Thanks for the flattering comments. We just happen to excel in different fields, as you are most certainly vastly more knowledgeable than I am in your field of expertise, which is obviously this one



Yes, I would tend to agree. The Apollo EMU is actually a small, overlooked wonder in itself. I must admit that I am guilty as well, as I never really dug into the technology behind it. I knew of it's capabilities, but time never really permitted me to go through it extensively. But then you served it on a silver platter for me, thanks

Best,
Badeskov

Wrong AGAIN!

The reason is that it's simply to small to be seen (even with hubble). It would be like trying to read a book that was 30 miles away with some binoculars! It can be shown that it can't be seen with a little maths:

Let's say the largest object on the moon was 5 metres in diameter, I picked 5 because it's a nice round number! The distance to the moon is roughly 384,000 kilometres.

Angular Size = 5 / 384,000,000 = 13 billionths of a Radian

To convert from from Radians to degrees:

In degrees = (1.3 x 10-8) x 180 / Pi = 750 billionths of a degree across

Ok, so we've obtained in degrees the area that we would have to look at to be able to see that particular object, now I will tie this into hubble.

Astronomers use 'arcseconds' instead of degrees. There are 3600 arc seconds in a degree. If we do the maths 750 billionths of a degree x 3600 we get around 0.0026 arc seconds, but because we approximated with the distance I'll round this upto 0.003 arcseconds.

So, I hear you ask? What can hubble see? Our eye can see 60 arcseconds, The best telescope on the ground can see objects 0.5 arcseconds in size, hubble can see more clearly, upto 0.05 arcseconds in size. That makes the moon landing equipment 18 times smaller than what hubble can see. Even if it was 18 times bigger it would resolve to one pixel, to put that in perspective you probably have about 800 thousand pixels on your monitor right now!

Now then, that isn't the only problem! The moon is moving across the sky at 0.5 arcseconds due to it's orbit around earth, you can probably see the problem all ready! It would be like trying to take a sharp picture of a train whizzing by!

It's amazing what a bit of knowledge in an area can lead to. I suggest you go and research and learn before making assumptions and posting blindly.

Whilst I can understand your frustration (been their, done that) please be careful how you express it, comments such as the one above are perilously close to flame-baiting.

Gav:

I think you may be completely overwhelming him with the math there, pal!!





Nice job....!


(p.s., how's the web page coming, any news of recent date?)

M~

My comments to you, Bade, are well deserved.
For my part...I'm just a dumb guy who didn't realize it couldn't be done!!!






It is indeed a wonder....

I think alot of people, including me, just assumed the suit would work. When I got into looking at the thing in detail, it was apparent that it was indeed a hell of a piece of work!




M~

Apologies Waspie old chap, I've edited out the comment (Ironicaly you've quoted it now though hehe)

Ta MID! Well what did I learn today? You must get all your information from Wikipedia if what that guy says is correct!!! As much as I'd love a Wiki with the extent of your knowledge on the moon landings the Wiki article barely scratches the surface!!!

Regarding the site development is currently paused at the minute, partially due to a massive project at work and partially due to my new girlfriend! Work will continue soon however, nearly finished the project!

Take care bud

I didn't think it was too bad, otherwise I would have edited it myself (had you actually called someone stupid that would have been a different matter). I really just wanted to flag it so as to drw attention to the limits. As you know, in the past the Moon hoax myth threads have got rather heated and ended up being closed, I don't want this one to go the same way.

postie - I have to admit that your revision made me smile, because it actually helps my argument. As I see it, your revised red arrows point to the left hand of the bearded man, and your yellow circles highlight the other man, to his left (or to the right side, as we view it).

You say I "can't prove that anything has moved in relation to" those two features. Well, that's simply not true. To start with, even one of your features itself has moved in each still. Note the feature you circled in yellow from stills 2 & 3, cropped and put side-by-side below...



Now, the proof of movement was shown in my original sequence...



As I said, two different reference sets prove there is movement...

- the distance change between the white object and the bottom edge of the black material (as indicated by the green lines)

- the distance change between the "metallic" end piece and the bottom edge (as indicated by the white lines)


The white object is indicated by the arrow as a static reference point....



If the movement in this sequence was due to camera movement (ie: camera tilt) then the reference point (white object) would not remain in the same location in the sequence! It would have stayed the same distance from the bottom edge of the black material in both frames...



The white object - which I've pointed out with red arrows - is seen in all four stills of the sequence, and does not change position relative to the lower edge of the black material.

That proves my argument for movement.

As promised, to another issue....

It is difficult or impossible to kneel when suited in the Apollo or EMU space suits with soft hip/thigh joints..

http://human.space.edu/old/docs/ICES01-216...t_enclosure.pdf


Subjects wearing the Mark III were able to kneel to pick up objects, a task which would be nearly impossible in either the Apollo A7L...



Now compare the modern spacesuit design above, to how much an Apollo astronaut was (apparently) able to bend his knees....




Once again, it seems we've regressed since Apollo. Either that, or the Apollo astronauts forgot to pressurize their suits!

