But don't ask Bush!

No, it would not have been viewed as violating their oath to go along with a hoax. It was done to deceive their Cold War enemy, just like the Star Wars program - it was puffed up by our government in the 1980's. Propaganda, as I said, has been used for centuries by governments during international disputes, conflicts and wars. It's not considered treasonous, it's a common tactic / strategy.



That's not how it would have been viewed by the astronauts, as I've already pointed out - they were trying to achieve something. How would it have looked if they didn't do any training before showing the world the astounding success of Apollo 11? Would NASA boast "We didn't need to train our astronauts before they flew the lander onto the Moon perfectly!"

Why would you assume they'd only go along with a hoax if the biggest risk they would have to take was convincing everyone by answering questions at a press conference afterwards, or something along those lines?

The achievement was not in doing it for real, it was in making the world think it was done for real.

How do you know how the astronauts would view it? Are you a psychologist or maybe a mind reader?

This is just more waffle, opinion and speculation. I'm getting bored of saying this, but do you actually have any evidence for anything you claim?

There are lots of things that governments spend millions studying. Just because they are trying to find out more about some phenomenon doesn't mean that all previous use of that phenomenon is dubious.

There are lots of aerodynamicists studying turbulent airflow, but that doesn't mean aircraft are faked.

Maybe not, but you did say:(Emphasis yours).
Hence my contention that you are mistaking not knowing everything with knowing nothing.

Another sentence that starts "I do believe", another argument that is just your opinion and not supported by this huge amount of evidence you claim to base your beliefs on.

You say this a lot. When are you going to post some evidence that does?

No we do not know this for a fact. We know they are being studied to protect future space explorers, the term "unpredictably dangerous for safe manned flight" is yours not NASAs.

There is no task so safe that it can't be made safer. Many organisations continue to study the oceans to protect mariners, that does not mean the oceans are too dangerous to cross. Yet again yo can not differentiate your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves. It is up to you to prove that you interpretation is correct (that inconvenient burden of proof thing again).


Yet another claim that contains "may have". Yet more supposition without evidence to support it.

The key words here are "virtually all". the fact remains that the Apllo spacecraft were observed by non-NASA astronomers from around the world, the Lunar samples have been analysed by non-NASA scientists from around the world. The laser reflectors left on the Moon have been used by non-NASA astronomers from around the world, the Apollo transmissions were listened to be amateur radio-hams form around the world. Your argument that NASA controlled everything is, like the rest of your claims, an opinion unsupported by fact.


Yes, because you ignore the evidence that shows you are wrong. You simply dismiss all the non-NASA evidence.

Irrelevant, the Soviet Union had been sending spacecraft through the Van Allen Belts since the late 1950's, if the figures were false they would have been aware. It doesn't matter what the original source was, the fact remains that the figures in a contemporary Soviet publication are in agreement with those published by NASA. Why would they publish figures which you claim are lies in order to support the false claims of their avowed enemy?

You are jumping to some huse conclusions here without first checking to find out the facts.
Remember this is a translation and as with all translations terms do not always translate exactly. I also pointed out that I did not quote the entire entry, here is a sentence I did not include:

The entry also contains a table giving electron and proton densities and energies for the inner and outer "zones". Hence we can see that the term "radiation belt" is used to describe the entire region, the individual belts are referred to as "zones".

Well you could have asked rather than jumping to conclusions.

Wrong, as shown above. You could have saved yourself the trouble of looking silly simply by asking for clarification rather than leaping to huge conclusions and making unfounded accusations.

I see these kinds of statements all the time and still, after everything that's been said, we see the phrase, "...they flew the lander onto the Moon perfectly."

What makes you, or any other HB who has utilized such a phrase before, think that there was something "perfect" about the landing of Apollo 11?
What makes you think things weren't a bit off-nominal from the start of PDI, and continued that way through powered descent, right through the overflow alarms, and Mr. Armstrong's manual take over and looooooong final phase where everyone's heart rate shot up to about 3 times the normal level???

It was perfect for certain values of the word perfect.

An interesting perspective, and I should think true.

I think you're absolutely correct about Korolev's position.

Regarding the Moon, ditto there. Kennedy, upon the advice of his technical experts, decided on that bold stroke because he thought Americans could do it, despite the relative outlandishness of the idea at first glance. Politics being what it was (and is in many respects still), once the Soviets put Sputnik up, there was a space race. The U.S. was behind, and would remain so until around 1965. The Moon was a U.S. instituted aspect of the race, and with the know how of the people we had, and the fact that they were made totally responsible for it, it had a chance. The Soviets didn't initially seem to respond at all, although they were doing so...perhaps not as half heartedly as under governmental and military pressure to press beyond the limits of reasonability (late entry, non-technically educated and un-associated people running it...Politburo pressing at every turn....it was bound to fail in disaster)

If there weren't any Communist / Democratic politics happening...if there wasn't a Cold War, yes, perhaps the Soviets would've followed the logical path, and the Americans...well, who knows?

It's probably moot anyway, since politics and national presitige and the fight between Communism and Democracy was at the forefront of everything, and we were engaged in a war of sorts...

Korolev's logical progression never had a chance given the political climate.


And God, how President Reagan struggled to get Freedom on the books! That man was an avid space exploration fan, and if he could've, he'd have re-instituted lunar exploration. It took him a very long time, and a hell-of-a fight to get Freedom to be accepted.

And that of course became the ISS. Personally, I think it's better for the partnership of the Russians, and the other nations that have put so much talent into it.

Yes...sure.

