not news. The point is that not all of them are (indeed most are not), nor are they rendered immediately useless by "massive radiation doses", nor are space craft which pass only briefly through the VABs on the outward journey damaged by them. This is actually evidence that supports the fact that a short passage through the VABs is unlikely to inflict harm. It is strong evidence AGAINST the case you are trying to make.


Not at all, as I said I like to deal in facts, all the facts not just the "convenient ones".



You seem to be saying this a lot recently.



The problem the rest of can see but you clearly can't is that you are building a case based solely on your opinions and interpretations never on actual evidence. In this case you have tried to back up one opinion by using a huge extrapolation of a single sentence. You are attempting to build a tall tower but you have never bothered laying any foundations.

As sunofone is fond of saying, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. As Lilly is fond of saying, "people are entitled to their own beliefs, they are not entitled to their own facts". You are entitled to "believe Apollo" is fake just as you are entitled to believe that there are pixies at the bottom of your garden if you so wish. What you need to come to terms with is that it is just a belief it is not supported by the evidence. It doesn't matter how many times you offer your opinion and interpretation of the data they will never magically transform into supporting evidence. You need to understand that you are not offering a scientific hypothesis here, you are offering a religion.

Hold on, now. You asked me....



I pointed out one of your own posted definitions - in full...

travel through (an unfamiliar area) in order to learn about it.

Here's another one I just noticed you posted - again, IN FULL...

2 : to travel over (new territory) for adventure or discovery

Who is behaving fraudulently?

Now, since I've used two of your own definiitions - in full - I'd like to know how they apply to LEO astronauts. "Unfamiliar territory", and "new territory".......

As for who "space explorers" refer to - that would include astronauts on lunar missions, Mars missions, and (to you) - LEO missions, to mention but a few of the possible missions.

That is all my argument requires.

Unless you can show why they are not, astronauts on lunar missions are space explorers.

I posted all the definitions including those that agree with you. I did not cherry pick.

You on the other hand reject those that disagree with you and concentrate on only thos that back you up. It is for precisely this reason that you will never be able to accept the evidence which overwhelmingly demonstrates your belief in the hoax myth to be wrong. You will just continue to do what you have done here, accept only that that disagrees with you and reject or ignore that which doesn't.

Explain how my approach is dishonest and yours is not?




Wrong again!

I do not doubt that lunar astronauts are space explorers nor have I ever said any such thing. What I have said is that you must show that this sentence SPECIFICALLY includes them.

You still have the full weight of the burden of proof. I need only cast doubt on your explanation for it to fail to be the evidence you claim it to be for your contention. If there are other possible explanations (which there certainly are) then you have not supported your claim. Can you, for example, discount the fact that NASA wants to protect space explorers from the VAB because they may wish to orbit an Orion vehicle within it at some future date. If you can not do this you simply can not make the claim that it MUST cover lunar missions. Non-specific is not the same as all encompassing no matter how many times you claim that it is. As space explorers can include any astronaut (unless you are going to ignore definitions of explore you don't like) then that claim is not specific. It may or may not include lunar missions. Since when has "may or may not" constituted evidence?

Your interpretation or my interpretation of what constitutes a space explorer is ultimately irrelevant, it is the interpretation of the person that wrote that article that is relevant. Unless you can show exactly what he meant then you fail on the burden of proof. You need to show that single sentence that you have put so much faith in actually supports you. As always you have singularly failed to do this, except to yourself (and possibly sunofone).

While it has been something of an entertaining read, is it just me who is amazed that this discussion of what a space explorer may or may not be has dragged on for the last 3 or 4 pages?

If either of you 2 guys manages to win this session of tautological gymnastics, fair play to you!

My contribution for what it's worth, consist of an analogy.

[Analogy]

"British Foreign Travellers" are people who leave the UK and travel to various countries around the world.

Scientists are developing a vaccine that will protect "British Foreign Travellers" from contracting a potentially fatal contagion prevalent in the Asian sub-continent.

Some "British Foreign Travellers" spent time in the Canadian Rockies last year."

Questions:

1. Are all "British Foreign Travellers" in danger of contagion?

2. Is it correct or incorrect to say that "British Foreign Travellers" may be in danger of contagion?

3. Is it correct or incorrect to refer to the people from Britain who visit Canada as "British Foreign Travellers"?

[/Analogy]

I hope that's all I need to say on the matter, so the analogy had better be clear!

Semantics, schmantics!

It will never happen I fear, nor is it actually my intention. I am simply trying to point out that a single sentence which is hugely open to interpretation can not be considered evidence to back up a supposition. Sadly I think the point I am trying to make has got lost in this sea of semantics.

I take your point though, it really is time to move on.

Hopefully Turbs will agree (on the moving on part anyway!) My personal opinion is that it's clutching at straws to try and make a case for that sentence being considered evidence against Apollo. I'll let Turbs have the last say on the matter!

Moving the discussion along slightly (I think this may have been touched on in an earlier post by you Waspie), I'd like to hear people's views on the possibility of privately funded flights around the moon. Specifically, if this does go ahead (and I don't know if anyone has stumped up the $100,000,000 asking price yet), would Turbs or any other Apollo naysayers be willing to admit that this is rather good evidence that the Van Allen belts aren't the showstopper many HBs claim them to be?

That being the case, what would the Apollo showstopper be, if it comes to be demonstrated that the VA belts are, after all, safely passable? Would it force a serious re-think of an HBs anti-Apollo stance? Or are there other reasons (and evidence) why the Apollo landings couldn't have happened?

I can see that the thread is now becoming a semantic contest!

We're in agreement regarding the term certainty. I'm wondering how we went that far with it.