Excuse me, turbonium, but you seem to have missed one of my posts. I'd really like to hear you explain why the Apollo 12 lunar module S-band steerable antenna appears in the TV pan if the camera was actually pointing "off-stage" at a studio full of people, monitors, and ineffective blinds:



As I posted earlier, the object shown in the top two frames is unmistakably the LM S-band steerable antenna. It is exactly the right shape, in exactly the right orientation, and in exactly the right position for a viewpoint near the LM MESA platform. The linear support under the dish antenna is even visible, as is a specular highlight off of the edge of the dish. The antenna appears to move relative to the plume deflector assembly because of parallax. Here's a crop from Hasselblad photo AS12-46-6725 showing the antenna, RCS plume deflector & struts, and descent stage insulation, all of which can be identified in the TV pan.

The Apollo videos are full of examples of the astronauts kneeling, I can show you photo after photo of them with dirty knees. Sometimes they got up with difficulty, but I have no idea why the writers of that article thought that kneeling was impossible in the Apollo suit. You should take that up with them.

As far as the EMU is concerned, it was designed to operate exclusively to operate in zero g, and I cannot think of any task in zero g where kneeling would be necessary. It would be a waste of money and resources to engineer kneeling capability in a suit where it would not be used. I don't see the lack of an unused capability as a regression. EMUs don't need to kneel. Making them able to kneel would be a waste.

The AMU, and its successor the MMU was developed from Gemini up through the Shuttle program. We don't use the MMU anymore. NASA decided that it was not suited for the tasks we are now performing in space, so it was dropped. Is that a regression? If a use comes up for it in the future, it will be reinstated, just as kneeling in spacesuits will be reinstated when we again use them on worlds with a gravity field, like the Moon or Mars.

And I get accused of seeing what I want to see? What you claim is an antenna is a white sheet connected to the other white material in the still below, with what looks like someone in a blue-green shirt, tugging his flesh-colored hands at it...



Your top two stills also show this, although the flesh colored hands are only seen in the upper right still. The shape in the top stills isn't even close to being round like the antenna - it's lumpy and irregular shaped.

Sorry, but I really find this unconvincing.

I was referring to the Mark III spacesuit designed in the 1990's specifically to improve mobility - look at my link in the post. The image shows how it's possible to kneel down with the Mark III spacesuit, but as I showed, the Apollo astronot is doing a full-flex kneel with a (supposedly) quite unflexible spacesuit from the 1960's.

So here we go again. They trumpet the new spacesuit as so flexible you can kneel down, just like the image shows. Which makes no sense, if the Apollo spacesuit was already so flexible you could do knee-bends that make the Mark III's knee-flex look like crap by comparison.

Exactly what was the range-of-motion supposed to be for knee joints of the pressurized Apollo spacesuits? Looks like it had just as full range-of-motion as someone in a track suit!!

Let's look at your two proofs of movement individually.

Firstly, the one indicated by green lines (the one with the GIF). You claim that the white line at the bottom of the frame is a real object, when clearly it is some kind of video artefact! It basically marks the edge of the screen itself, so you can not use it as a reference point for whatever else is in the frame! You can demonstrate this very easily indeed, becaseu this artefact is visible throughout the TV sequence itself, which is available online here. Here is another sequence of stills that shows the exact same phenomenon. The green arrows point out this video artefact that remains on the same horizontal plane, while clearly the camera is being moved. Do please check out the whole segment of video to prove it for yourself.



The same applies to your second proof, since you use the same video artefact as a reference point.

If that is your proof of movement then it falls flat on its face I'm afraid.

Perhaps you could actually post your link to the phrase and photo to the Mark III so I could study them in context?

The link you posted does not show the Mark III photo and the phrase,

Subjects wearing the Mark III were able to kneel to pick up objects, a task which would be nearly impossible in either the Apollo A7L...

I thought that I recognized this photo. I used the video clip that it came from in a discussion about the improbability of making lunar video using a wire harness because of the degrees of freedom of movement that were demonstrated, over at ApolloHoax. You can see the thread here:

How can a harness do this?

But that is another discussion. Turbonium, since you are a member over there, feel free to add to it, if you wish.

Here is the video link in question:

Charles Duke falls, Apollo 16

Before we proceed, let's go over the definition of kneel:

–verb (used without object)
1. to go down or rest on the knees or a knee.
–noun
2. the action or position of kneeling.

This is the most common definition of kneel, taken from Dictionary.com
and it is the one that is used in the pdf you linked, and the photo you show. By the way, Duke is not resting on the ground, but is at least a foot off of it, as the video shows.

In the video, Charles Duke is drilling a penetrometer probe into the lunar soil, knees barely bent, loses his balance, and falls to a prone position. He then pushes off the ground with his hands, bends his knees, and when he has rotated in mid leap uses the tendency of his suit's knee joints to straighten to spring himself upright. In the still you show, Duke is not "kneeling down", as you say, which is "going down or resting on the knees or a knee," but is instead coming up from a prone position.