The implication here is that Neil Armstrong flew his LM to the Lunar surface as if he'd done it a hundred times before. Everything followed the plans explicitly, the trajectory was dead on track, the landing was exactly where it was supposed to be, executed with the nominal planned fuel consumption, and there was no difficulty whatsoever in the process.


NOTHING could be farther from the truth.


It was perfect in this respect:

The goal was to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth.
That, we did.


But if there was anything else "perfect" about the endeavor, I'd love to know what that may have been...

Of course that's only my opinion. Isn't that obvious enough, just from what I said? Or do you take every sentence I write as a claim of fact, no matter what it is, unless I specifically say "In my opinion..." or "I think..." within every sentence written from my personal viewpoint??

My reply was to what postbaguk wrote here....

"ALL the astronauts who flew in the LLTV must have knowingly put themselves at risk, for no benefit, if the hoax claims are true....Yes they were test pilots and knew the risks they faced, but they took those risks knowing they were trying to achieve something. Flying the LLTV would achieve little if it wasn't part of a genuine training programme."

Now, I could have totally misinterpreted what postbaguk was saying, and replied with....

"How do you know how the astronauts would view it? Are you a psychologist or maybe a mind reader?"

But I clearly understood that all of this was just postbaguk's opinion.

You're really sinking to petty, one-sided nitpicking.

Actually, I disagree with the proposition that the US "... picked a race they knew they could and almost certainly would win...".

IMO, they chose the Moon because it "leveled the playing field" between them, negating many of the USSR's advantages.

My own take on that sentence would be: "...picked a race they knew there was a good possibility of winning..."

Really now, MID. You must know very well that my point has nothing to do with how much time passed before transatlantic non-stop flight began to be done "on a reasonable scale", or how long it took after 1492 before "regular ships...began sailing" to North America!!

Yes, MID, and being well aware of what I meant, it seems you've tried to slip in a revised comparison. But, MID, you've got to be kidding yourself to think that I wouldn't catch on to it. You've insulted my intelligence, old friend.

Ah, well. Let's look at your comparisons....

LINDBERGH

"Transatlantic non-stop flight on a reasonable scale began some almost 30 years...after Lindbergh.."

Clarence Chamberlin...made the second non-stop flight across the Atlantic two weeks after Lindbergh..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh

And Amelia Earhart became the first woman to fly non-stop across the Atlantic in 1932, only five years after Lindy.

COLUMBUS

First of all, there is conclusive evidence that the Vikings landed in North America over 500 years before Columbus sailed off in 1492!

John Cabot sailed to Canada in 1497, just five years after Columbus.

You need no links from me to validate those two points, I assume!


The Lindbergh flight is great for showing how aviation milestones (both pilot and aircraft) have been achieved, and steadily progressed, over the years since 1927....

Soon after Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic, other pilots looked to other oceans to traverse. The Pacific Ocean became the next logical and major challenge. Just a little more than a year after Lindbergh's flight, on June 10, 1928, Australian aviators Charles Kingsford-Smith ("Smithy") and Charles T. P. Ulm landed in Brisbane, Australia, having become the first pilots to fly across the Pacific. Their record-setting feat, like Lindbergh's, would inspire many aviators.

Jean Gardner Batten, a New Zealand woman, was one of the people particularly inspired by both Lindbergh and Smithy. Determined to become a record-setting aviator, she obtained her pilot's license in England, and soon after established a solo flight record, flying from England to Australia in 14 days, 22 hours, 30 minutes. The following year, on November 11, 1935, she set another record, the best flight time from England to South America. Braving extremely hazardous weather over the South Atlantic, Batten succeeded in flying the approximately 5,000 mile in just a little over 61 hours.

http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/aviation/pioneers.htm

The magnificent progress made in aviation through the last century, stands out in stark contrast to the historical progression/regression of the space program(s).

To compare the time it will take to "return" to the Moon - 52 years in-between (1972-2020)....After Lindy's flight in 1927, we would not have flown solo over the Atlantic again until 1979! But even that is being generous. Unlike the Apollo missions, the "return" to the Moon will not even be non-stop!

Apollo astronauts (supposedly) travelled well over 1000 times further out from the Earth than any astronaut has ever travelled out since then. So consider how that would have looked in aviation history.... The distance of Lindbergh's solo flight in 1927 was about 3610 miles. Then, for at least the next 52 years, the furthest distance for a solo flight...... would be about 4 miles out!!

I know - it's supposedly because of "heavier payloads", and "longer missions", etc. this time around.

But consider how utterly ridiculous those kinds of answers would sound, if we applied them to the historical progress of aviation, and to man's exploration of the Earth.

As I said, you can leave footprints in sand, if enough moisture is present - even in moist coarse grained sand.

Fine dirt can indeed take prints very cleary - but only if those fine dirt particles also have cohesion and moisture. This describes what I mean, in more detail...

Fossilized footprints such as these are formed under a fairly narrow set of conditions. An animal heavy enough to form an impression must walk slowly across sediments that are fine-grained, cohesive, and moist. If the sediments are too coarse, the footprints will lack detail. If the sediments are not cohesive, only a depression and not a footprint will be left behind (like walking on the dry part of a beach). If the sediments are cohesive but strong enough to bear the weight of the animal, no impression will be made.

Moisture is usually the controlling factor. It may give some cohesion to a material that is not otherwise cohesive. For example, a detailed footprint can be made in the moist sand at a beach, whereas wet or dry sand lacks cohesion and hence the strength to retain the impression of the foot.

http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/wv/features/tracks/

Cohesion of soil is a function of moisture content and it also may increase as fine soil particles fill voids between larger particles.