I know this as well, and you've gone to extreme pains to point this out (p.s., I don't take it as an insult...).


I know you don't think it's knowledge based entirely on facts, and that you think there's only NASA's word for it.
One cannot replicate a lunar landing on Earth. One cannot pick up Moon rocks, gather soil samples, see the Earth above one's head, or land a vehicle on the Moon...on the Earth. You're right. Such experience is singular. You can only do it on the Moon. I have a difficult time seeing the point in the argument.

It was indeed "NASA's word"...a consistent word echoed by everyone from the design teams to the flight control teams to the management teams to the contractor teams to the astronuat corps who flew the missions...and communicated in great detail to the public who paid for it live. The claims (of which there were none...it was broadcast live for the world to see as a documentation of fact), are corroborated by the people who did the missions, by the people who watched them happen, and by the thousands of scientists who have studied, and are studying the Apollo samples, and the Apollo data from the lunar surface to this day.

You seek corroboration, and have suggested an independent observer might have proven it. Of course, that's been illustrated to be nonsense as well, because any independent observer would've ncessarily been NASA as well...trained by them, coached by them, etc...

You're weaving a circular loop of inadequacy here, Turb.

We accept that Lindburgh flew the Atlantic solo, yet there is nothing independent to substantiate that at all. Columbus' discoveries of 1492...even less.

Hell, we just concluded one of the most sucessful Shuttle flights ever seen today. But there's no one claiming a hoax about it. There is no independent corroboration that what we've seen for the past two weeks has been anything but a gigantic hoax.

What makes the Moon landings so impossible?

You have said the following:


And then you illustrate your position with this:



You see...moisture is not in any way required for a foot print to be impressed in soil...any soil. All that is necessary is for a mass to press into it, compressing particles. I have no idea where this moisture idea comes from. It is an unfounded, and fallacious belief.

The lunar soil characteristics were described and documented in intimate detail, and studied upon sample returns. We have substanbces of similar fine grained character on Earth that hold prints the very same way, for the very same reasons. This is not rocket science.


I think this idea is most certainly founded upon a lack of understanding and upon unfounded beliefs.



I don't know if anyone took the time to actually make footprints in the lunar soil either. I have no idea why anyone would do so. Holding some of it in a gloved hand and playing with it would be enough to substantiate its character. The footprints are not a phenomena that is very outlandish. It's well understood. There were alot more important studies of the material that were done, to be sure. No one was thinking, "Well, we'd better check this stuff out to see if the hundreds of pictures of footprints these guys took while on the Moon are possible!"




You keep using this term "claims", as if someone has to prove something.
What we did was document what we did. We didn't make claims. We showed very clearly what we did, how we did it, and we brought back material which has provided years of material for study and analysis. There was no claim here regarding going to the Moon. That was a given. We've been interested in what we can learn from it, not in proving we did it.


That is un-necessary. We did do it. It's established, incontrovertibly.


If anyone wants to argue that (and obviously, there are some these days), THEY HAVE TO ARGUE AND PROVE IT. No one in NASA has to prove they did it.



There are now only two sides to this issue:

The side that did it.
The side that thinks, for reasons still untenable, that it was all a fake.

One side is...the other side has been created by a select few people without knowledge, and is based upon an entire generation or more of folks who have little idea about the sciences and technology involved in the endeavor that took place decades ago, or, for that matter, the endeavor that is taking place as we speak.

What time will illustrate is that it was possible, it is possible, it is not a miracle, and that it all happened, just as we said it did.
The next decade will be something to look forward to indeed, but not because it will prove out Apollo, but because it will inspire young people to develop the inquisitiveness and the desire to learn the skills necessary to continue what was stared decades ago...in a very different time, long before HBs were even conceivable, when men walked on the Moon, and Americans did the extraordinary.


Hopefully, many international partners will be on board with us this time.

Another question I'd like to put to Turbs or any other Apollo doubters/fence-sitters/HBs, that I have asked another forum but not received any kind of satisfactory answer is this.

Why did the astronauts pencilled in for lunar landings, continue to train in the LLTV once they knew they would never actually be landing on the moon? The LLTV had a small but inherent danger associated with it (as Armstrong himself found out when it malfunctioned and he was forced to eject just a few tens of feet from disaster). That's an acceptable risk to a test pilot who is preparing to land a space-craft on the surface of the moon, but why would they risk their lives using this training vehicle, if they were to get absolutely no benefit from it?

because they were fooled into believing that what they were striving for was attainable

At what point in their training were the astronauts told they weren't going to the moon? Bear in mind that Apollo 8 flew around the moon in December 1968, Apollo 10 in May 1969. Cernan flew on Apollo 10 which also flew around the moon, and IIRC was the last astronaut to train in the LLTV 3 years later in 1972, prior to Apollo 17. I'm assuming you believe that Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 were faked and only flew in LEO? So why was Cernan risking his life in the LLTV 3 years later? This makes no sense to me if the moon landings were faked.

It makes a LOT of sense if the moon landings were real of course. Test pilots put their lives at risk every time they do a test-flight. The small risk while training in the LLTV was far outweighed by the experience they gained landing it, which they knew they would need when landing for real on the moon.

Your answer is a bit of a poor get out I'm afraid Suno!

Maybe because we're two stubborn old farts?



That's true, except for one critical difference. Unlike the (supposed) lunar landings, we didn't stop flying solo over the Atlantic after Lindy. And we didn't stop sailing across the Atlantic to the eastern shores of North America after 1492. Whether or not Lindy and Columbus were the first people to accomplish those feats is irrelevant to the issue. We have repeated the events ever since then, countless times. But we have not done so with the (supposed) lunar landings, which makes for a very important distinction.