This though, just explains what the still shows, and is beside the point. It is obvious that a spacesuit in that it is impossible to kneel is useless and potentially lethal for use in a gravity field, and examples that show that the Apollo suit could kneel are plentiful. It is also plentifully demonstrated that difficult does not mean impossible. To get to the Moon, the designers of the Apollo suit decided that "difficult was good enough" for the Lunar missions, since the expected surface EVA lifetime of the suit was on the order of three days.

The Mark III suit is being designed for longer surface stays, with accumulated surface EVAs measured in weeks if not months. For the comfort and safety of future astronauts (I can imagine that a suit that is so painful and difficult to use that it "blows out one's knees" on the Moon to be potentially life-threatening,) it was decided that "difficult" was not good enough, so the research to perfect planetary spacesuits goes on.

I don't see how this research is evidence of Apollo being hoaxed.

One other thing, about the EMU, which you mentioned. Do you not agree that what I said about engineering a capability into a suit (the ability to kneel) which would not be used being a waste of time and money?

If we're taking a vote on this, Turbo, count me in on the side that finds your interpretations to be the unconvincing ones.

I second that.

You're too sweet, Gav...

Wiki is not a bad place at all. But you can only go so far with something like Apollo in such a place, I should think. What they publish there is accurate, nonetheless...certainly better than any high school history text! Plus, they link to bunches of pertinent places where you can go to get detailed information and documentation.


Ah, yes...a new girlfriend can have a tendency to put lots of things on hold!!!

...massive projects at work notwithstanding...



I'll be looking forward to hearing from you!

M~

I don't think the issue is relevant to a Moon hoax.

The Apollo EMU was indeed capable of some fairly large motion ranges in the knees, elbows, shoulders, wrist, ankles and thigh joint areas and with the A7LB LM PGA, in the hips(because they had to sit to drive the LRV), and neck as well.


The construction of the Apollo suits was discussed at some length previously. They were designed so as to be able to articulate the way they obviously did. This is not to say that it was without effort, but it was certainly possible.

1) The "new" spacesuit has been abandoned for a soft-design.
2) The Apollo suit was not "already so flexible you could do knee bends that make the now obsolete MKIII's knee flex look like crap by comparison". You're exaggerating ever so slightly.

3) The Apollo suit had bendable joints which allowed one to bend at the knees...however, it was not anywhere so resistance free as the MKIII was.

The Apollo suit could bend. It did bend. There was a bit of resistance in the bend to be sure. However, it was functional enough to do the job at hand. The two suits are unrelated in the mission they are designed to do. One was designed for short term forays...up to three of them. In those latter missions, the men were tired when they were finished, and they worked their butts off. The new suit will be designed for much longer utility in much more extensive exploratory missions.

We are not resurrecting the perfectly adequate Apollo LM and CSM (adequate for their mission's goals), nor are we ressurecting the Saturn V in pursuit of Constellations goals (which are much different from those of Apollo). In similar fashion, we are not resurrecting the suit that was adequate for Apollo's EVA requirements for the Constellation program's requirements, as the latter will be quite a bit different and more advanced.


You proceed upon an erroneous assumption that the Apollo EMU was adequate for Apollo, and therefore must be adequate for Constellation...you also erroneously assume that it was effortless to move in an Apollo EMU. That is not the case.

No, you were a stubborn guy who refused to believe it couldn't be done - there is a difference

Best,
Badeskov

I anticipated this reply would come up. No, it's definitely not a video artifact. Look in particular at stills 3 and 4 in the sequence below....



Still 4, and especially still 3, show that this is indeed a white object, not a video artifact. It's in the same location in all four stills above.

Sorry to say, but it's your explanation that falls flat on its face. My proof of movement is completely valid.

Sorry, I forgot to add the link. It's here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_III_(space_suit)

I see. Well, the writer of that Wiki article was wrong, wasn't he? If you'd like to, you can correct it.

Edited to add: Never mind, I already did it.

What your red arrow is pointing at in frames 1 and 2 is definitely a video artefact, you can prove this to yourself quite simply by watching the video - you see the artefaction quite clearly.

You've identified different things in frames 3 and 4 and claimed them to be the same, thereby proving movement of the black material. Problem is, you've identified different features. Do you agree I've correctly identified features with (i) the yellow oval, and (ii) the green circle (the 2 features are different)? If not, why not?

? A foot off the ground? Not sure what your point is. But, no matter - it is irrelevant, since other video clips show them fully kneeling - and resting their knees on the ground - as proven in the next example...



Well, it's clearly demonstrated in the clip below that a deep knee bend is a piece of cake.....



"John comes to pick up Charlie's fallen sample collection bags and dispenser from the ground..."

Link to clip...

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1244130.mov

He easily drops down to the ground - fully bending his knees......and then, he is even able to bounce right back up, just as easily!!

So I found this "explanation" for John Young's amazing flexibility....

Young found that by hopping into the air and landing on his feet, the weight of his suit overcame the suit’s internal pressure, so he could get to his knees and pick up rocks without using geological tools.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/fact...dfs/EVACron.pdf (pg. 40 of 146)



This claim is ridiculous on so many levels. The least of which is that there is no "air" on the Moon!