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/pub...CR/ne_rp629.pdf (pg.3 of 10)



http://books.google.com/books?id=sWN-i5BSk...8Nav1tbEREhAsLI
(pg. 97)

MID - you are referring to fine-grained dirt on Earth, which can leave footprints- if it has the moisture / cohesion it requires, in order to make distinct footprint impressions possible.

What you refer to as "compression" is...

Compression -- The process which damages soil around infrastructures called compaction starts with soil compressibility or loss of soil volume. Soil compression leads to a loss of total pore space and aeration pore space, and a increase in capillary pore space. In other words, large air-filled pore spaces are crushed leading to more small water-filled pores. Compression is most prevalent in soils under wet conditions.

http://www.forestry.iastate.edu/ext/roadsi...t/for00-003.pdf

Compaction....

Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are pressed together, reducing pore space between them (Figure 1). Heavily compacted soils contain few large pores and have a reduced rate of both water infiltration and drainage from the compacted layer. This occurs because large pores are the most effective in moving water through the soil when it is saturated. In addition, the exchange of gases slows down in compacted soils, causing an increase in the likelihood of aeration-related problems. Finally, while soil compaction increases soil strength-the ability of soil to resist being moved by an applied force-a compacted soil also means that roots must exert greater force to penetrate the compacted layer.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/...1.html#section1

So how does soil compression relate to soil compaction?....

SOIL COMPACTION. Compaction of the soil is caused as a result of the mechanical compression of the soil profile (particularly at the surface) by vehicles and heavy equipment and pedestrians.

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/include/downlo...10_v20Jul06.pdf

________________________________________________________________________________
________________


Even NASA agreed with me, in that soil cohesion is due to moisture on Earth ....

J. D. Halajian at Grumman Aircraft had conducted a study to try to explain the behavior of dust as a cohesive soil on the moon when it should have behaved as a cohesionless soil since no moisture is present on the moon's surface. It is well known that moisture is required on earth for fine-grained soil to exhibit the very complex physicochemical soil mechanics phenomenon known as cohesion. Since apparent cohesion was detected during Surveyor missions and confirmed during Apollo missions, there was obviously another explanation.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/19720007590_1972007590.pdf (pg.7 pf 33)

There was much speculation as to the most probable cause of the apparent cohesion of lunar soil, as reported by the astronauts. On earth, clay does not exhibit cohesion unless it has moisture present. In the reduced pressure of the moon, there was no possibility of there being any moisture, yet the soil exhibited apparent cohesion. Why? Vacuum conditions on the moon seem to cause all surface impurities on the individual soil grains to "boil off" leaving a "clean body." This clean body effect is what seems to cause the apparent cohesion.

Early in the Apollo program a team of soils engineers and geologists had been appointed to evaluate lunar soil data and develop criteria which would allow the manufacture of lunar soil simulants on earth using terrestial materials which would most closely duplicate lunar soils. They established five such lunar soil simulants. The LSS which most closely duplicated expected soil conditions at the Apollo 15 site was LSS-4. In Table 1 of this report will be found the characteristics of LSS-4.

TABLE 1
SOIL MECHANICS CHARACTERISTICS OF LUNAR SOIL SIMULANT(LSS) 4
Official Name: Lunar Soil Simulant 4
Parent Rock Source: Basalt Rock Company_Napa, California
Specific Gravity of Solids: 2.85
Dry Density: 1.5 g/cc
Secant Friction Angle: 38.5 °
Cohesion: Trench, 0,II psi; Bevameter, 0.12 nsi
Grain Size Distribution: D60 = 0.19 mm
DIO = 0o0065
Cu = 29.3
Distribution Classification: Well-Graded
Color: CementGray
Manufacturer and Test Laboratory: U.S. Corps of Engineers Waterways Exoeriment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi

This was worth repeating....

Early in the Apollo program a team of soils engineers and geologists had been appointed to evaluate lunar soil data and develop criteria which would allow the manufacture of lunar soil simulants on earth using terrestial materials which would most closely duplicate lunar soils.

!!??!?

They again point out that "terrestrial simulants" were used for the lunar soil analysis and results...

A new step in the study of lunar soil occurred with the landing of unmanned spacecrafts on the lunar surface. The information acquired during these missions provided us with a true picture of the properties of lunar soil. Based on those experiments, new models of lunar soil were developed, and also closest analogues of terrestrial soil were selected. Fresh igneous deposits in the vicinity of intensive volcanic activity proved to be quite good terrestrial simulates of lunar soil

Noticeable imprints in the soil can only occur if the average particle size is significantly smaller then the parts of the wheel that are is contact with the soil.
When all of those factors were considered, it was concluded that the in situ soil is similar to a category of dusty sands and is subject to considerable packing under the impact of natural factors of the near-Moon space and the processes of the lunar surface formation.

The main factors that controls the mechanical properties of soil in situ is its degree of packing, characterized by its void ratio. The void ratio for soil in situ was determined on the basis of experimental measurements of bearing capacity versus. void ratio made on terrestrial simulants chosen according to the results of studying the physical and mechanical properties of lunar soil samples delivered to Earth. On the lunar surface a void ratio of 0.8-1.0 is most frequently encountered.

http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/phmp-ls.doc

So, the scientists weren't even allowed to directly analyze any of the actual lunar soil!! Despite all the soil samples (supposedly) collected by Apollo astronauts, etc., NASA just gave them "lunar soil data" to work with - to create simulants!!

That is absolutely ridiculous!

The paper above does not explain what creates the cohesion in the "terrestrial simulants" they analysed. The previous source I cited put it this way...

Vacuum conditions on the moon seem to cause all surface impurities on the individual soil grains to "boil off" leaving a "clean body."This clean body effect is what seems to cause the apparent cohesion.

Wow. Sure sounds to me like they've got it all figured out!

That "seems" to be what "seems to cause" the "apparent" cohesion. A "clean body effect"!

Why didn't NASA allow the scientists to directly study any of the genuine lunar soil?

What NASA essentially said to the scientists was "We've already done the direct analysis of genuine lunar soil - here's our data. We want you guys to help us create "terrestrial simulants" from that data, and then study the properties of genuine lunar soil with the fake stuff!"

The lunar soil has zero moisture. The astronauts would not be able to leave deep, very distinct, footprint impressions on the lunar surface. Nor would the lunar rover leave deep, very distinct, tire track impressions on the lunar surface. Compaction (compression) of fine soil particles that lack any moisture are not cohesive, and will not stick together to leave distinct impressions.

I don't find their explanation(s) for lunar surface footprints the least bit convincing. Heck, they don't sound the least bit convinced of it themselves!

I said that several issues have not been explained convincingly by pro-Apollo people. Like the footprints.

I've read one site contend that it's because the particles are rough-edged, and are able to "latch" onto each other.

I've read MID's posts, where he contends that fine soil particles don't need any moisture to leave footprints - either here on Earth, or on the Moon. The particles just need to be "compressed".

I've posted the official sources, which suggest that the "apparent cohesion" that the lunar soil "seems" to have, "seems" to be due to a "clean body effect".

Three different answers, from three different Apollo supporters. And none of them substantiated.

If NASA doesn't need to prove anything, (as MID puts it), then it's obviously not because they've already proven everything.

No, they also said "the electrons of the outer belt.." Hence we can see that you've made a faulty conclusion.

clearly!....difficult it must be for those that choose authority over truth

What makes you think the answers are mutually contradictory? The first two seem pretty much the same to me and the third could be an additional factor working in conjunction with the roughness effect.

When I started hearing/reading about the conspiracies. And hearing how they "faked" it.

Revised comparisons? Hardly.


We landed on the Moon in July 1969.
We also did it 4 months later, and 5 more times we went to the Moon in the next 3 years.
That's as regular as any ships sailing to North America were after Columbus...save one thing...going to the Moon involved just a little more.
It's also as regular as the attmepts made to cross the atlantic post-Lindbergh.

Obviously, the colonizations and advanced exploration of the new world took a long time to actually begin after the intitial forays, and trans-atlantic transportation was decades away from Lindbergh.

I think you understand the point completely, but you are seeking an argument.
There is none.





There is a slight difference between aviation and space flight, Turb...comparing the two, and the amount of time between forays is ridiculous. Going to the Moon required the concerted effort of a government and 400,000 people in hundreds of industries to accomplish. Flying across the Atlantic reqired a man with a mono plane, guts and skill, a manufacturer, and enough fuel.




Apples to oranges, and you must realize this. The Moon is not on Earth...



Your point in this argument was to state that it was untenable that it will take roughly 50 years to go back to the Moon. I merely pointed out to you that it's a paradigm of discovery that has repeated itself in many an exploratory event.

If you want to nit-pick about things like subsequent flights across the Atlantic by others following Lindbergh, that's irrelevent, as we did the same thing subsequent to first going to the Moon (9 flights in a 4 year span). I think you know full well what I'm talking about...


And whatever the case may be, none of that has anything to do with showing that Apollo was fake.
Further, no one's insulting your intelligence. You are the one who maintains that Apollo was a fake. While that in itself is not necessarily indicative of a lack of intelligence, it is always indicative of a lack of knowledge in the subject matter. Arguing circularly about irrelevancies is not addressing your burden of proof.


To wit, you take the time to point out that the Vikings may have discovered America 500 years prior to Columbus' adventure. So what? Everyone knows about that, I should think. It means nothing, save that it may mean that it took 5 centuries for someone else to repeat the process! It's irrelevant to the point, which is, that in human endeavor, there is always a demonstrable gap between intital discovery and utilization.

Quite frankly, I think, as do most who were involved, that 4 decades is far too long to resume lunar exploration. It means nothing relative to the accomplishments of Apollo, which, as has been pointed out, was a series of 27 manned spaceflights spanning a period of 11 years.


We did it then, and we'll do it again. The reasons for the delay are well understood.

Once again, in the absence of evidence, turboniun is reduced to petty semantics. Anything to avoid actually answering a direct question when the facts are inconvineint.

The point remains that you based a huge amount of conclusions on an interpretation of an article which you have not read in it's entirety.

Let's phrase it this way and see if we can agree on this: where the specifically differentiates between the inner and outer Van Allen Belts IT SEEMS to refer to them as zones. Happy with that?

The fact remains that when referring to the Van Allen Belts in their entirety it refers to them as "the radiation belt of Earth", so in the sentence you have so much problem with, the most likely explanation is that they are referring to the Van Allen Belts in their entirety.

Leaving the semantics aside, the question, which you have avoid like the plague still remains, the Soviet Union had independently studied the Van Allen Belts. The figures in a contemporary Soviet publication are compatible with NASA's figures and certainly not compatible with you assertion that the Van Allen Belts are too dangerous to cross. If NASA was lying as you claim why did America's biggest enemy go along with the lie?

And more difficult still it must be for those that chose paranoia over evidence.

Are you going to contribute any evidence to support your version of "the truth" sunofone or are you incapable of distinguishing belief from evidence?