What does the video clip show him doing? Does he actually hop into the "air" and land on his feet, as claimed? No. Watch the full clip. The most "hopping" (if you can even call it that) he does is when he's making his way down to the spot where the sample bag is! Then, after he turns about 90 degrees right, he just drops right down to the ground, in a full flex knee-bend! And then, in a fraction of a second, stands right back up again!

Young spends hours and hours in pre-flight training, learning how to safely and properly move and maneuver within a pressurized spacesuit on the lunar surface. Then, once he gets to the Moon, suddenly thinks to himself "Hmm. This really sucks. I can barely get down low enough to scoop up rocks. Maybe if I hop up into the 'air', then land on my feet, I'll be able to drop down to my knees!"

Teams of specialists spent years developing and testing the Apollo spacesuit, but until Young's brainstorm on the Moon, they had no idea how flexible the knee joints became if you just "hopped into the air" first!! PLEASE, THIS IS BEYOND LOONY!!

But let's say this preposterous claim was actually true (I'm being way beyond generous here).

That means Young is trying out a completely unknown, untested maneuver in a pressurized spacesuit, for the very first time - while he is on the Moon!

So what does Ground Control think? "Hey, that's a really neat trick John came up with there!" Riiiight.

His life depends on his spacesuit. So he suddenly decides to jump up and see if "the weight of his suit" can overcome "the suit’s internal pressure, so he could get to his knees and pick up rocks"?!?!?

THIS IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!!

Nobody thought of hopping up in a pressurized spacesuit, and it was perfectly safe to try it out for the first time on the Moon!!

I don't know if this is more funny or pathetic.

Are you claiming that the white object in your 3rd frame is a video artifact? I assume not, since you didn't put a yellow oval around it. So if not, then why is it in the exact shape and location of the "artifact" you circled in yellow? Because it isn't an artifact, but rather, because it is the very same white object seen in frame 3...

The first three frames in sequence - look where the white object is...



Now, with the 4th frame added, notice the white object is now further to the right - because the camera is panning to the left...



The white object is more and more to the right side in each progressive frame.

Since you have access to the Apollo videos, go study them. Astronauts have been hopping in them all the way back to Apollo 11.

BTW, I assume that this "hopping" post means that you have no more issues with kneeling?

Also, every time someone misspeaks and says "hopping or jumping in the 'air'" when referring to Lunar EVA activities are you going to jump down their throat with this "see! see! he said AIR" silliness? Egads, man, I have to keep from saying it myself in these posts! We still talk about "dialing" a phone when telephones haven't had dials in twenty years! Give language time to evolve, won't you?

I think you're getting yourself all het up over someone trying to describe in a few words what happened in reality, and crying "shennannigans!" if you see something you don't think is right. Look at the GIF. Young's right foot clearly takes a small "hop", "step", "pace" or whatever you want to call it, backwards, before he bends down onto his right knee. He's then able to spring back up, possibly aided by the pressure garment and low gravity.

As for for your "air" comment - come on Turbs! That's just a colloquialism, which sound more natural than "hop into the vaccuum". So what?



Well, I've never worn an Apollo space-suit on the moon, I'm assuming you haven't either. So neither of us knows by experience what it would be like, what the difficulties would be, what different methods could be used to overcome them. What we do have is video and documented evidence of what happened, so quite clearly he was indeed able to bend down on one knee. There are plenty of other instances of this happening too.



Well, maybe he just had enough faith in the design of the suit to be able to try that. After all, it doesn't exactly look like the death-defying stunt your rhetoric is painting it to be - he was trying to kneel down, not do a few back-flips! So he thought outside the box and came up with a new technique in situ. This happens all the time in the real world, why do you scoff at someone being inventive while on the moon? It's called "thinking on your feet" (or on your knees in this case!) What makes you think the astronauts couldn't kneel in the suit? They had to kneel down when they were manoeuvring out of the LM hatchway backwards - no huge risk involved there.

Turbs, you can use as much ridicule as you like, but you're just playing a guessing game. It's the old "If I ran the zoo" argument. Hey, if you were in charge of Apollo, maybe you could order all the astronauts not to do anything on the moon that hadn't been thoroughly tried, tested and evaluated in the lab. Maybe you would have told them not to jury rig a makeshift fender on the rover because they'd never done that on earth, and didn't know how it would affect the handling. Maybe you would have told Schmitt he couldn't throw his hammer at the end of the mission. Maybe Young wouldn't have been allowed to do the jump salute. Sometimes, you have to trust the guys in the field to know what they're doing.

Of course, your contradicts the one I've heard time and time again that the astronauts should have been able to leap 20 feet into the air and do back-flips. The lack of these acrobatics is used as proof that it was a hoax. Now you're using video evidence of someone kneeling down as proof of a hoax! It's a "head you win, tails I lose" conundrum for NASA.

Fortunately, you do link to the full clip, and that of course places everything in context.
It also clearly illustrates that you are again exaggerating, and making misstatements about what you're seeing.