Whilst turbonium may (in my opinion) be a bit light in the evidence stakes he at least understand the argument he is involved in. I have seen no evidence that this is the case with you. I just see you jumping on a bandwagon because you have never met a conspiracy theory you didn't like.

So it is put up or shut up time. Debate the subject as turbonium does or stay out. Either way quite making the inane 1 line junk posts.

Who do you think generated the lunar soil data? Might it have been the scientists who really did directly analyze the actual lunar soil? Lunar soil simulants are required because engineers need large quantities of stuff that behaves in a way that mimics real lunar regolith. There's no need to destroy large quantities of priceless lunar samples just to test an LRV wheel, for example. And heck, in this case there wouldn't have been nearly enough actual lunar material available even if they'd wanted to use the real stuff. Here's a description of the test fixture from the LRV wheel study you quoted:

QUOTE(A STUDY AND ANALYSIS OF THE MSFC LUNAR ROVING VEHICLE DUST PROFILE TEST PROGRAM, pg. 4)

The test fixture consists of a circular bed eight feet in diameter. On the bed is a soil trough 22 3/4 inches wide with a track diameter of five feet, two inches. Located at the center of the bed is a vertical shaft which supports a horizontal arm with the LRV wheel, suspension system, and drive motor at its outer end.

On page 5, the report states that the trough was filled with simulant to a depth of 10.5 inches. If we assume that the 62 inch track diameter is at the center of the 22.75 inch wide trough, we get a trough outer radius of 42.4 inches and an inner radius of 19.6 inches. That represents a total trough surface area of 4441 in². Multiplying by a depth of 10.5 inches, we get a total simulant volume of 46,630 in³ (764,129 cm³). The report states that the LSS-4 simulant dry density is 1.5 g/cc, giving a total simulant mass for this experiment of 1146 kg (2527 lb.). That's about three times more material than the total amount of lunar samples returned by ALL of the Apollo missions. So, it's not really surprising that they used a simulant now, is it?


Perhaps if you had chosen to quote your references a bit more completely, the answer would have been clear. Here are two sections from the LRV wheel study you quoted in your post. I've added in blue portions of the text you chose not to quote:

QUOTE(A STUDY AND ANALYSIS OF THE MSFC LUNAR ROVING VEHICLE DUST PROFILE TEST PROGRAM, pp. 1-2)

J. D. Halajian at Grumman Aircraft had conducted a study to try to explain the behavior of dust as a cohesive soil on the moon when it should have behaved as a cohesionless soil since no moisture is present on the moon's surface. It is well known that moisture is required on earth for fine-grained soil to exhibit the very complex physicochemical soil mechanics phenomenon known as cohesion. Since apparent cohesion was detected during Surveyor missions and confirmed during Apollo missions, there was obviously another explanation. J. D. Halajian hypothesized that under reduced pressure and high heat, the surface of the individual dust particles would be "boiled clean" of impurities and, thus, exhibit the so-called "clean body" effect. He was able to verify this hypothesis experimentally in the laboratory.

I see that you chose not to quote the line stating that "he was able to verify this hypothesis experimentally in the laboratory."

QUOTE(A STUDY AND ANALYSIS OF THE MSFC LUNAR ROVING VEHICLE DUST PROFILE TEST PROGRAM, pg. 20)

There is virtually nothing in the literature concerning the behavior of soil in a reduced pressure environment. There was much speculation as to the most probable cause of the apparent cohesion of lunar soil, as reported by the astronauts. On earth, clay does not exhibit cohesion unless it has moisture present. In the reduced pressure of the moon, there was no possibility of there being any moisture, yet the soil exhibited apparent cohesion. Why? Vacuum conditions on the moon seem to cause all surface impurities on the individual soil grains to "boil off" leaving a "clean body." This clean body effect is what seems to cause the apparent cohesion. At the start of this test program a vacuum of several tors had been planned. Due to flight limitations this had to be abandoned and a pressure of 2-5 mm of mercury was the best that could be hoped for. This does not nearly approach hard vacuum conditions even though over 99 per cent of the air is evacuated. It was found that during the test program, whenever the pressure was less than 5 mm Hg, the LSS started to exhibit apparent cohesion. "Clumps" of LSS would be thrown up by the wheel and remain as a coherent mass until it struck some solid object, such as the chamber wall. It would then splatter upon impact. A lot of these clumps would stick to the sides of the chamber.

And again, I see that you chose not to quote the remainder of the paragraph where the report clearly states that the simulant material became cohesive in a near-vacuum.




So, you don't believe that the dry lunar regolith will retain footprints or tracks? Then how do you account for the Surveyor data and photographs? Surveyor clearly showed that the lunar soil was cohesive. Here are some photos and quotes from NASA SP-168, "Exploring Space with a Camera."

QUOTE(NASA SP-168)

This photograph was transmitted from the Moon by Surveyor III on April 26, 1967. The circular impression was made by one of the three footpads on the last bounce of a three-bounce landing. The surface impression at bottom left was made by the 'scooper,' a digging device shown in an extended position here. These surface impressions appear similar to those that might be made in damp, finegrained soil on Earth.
We know, of course, that the lunar surface cannot be damp, because of the near-vacuum conditions there. But the results of the scooper's experiments, as viewed through Surveyor III's camera, together with other measurements made by the spacecraft, indicate that the Moon's surface does indeed have a consistency similar to that of damp, fine-grained terrestrial soil.


The dark, longitudinal area seen in the photograph at bottom right," explained MAURICE C. CLARY, Lunar and Planetary instruments Section, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, "is a furrow in the lunar surface that resulted from a single trenching operation...."