Of course, Charlie had dropped his sample bag container, and was a wee perturbed because he had his hands full, and John, fully realizing Charlie's situation, said he'd get it and started over to Charlie. True enough.

However, you say he didn't hop.
You must watch carefully.

The dialougue clearly shows what John intends to do, and, the video clearly shows him doing it....

John approaches and says, "OK, move back and let me get it on the fly, Charlie."
The meaning of this is clear, and Charlie knows exactly what John's intention is, so , he dutifully backs off.
John is going to use his mass to assist in his drop.

He does exactly that. He gets where he's going, clearly yaws to his right, and both feet are "airborne". He then utlizes the acceleration downward, with his 360 pounds of mass backing it up, to "defeat the pressure in his suit" (explanation of that phrase to follow), which allows him to get down to the surface against the pressurization which, although the articularting joint allows full flexion, still has pressure in it which poses a resistance to such motion.

John's acceleration and mass allows him to descend realtively quickly, grab the container, and....the resistance to flexion provided by the pressure in the suit also enhances his ascent, and allows for a lot less muscular effort to get back up again.


On the fly meant, I'm doing this with momentum to make it a quick down and up...a commonly exhibited means of doing such a thing on the Moon, one which posed no hazard whatsoever, and in fact made things easier.

Defeating the pressure in the suit, which you term "ridiculous", is simple to understand.

The joints were designed to provide flexion. However, there was still pressure in them, and although the joint could flex, one still had to use a modicum of effort to move against the resistance provided by the pressure (you couldn't bend at all if an articulating joint wasn't integrated into the suit). An Apollo astronaut in EMU learned a whole slew of ways of moving and orienting his mass in order to translate about the surface. Bending down to pick up something with the hands on the ground was something that was done by squatting. One didn't just bend over, because the high center of mass would send one onto one's face. A modicum of vertical orientation in the upper body was necessary for balance.


Rather than position himself securely, balance himself, and squat against the force of the pressure, John elected to use simple physics (he wasn't an aeronautical engineeer and and astronaut because he was stupid). He didn't precisely "defeat" the pressure (that sounds fatal to me)...he defeated the resistance of the pressure by utilizing his mass via a little acceleration to help push him down. Amazingly enough, the pressure in the suit acted as a spring, which helped him to bounce right back up again with little effort.


This isn't ridiculous. It's a fact which was clearly illustrated by this video clip, and which was repeatedly illustrated on the surface of the Moon.


It's somewhat akin to having a little push to help one down against a resisting force, and on the return movement, a little like springing off a trampoline to help you back up again.


You act like no one in planning and design ever thought about this stuff, and that astronauts were just doing foolhardy things on a whim. They were not, of course.

The only think ridiculous about this is that the content of the video clip, and the dialogue attached, clearly illustrates what happened, and defeats your argument.



p.s., Turb,

Everyone knows there is no air on the Moon, or in space.
I have no idea why you dropped that comment about this in there...



...because you are fully aware (you must be) that "air" is a term used colloquially to describe "aloft". We still use "air to ground" to describe communications from space...although "space to ground" is also used nowadays as well. Old habits are hard to break...but whatever the case, there's no inference to shenanigans by the usage of this phraseology.

If proper terminology was even thought of, one would say that he hopped "into space", or, "off the surface". Whatever, the meaning is clear, and hopefully, you've noted that John was in fact "spaceborne" or "vaccum borne" (see why we say, airborne?) prior to flexing his knee and dropping to pick up the bag container.


I am now utterly amazed at the degree to which you emphasize things that are so obviously small and insignificant.
You talk about the use of the term "air", as if that's not something completely understood by every human being, and you fail to see that John Young was infact "airborne" prior to his drop in this clip. It's as clear as day.
On the other hand, you spend post after post seeing things in blobs of color on obscure video and insist that they're something tangible that anyone can see...when no one actually can!


Further, you resist presenting the other material that you've declared you have. To date, there has only been this matter of suits, which has been discussed before, so it isn't new.


Is there something else you question?

I'd say it's a small shuffle, but it's far from the hop into the air described by NASA in the document.



I know it's just a colloquialism, and I should have added a smiley at the end of my comment to convey my non-serious intent.



That's a very weak argument. All sorts of activities are known to be dangerous if proper procedures are not followed to the letter, whether one has personally done that activity or not. You don't take unnecessary risks when your life is on the line. As for spacesuits, it's well documented that one's life depends on following proper safety procedures. One article which notes this..

Precautions

During a spacewalk, all that stands between an astronaut and death is the space suit that provides the essentials of life—oxygen to breathe, atmospheric pressure and temperature control.

Not surprisingly, no one takes chances with the suit. Spacewalking astronauts move slowly and carefully as they go about their assigned tasks, taking care to avoid anything that could snag or tear the suits, which could result in a potentially fatal loss of pressurization.

In fact, every item they come in contact with has been carefully checked before launch to ensure there are no sharp edges or other hazards that could damage the suit.

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/missions/sts-100/caution.asp

And this is just referring to spacewalks. Astronauts on the lunar surface would face even greater hazards.

So Apollo astronauts go running and jumping all over a rough, uneven, and unpredictable terrain, like the lunar surface?!? Young propels himself into a full body weight knee landing?!? Aside from the danger of overpressurization in performing such a maneuver, there is also the very real danger of puncturing the spacesuit, with rocks or other sharp protrusions on the lunar surface.

This bears repeating....

"Not surprisingly, no one takes chances with the suit. Spacewalking astronauts move slowly and carefully as they go about their assigned tasks, taking care to avoid anything that could snag or tear the suits, which could result in a potentially fatal loss of pressurization."

Because in the case of Apollo, it would read like this...

Surprisingly, the Apollo astronauts take enormous chances with the suit. Moonwalking astronauts often move quickly and recklessly as they go about their assigned tasks, taking little or no care to avoid anything that could snag or tear the suits, which could result in a potentially fatal loss of pressurization



No, this is a faulty argument. Again, it's the video "evidence" itself which is the subject of my inquiry. You can't hold it up as evidence to support your case when it's the very same material being questioned!



"Being inventive"? Putting your life, the lives of others, and the entire mission, in danger - just to see if you can find an easier way to pick up a sample bag?!? Nonsense.

If he really was on the Moon, running and hopping around, and dropping down on the surface knees-first, he would - and should - have been considered a stupid fool. Indeed, his actions would, and should, have been considered needlessly reckless, and that he had endangered his own life, the lives of his crew, and placed the entire mission in peril. But apparently not. If anything, he should actually be applauded for his little trick!

In light of the fact that current spacewalking astronauts take no chances, and always make sure to move slowly and carefully, how can you possibly explain away the foolish antics of Apollo astronots?



Citing other examples of impromptu activity (purportedly done) on the Moon doesn't explain away or excuse (what would be considered as) the dangerous antics of Young, as seen in the video clip, among other reckless stunts done during the other Apollo missions.

"Sometimes, you have to trust the guys in the field to know what they're doing". First of all, I'd say that you'd have to trust them all of the time - if they're on the Moon, you don't exactly have any other choice, now do you? But, the key is to trust that they know what they're doing. They would and should have known that taking a flying leap and landing on your knees just might be the last thing you'd ever do in your life, right? A punctured spacesuit from a rock means a depressurized suit, and most likely, a quick death by suffocation.

It's hardly an "If I ran the zoo" argument.



There are several issues to consider here.

First of all, I would still like to know what the actual range-of-motion was for the pressurized Apollo spacesuits. So far, I haven't found any documentation for it. Specifically, I find it very hard to believe that someone could bend their knees just about as far as any non-suited person. I know there are original and replica Apollo spacesuits in existence. I'd really like to see how far someone can bend their knees in the pressurized suit!! I'd wager not nearly as far as the Apollo-nots supposedly did. At any rate, this issue is yet to be determined.

Second, there is the issue of reckless activity - from both a pro-hoax and anti-hoax argument...

Antihoax - it's beyond dispute (or it should be) that Young is needlessly putting his life, and possibly his crew, at risk in the video clip. He could have punctured his spacesuit with a rock, and suffocated to death.

Hoax - Young is not putting his life in any danger whatsoever, because he isn't on the Moon, he's right here on the Earth.

The anti-hoax supporters (and NASA) need to explain why they don't consider this to be reckless behavior. How would such antics not significantly increase the chances of a lethal spacesuit puncture??

Small shuffle, fine. Let's not argue over semantics! Lack of smiley forgiven



I think you're really over-exaggerating the danger here. Dropping down onto one knee, in a suit that clearly had the ability to do that. What danger of over-pressurization? You admit you have no knowledge of the range of motion of the pressurised spacesuit, so this is an argument from ignorance.



Flying leap onto his knees? A minute ago you desribed it as a small shuffle!



As explained by MID, the pressure garment was designed so that it was possible to bend joints. For example, the elbows and knees had a bellows-like configuration. Check this image out, which shows the pressure suit beneath the outer garment assembly. If you have no knowledge of the design of the suit, how can you use your lack of knowledge to make bold statements about how it functioned? By all means have your opinion, but it's not founded out of knowledge, so is nothing more than pure conjecture on your part.





Strawman argument! You're falsely representing my position to make it easier for you to knock down. YOU say it is beyond dispute that going down on one knee puts his life at risk, despite have admitted your limited knowledge of the suit, its design and range of motion. It doesn't behove me to prove that such antics don't increase the chance of a puncture. (Even if it did, that is still not evidence of a hoax!) No, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that bending down on one knee recklessly endangered his life. You haven't been able to demonstrate that, though your opinion that it is the case is well-documented in your posts. You also need to prove that Young knew this.