You've stated previously that you believe the Surveyor program was authentic:

QUOTE(turbonium @ Aug 2 2007, 12:20 AM)

The Surveyor landers were genuine. The technology behind them was, and still is, authentic. And that's why the engineers of today have been able to use the Surveyor engine for the development of advanced variants.

If Surveyor really did land on the moon, then how do you reconcile the Surveyor data and photos showing cohesive lunar soil with your claim that the lunar soil CAN'T be cohesive?

And what about Mars? The soil there is dry, too, and yet the landers and rovers which have visited the planet have also found cohesive soil which easily retains well-defined tracks. Take a look at this photo from the Opportunity rover (link to full-size original):

The dry Martian soil certainly seems capable of retaining tracks, unless of course, you believe the Mars missions are faked, too.

You're all over the place here.
Moisture is present on Earth, not on the Moon. It has been repeatedly stated that materials like corn starch and powdered graphite exhibit similar cohesive characteristics to the regolith. You can duplicate the footprints in either of those substances any time you want.




Your arguments above are based upon the linked NASA study that was a report of the behavior of dust in 1/6 G conditions, regarding the design of the LRV wheels and the dust throw patterns that could be expected. It says nothing about the astronauts not being able to leave footprints in the lunar soil, as they already had been observed to do so. At the time of this document (1970), we were just investigating lunar soil characteristics and attempting to explain the observations!


That's called science. We were also planning ther LRV for use on the J-Missions and wanted to understand how dust would behave (not sand, dust) given the LRV wheel structure. We needed to determine what the best design was to minimize what were deemed potential hazards to visibility of the astronauts, obscuration of forward visibility, degradation or damage to instruments, and possible injury to astronauts from flying pebbles or rocks.

You sit there and make statements like this:




Without understanding that WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING CLOSE TO ENOUGH REGOLITH TO USE IN THE TESTS!!!
They wanted to make something to simulate it. We only had Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 material, which didn't include alot of dust (and we weren't about to allow precious lunar dust to be used in the back end of a KC-135 in 1/6 g testing so we could see how it sprayed around in a vacuum chamber when a wheel's rolling it it...christ Turb!).


From, Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials, Recommendations for Standardization, Production, and Usage (December 2005, Marshall Space Flight Center):


"Researchers entering the field of space exploration who are unfamiliar with the nature of the lunar samples typically wonder why these materials are not made available for testing purposes. Quite simply, the lunar sample inventory is priceless, and only limited quantities are made available to well planned research. The lunar samples are not avaialable for indiscriminant destructive testing."




Of course the scientists were studying the dust, but we had precious little to use in full scale testing of LRV wheels and fenders structures.

Do you have any idea what you're looking at here?




The "paper above" was an engineering discussion whose purpose was not to determine what caused the lunar soil to be as cohesive as it was. It was merely stating theory as of 1970...MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST LUNAR MISSIONS HAD RETURNED THEIR PHOTOS AND SAMPLES.

You're citing a 37 year old technical study paper on the design of LRV wheels to substantiate that we don't know why the lunar soil is like it is.


This is utterly ridiculous. Of course "almost no information was available on the behavior of dust in a vacuum environment," of course "no studies had been made of the behavior of dust under reduced gravity". It was 1970. We also didn't understand the nature of regolith in 1970.


And of course, as the introduction to this report said, "Since apparent cohesion was detected during Surveyor missions and CONFIRMED during Apollo missions (11 and 12), THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY ANOTHER EXPLANATION.


You want to argue that the fact that a Grumman Aircraft employee proposed the "clean body effect" in 1970 as a possible explanation constitutes some sort of evidence that :





It did in 1970. It was an hypothesis about an observation...the first step in the scientific method.



It's 2007 now,Turb. Things have changed a little. There are literally thousands of research papers available since 1970 on lunar soil properties.

And, without understanding, you say....



The simulants were designed for the tests outlined in the paper you cited! We didn't have enough to do such tests!

You make everything sound like a damned conspiracy, when there are logical and completely reasonable reasons for EVERYTHING involving Apollo. It's becoming ridiculous now.


We are still researching making lunar soil simulants in order to aid in research for the future lunar missons. It is estimated, as of 2005, that we will require between 275,000 and 550,000 pounds of this stuff in the next years to do lunar surface research.




When the lunar soil was minimal in quantity, unavailable for such studies, and needed years of analysis to determine its characteristics????


Again, you are grasping at straws.
The Apollo lunar soil is well understood, and is still being investigated.



You really need to research the matter a bit more fully before you come to conclusions based upon 35 year old material.

Pericynthion...


I see you too actually read the paper and realize what it's talking about (well, that's probably stupid of me...of course you would understand what it's actually talking about!!)...


Sorry Pal...I was probably in the midst of posting when you made your post!
Me thinks I may have repeated some of what you'd already said....

Again, and as has been said before, Thanks for the "contributions".

Why do you bother here? You present nothing that contributes whatsoever to the discussion at hand.

MoonPrincess...

Really, you should not simply listen to people spewing things.
"How they faked it" is impossible, and is the realm of those who have little idea of what they're talking about.

The conspiracies regarding Apollo are the product of a certain mindset that has arisen in a minority of people in the decades since Apollo, and "how they faked it" constitutes a complete lack of knowledge into what was done and how it was done, combined with a certain amount of intellectual laziness that prohibits people from actually researching things before they declare knowledge about them.

This thread (if it would get back on track) is about providing that knowledge.

You are welcome to ask anything you'd like!