I'll hand you a tidbit if you think it strengthens your case though. I can think of one case where the astronauts did inadvertently put themselves at risk, although they didn't realised it until immediately afterwards. At the end of the third EVA on Apollo 16, Duke and Young tried some 4 foot high jumps. Duke lost his balance and fell backwards onto his PLSS, which could have had a much worse outcome. Evidence of a hoax? Well, if you consider someone "bending down on one knee" to be evidence, I suppose you'll consider this evidence too. My personal opinion (and that's all it is) is that you're really clutching at straws here. You say they wouldn't do something like that, the record shows otherwise. Your belief they wouldn't do that isn't evidence of a hoax. You'll probably argue that Duke and Young should have been reprimanded for their behaviour. Maybe they should have been. Maybe they were. Maybe they were cut a little slack given the nature of their mission. Maybe future astronauts were told not to risk a similar jump. (I like this speculation without evidence, you can prop up all kinds of arguments with it!)

First, I see that you're now calling the Apollo crews "astronots" and "Apollo-nots." This childish behavior doesn't reflect well on either you or your arguments. Please grow up and continue this discussion like an adult.

Second, I completely agree with the comments others have already made. You're claiming that the Apollo suits couldn't bend as seen in the EVA video and that John Young was being reckless, but you have no knowledge of either the hardware or the training. Your claims are based purely on your belief that this behavior must be impossible and/or dangerous, e.g.:

No data, just a firm, unyielding belief in an Apollo hoax ... as usual.

You've already been given good information on the suit design and operation, but here's an additional document you may want to take a look at:

Apollo 16 time and motion study, NASA-CR-128696, July 1972

NASA was, of course, well aware of the Apollo 16 crew's activity and, like everything else on Apollo, it was analyzed in minute detail and archived for posterity. Here's an excerpt regarding the kneeling pickup technique:

QUOTE(Apollo 16 time and motion study, NASA-CR-128696, pp. 36-38)

Section VII
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
A. HAMMER RETRIEVAL
Both crewmembers dropped the hammer (geology type) while driving double core tubes on EVA 2. (CDR at Station lO: core tubes #27 and #32; LMP at Station 8: core tubes #29 and #36). See Section V of this report for core tube driving analysis. The CDR was able to pick up the hammer (15 in. long, 3 lb. l-g wt., 0.5 lb. lunar wt.) from the lunar surface at the first attempt, while the LMP was not able to achieve this in four attempts. The latter retrieved the hammer by use of the tongs, and successfully continued driving the core tubes.

I. Suit Restraints - Analysis of the methods used and other factors involved in these hammer retrieval attempts are revealing in the insight they provide into performance of a task at the threshold of pressure-suited capability. The suit is the principal restraining factor in this activity from at least three aspects:

a. Vision. The helmet allows downward vision to about 6 inches in front of the subject when he is standing in a normal "erect" position. If the helmet visor assembly is at maximum opening, peripheral vision is not obstructed. A more serious obstruction to downward vision is the Hasselblad camera mounted on the RCU which restricts the crewman from viewing anything closer than 2 feet directly in front of him. Other angles of vision for various positions assumed by the crewman are affected by his positional attitude in leaning forward or to the side.

The CDR, in picking up the hammer, leaned forward up to 35° and to the right up to 40° in order to retain sight of the hammer as long as possible. The LMP leaned forward 17-23° , and to the right 25-30° maximum. The latter also started his retrieval attempts farther away from the hammer, 40-60 inches vs. 36 inches for the CDR. The LMP appeared to have his visor partially closed which would hamper side, especially side and down, vision. The reduced visual range of the LMP due to visor position and not leaning as far forward and to the right undoubtedly lessened his chances.

b. Flexibility. The picking up of an object the size and shape of the hammer requires the crewman to flex the suit at the knees and hips to the maximum. Both crewmen used the method of "crouching" on the right knee while extending the left leg and leaning to the right to reach the hammer lying on the surface. To achieve maximum flexure requires considerable force which is difficult to maintain. The CDR was able to attain the flexed position and reach the surface, while the LMP did not in at least two of the attempts. (It was not possible to see the LMP's right hand in all attempts.) The LMP used a jumping motion to gain downward momentum and facilitate flexure. Apparently the restraint of the suit was such that sufficient flexing could not be achieved.

It is not known whether such factors as the respective heights (CDR - 5 ft. 9 in.; LMP - 5 ft. ll-1/2 in.), suit fit, or other physical characteristics of the crewmen and/or their suits contributed to the results. However, when such a threshold activity (as this apparently was) is attempted, minor differences show up as important contributors to performance.

c. Conditioning. In a threshold activity, as previously mentioned, small differences are magnified in the performance. While precise data are not available, it has been established that the CDR spent considerable time in testing suit mobility and operational limits, and also trained in the KC-135 at 1/6-g in picking up objects. Included in these conditioning and training exercises were numerous performances of a retrieval such as hammer pickup. This experience was a positive factor in the successful retrieval on the lunar surface.

So, in actuality John Young (the CDR) did NOT just recklessly decide to try something new and dangerous on the moon. He had "spent considerable time" practicing this maneuver and others in the KC-135 prior to the flight. As you'd expect from a good engineer and test pilot, he knew the limits of his hardware very well long before he ever flew. This document goes on to analyze these kneeling maneuvers (and the occasional falls that resulted from a missed pickup) in great detail, but makes no mention of any safety hazard. On the contrary, the Recommendations section says this:

QUOTE(Apollo 16 time and motion study, NASA-CR-128696, pp. 44)

Section IX
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Since the method the astronauts utilized for object retrieval seems promising, a training program (KC-135) should be initiated for those astronauts of Apollo 17 who might be inclined to use it.