Heh heh. While I was typing, I was thinking there would be a good chance that YOU'D get a post in before I finished composing mine. But hey, at least in my line of work getting the same answer from two independent sources is generally considered a good thing!

No, they aren't the same at all. There are three different explanations for what (purportedly) makes the lunar soil cohesive enough to leave footprints. The first is from the Clavius website...

But lunar soil has no wind or water to erode it at the microscopic level, and so it retains those sharp edges that allow each particle to "catch" its neighbor and display the remarkable cohesion we can observe.

http://www.clavius.org/envsoil.html

MID's claim is that lunar soil is very fine, and when compressed, that is all that is required to leave footprints, just like on Earth.

And the third - from NASA - is that the particles are so clean in the lunar environment, that they become cohesive. They called this the "clean body effect".

That makes three different explanations - from three different sources - for the (supposed) lunar soil cohesiveness (ie: what allows lunar surface footprints) .

No, the first two are just different ways of saying: it coheres because that is what fine powders with rough-shaped grains do on earth. I see no reason why the extra effect in the third explanation cannot operate at the same time given lunar conditions. An extra effect is not the same thing as an inconsistency.

I'm referring to the Apollo missions as a whole. Since 1972, no attempt has been made by any nation to (supposedly) send manned missions to the Moon. Unlike flying across the Atlantic solo, or sailing from Europe to North America, there wasn't a 50 year gap (minimum) before others duplicated the feat.

How long was the gap between the first two expeditions to the South Pole and the third? How long since the yet-to-be-repeated Trieste expedition to the deepest part of the ocean? How long is the gap going to be between Concorde and the next supersonic trans-Atlantic airliner?

If you're going to argue that something is unprecedented, you need to show that it actually is.

There are significant differences among all sectors of science/technology, MID. Computers, aviation, medical devices, robotics, communications, rocketry, etc. - the differences between them are often quite considerable.

But those industries are often inter-connected. The aviation industry quickly incorporates the latest technology - computers, communications, and so on, as it has developed over the years and decades. And so do all the other industries - except, it seems, in the field of manned lunar space exploration, where (apparently) it all came to a virtual standstill after Apollo.

Hundreds of thousands of people were involved in the development of the atomic bomb, in a concerted effort - and it was much more critical to develop than Apollo was. But they didn't stop making more A-bombs afterwards. Nor did they stop developing even deadlier bombs.

No industry - except in the field of manned space exploration - have our accomplishments actually regressed, let alone remained stagnant. Unmanned space exploration has continually progressed over the decades, like the other industries have. But not manned space exploration. It stands alone, even within its own field, as a massive blemish on human progress and achievement.

There are no excuses for it. The only reason it looks to have gone backwards is because the claimed successes of Apollo were fabricated.

I said..

No, they also said "the electrons of the outer belt.."



You claimed that they referred to the inner and outer belts as zones, and that they said belt only in reference to both belts together. So I pointed out that they referred to it as the outer belt, not the outer zone.

Instead of simply accepting your mistake, you try and twist it around by accusing me of being "reduced to petty semantics". You are the one who brought up the notion that each belt (inner and outer) is always referred to as a"zone" in the first place!!

You obviously have a great deal of difficulty in admitting when you are wrong about something.



How am I supposed to agree on that, when you know I haven't even read anything from the book, except for the small snippets that you've posted? And saying "it seems" isn't going to clearly define what they mean, anyway.



"Most likely" is just personal speculation. After so many posts where you claim I'm just giving my opinion, you do the very same thing you accuse me of doing.



Another question that can only be speculated on, and it isn't really relevant to the issue of a hoax, anyway. Let's say that it was proven, beyond the slightest doubt, that Apollo was a hoax. We'd still be unable to answer your question. But so what? It would still not be relevant to our determining that Apollo was a hoax (which is the issue).

It is certainly arguable whether the Shuttle represents a regression - as shown a few pages back, it was originally envisaged that it would be able to support continued lunar missions, but the required upper stage was never funded. It is certainly a far better vehicle for servicing a space station than Apollo was for Skylab.

However, your argument about other industries does not stand up, either. Look at Concorde for a start. When was the last time a new passenger ship beat the trans-Atlantic speed record? How long did hot-air balloons stagnate as a technology? Different times develop different aspects of technology, and you cannot pick one aspect that is no longer developed as an indication that other aspects have not improved.

MID said that the soil is extremely fine grained and that it's crystaline structure allows it to adhere to itself.

Dr. Windley explained at Clavius the why of that crystaline structure.

NASA's 35 year old report proposed an hypothesis to explain what was recently observed about the soil samples returned from the Moon, and what was observed is precisely what I said, and what Dr. Windley said.

It's all the same thing.

Yes, indeed it is a good thing. We like to have that sort of stuff happening.
But here, I fear it may be valueless to have two independed sources...or even four for that matter!

I guess you missed it:

We duplicated the feat, 4 months after we first did it. We did it 4 more times after that, in the next three years before we had to quit.

I was referring to the use of something after the period of initial discovery or accomplishment, which I made very clear.

Flying solo across the atlantic to the point of regular, commercial trans-atlantic flight.
Sailing across the oceans and discovering the Americas to the point of colonizing the Americas...

Decades elapsed in the first case. A century plus elapsed in the second.

Again, there is nothing strange about a delay in going back to the Moon and establishing a presence there. The mechanics are well understood, and the specific reasons are obvious.



p.s., no other nation has attmpted it because no other nation had the resources or the will to attempt it.

We know that. And, we know exactly why it happened as it did. It has nothing to do with other industries incorporating technological advances. It has to do with the fact that (again...) for completely understood reasons, we haven't been allowed to go back.





And the development of a weapon is related to going to the Moon how?



You're going to hammer these irrelevancies until you come up with some compelling reason why Apollo was faked, aren't you?

When we're not actually doing any manned planetary exploration, how can the industry regress (actually), when the industry hasn't existed up until 2004?! How can our accomplishments of Apollo do anything but stand as they are when we have no further programs that are allowable?

I fail to see the point, or the relevancy, for there has been no regression. It's impossible to regress when you haven't been permitted to do anything along those lines since 1972.

Society...being something ongoing, of course, has in many, many respects, regressed, despite the vast influx of technology that was spawned directly from aerospace. That regression is one of the reasons we see beliefs taking the place of knowledge, and vast CTs springing up all over the place, etc., etc. It's also a primary reason why we haven't been allowed to resume planetary exploration with men, and why many people believe Apollo was a hoax.

The fact that we haven't been allowed to do manned planetary exploration since 1972 stands not as a blemish upon an industry that was dismantled, but as a blemish on those who dismantled it...the society and it's short sighted leadership.

And, there are really no excuses for that.

But there are well understood reasons for it. To make the statement like "the only reason it looks to have gone backward is because the claimed successes of Apollo were fabricated" is to illustrate a lengthy stretch of the imagination, and most certainly a complete lack of understanding of why Apollo was stopped, and by whom, and for what reason it was stopped.

Nothing went backwards. It stopped. We know exactly why, and it had nothing to do with the untenable notion, spawned in the decades since, that the program was faked.

Now, we do have a manned planetary exploration industry again, thanks to President Bush (the first President since Kennedy (other than Reagan) who pressed for manned space exploration, and got it (How he did that should be the subject of a book in itself))!

What you will see is a pickup of the programs again, only this time, we'll be using highly advanced systems and technologies developed on the manned and un-manned space programs in the decades since.

The people have the program in their hands. The people are the reason why we haven't set men on the Moon since 1972, and if they elect the wrong people to the White House and Congress in subsequent administrations, they will again be the reason for stagnation in the endeavor.

That will be their fault, just as it has been for 35 years...not the manned space exploration industry's.

Ok, flyingswan already summed up very nicely why these explanations aren't inconsistent, but your whole argument here is completely irrelevant. You're claiming that the Apollo photographs are anomalous because they show detailed footprints -- footprints which shouldn't be there because the lunar soil shouldn't be cohesive enough to allow this. There is an abundance of evidence from multiple sources which shows very clearly that the lunar soil is indeed cohesive and does retain detailed tracks and prints. For our purposes here, it doesn't really matter why it behaves this way. It can be clearly shown that it does behave this way and that the Apollo photos and data are perfectly consistent with all other lunar photos and data.

Just so we're clear, here's a quote from your original post which started this whole discussion:

QUOTE(turbonium @ Aug 21 2007, 05:16 AM)

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.

You've asked for independent validation of the Apollo footprint photos using actual lunar material. Allow me to provide you with some:

Surveyor I lander -- United States, 1966


Surveyor III lander -- United States, 1967


Surveyor VII lander -- United States, 1968


Lunokhod-1 rover -- Soviet Union, 1970-1971




Lunokhod-2 rover -- Soviet Union, 1973



Apollo 15 photo for comparison (AS15-82-11057)



References
Lunokhod Program (Wikipedia)
Soviet Moon Images
NASA SP-168 "Exploring Space with a Camera"


All of these photos show a fine-grained lunar soil which clearly retains detailed tracks and prints. If your claim is correct, then ALL of these images must be fake. You've previously stated that you believe the Surveyor hardware is authentic. Do you believe the Soviet Lunakhod rovers are authentic, too, or is all of this somehow one large, elaborate hoax?

That's pretty good stuff, Pericynthion!

Thanks for those photos and discussion...makes it a wee bit difficult to discount the observastions, I should say...


I'd add this one (AS11-40-5877)




A picture taken by Buzz Aldrin at 110:25 on Apollo 11...specifically for study by soil mechanics experts...


Please don't tell me all these photos are fakes!

OH MID, MID, MID, don't you know the hoax believers will always try to discount all credible evidence?

Anyone want to start a sweepstakes on how much handwaving and semantics turbonium will be involved in without ever actually answering a direct question?

I'll ask you again turbonium, why did the Soviet Union never contradict the USA's figures on the Van Allen Belts? Please don't keep running away and claiming it irrelevant, it is YOUR contention that NASA faked these figures. If you start claiming that your own argument is irrelevant you have no argument and a high proportion of your posts are just a waste of everyone's time.

Yea...I know. They've been doing it for years now.
I guess I'm a glutton for punishment!

the technology of the day was to say the least small, so i have a hard time understanding how man actually stood on the moon, too many factors get pushed sideways on nearly all forum sites talking of the moon missions. most moon based forums like to use official nasa data as the be all to end all data, why? nasa have prooved over the years they are not to be trusted.
i would love to believe that man as been there, but why not since the 70's? this alone makes me wonder. the chinese are going next year, is it worth anything to anyone? if so why hasn't nasa been back sooner with all there experts, and why not the russians either. they only just managed to get a robot to mars, or did they?

Concorde, Jumbo, SR-71, X-15, Harrier, some have never been surpassed, others only recently - the 1960s was a golden age of aerospace engineering.

Check the tracking reports from Australia, Russia, amateurs around the world. Check all the geologists worldwide who have examined the moon rocks. The Apollo evidence is by no means limited to NASA.

Read this thread.