Hardly the recommendation one might expect regarding a foolish, risky maneuver, don't you think? Can we drop this now and move on to another issue?

Few people have spent so much time being wrong as turbo have. Tall me turbo,how many other CT do you believe in..??

turbo is no disciple of "blind faith" and does not accept authority as truth like you-- common sense,reason and the courage to speak truth to power is all i see-- how many deathes have there been in the shuttle missions? apollo was flawless when it comes to mission casualties but we never maintained a sustained campaign and yet we continue the shuttle mission to this day

Oh yes,here is the other conspiracy lover,sunofone. The irony of hearing you speak of common sense is overwelming.

And "accepting authority as truth" is exactly what this is all about for you and turbo,to slap the government in its lying face,right. It doesnt matter that a whole world of scientists tells you that this or that is real.You are right.You are smarter then them all. You have found the evidence.The smoking gun.You are important. The evil government is always lying,right!?

Tell me this sun,what would it take for you to accept the Apollo landings as reality?

Sadly, I think Gus Grissom, his crew and their families would disagree with your "flawless" statement. Lovell and his crew might have a thing to say about it too!

This is exactly what I mean,sun and turbo has NO clue about the Apollo program. As long as something comes tagged with a government conspiracy lable they happily jump on the train.

No proof will ever convince him. He is so far gone into this world that proof is not an issure anymore. Its become his faith.

All clutching at straws aside...do you remember seeing that?
I can tell you, it was fun for a minute. But it was a little tense for some folks...apparrently, pretty darn tense for Charlie!

I think there's a little exaggeration inserted in the accounts. Neither man actually got 4 feet up. It was more in the 2.5-3 foot range, which is still a hell of a jump with all that mass on you. Charlie started pitching up, which is one of those problems that can happen when you go vertical with the center of mass aft of the body's center line. I recall he actually tried to roll and got his right foot on the ground and sort of absorbed a bit of the impact, but nonetheless he went down on his PLSS.

John said, "Chaaarlie....that ain't any fun is it.." Charlie followed with, "That ain't very smart..."
The whole jump took about 4 seconds and was probably missed by most of the folks watching. Although it took John about another 10 seconds to help Charlie up.

I imagine it was discussed in debriefs, and I'm certain that Gene and Jack (AS-17) absolutely knew about it and weren't about to try it, but I think reprimands were not on the table because Charlie was a professional and he fully realized his mistake.

What was seen here was a mistake which certainly might have been alot worse than it was. Damage to the PLSS was the immediate concern in Charlie and John's mind. It's evidence of humans doing something human on the Moon. Doing that and landing on the PLSS was a concern. Going down on a knee wasn't.

DEBUNKER, if you have anything to post that actually contributes to the debate please feel free to do so, if you are just going to make personal attacks I suggest you stop now.

No, they could see the terrain very clearly. It was not unpredictable. It was understood and obvious to them, and had several inches of "fluff" covering the substrate.
As I said, Young did not "propel himself into a full body weight knee landing". He used a mass assisted "push" down to a light contact with the surface, a tried and true technique for making it a little easier.

How real is this danger of puncturing the suit you speak of in the situation described? You seem to think that it was very easy to puncture an Apollo EVA suit, and compromise the pressure garment? Perhaps you don't remember the discussions of the construction of these suits, and the level of protection the provided?

And what about "overprerssurization?
Is it that you think that a suit which was designed to be able to flex the joints as illustrated, would exceed the design loads of the pressure garment when so flexed???

...the joint flexion changed little regarding the volume of gas in the PGA, but did displace some of the gas within the joints, and no significant pressure change was observable form this planned type of flexion.


The suit was designed for a nominal pressure of 3.85 psi +/- 0.15 psi. It also had a pressure relief valve located on the right thigh to relive overpressure condition in excess of 5 to 5.75 psi. and which would close when 4.6 psi was re-established. We never got that high to my knowledge, ever.




I already explained to you (and not alone, I might add), that no such risk was taken in this action. It was practiced, and typically done.




I think this has been done.


I think what you do not realize is that the Apollo suit (specifically, the J-suit, or A7LB), consisted of tear and puncture resistent outer teflon fabric layer which was pretty darn sturdy and heavy weight (alot was required to get through that). Beneath that was the flame impingement layer of teflon coated yarn beta cloth, and beneath that were 6 layers of alternating beta cloth and gridded aluminized kapton, then 10 alternating layers of dacron and aluminized mylar....and then a rubber coated nylon micrometeoroid layer...and then...

...you finally got to the 5 layer integrated torso limb suit, which you'd have to get through, after all that other stuff, to actually relieve suit pressure.


This was a mighty hefty garment. You'd have a hard time actually puncturing it all the way through to the pinner pressure bladder layer.


No overt risk was taken doing something that had been practiced, and well within the limits of the suit...

It's always, it seems, that those people who actually know something are grouped into categories such as "those bl