It may be the language problem, but I am having great difficulty understanding your arguments. Why can't you track Apollo? Didn't the Russians track their own lunar spacecraft? While communications are not my speciality, I am an engineer and the details of the tracking system made sense to me. Are you saying that it is impossible for a Russian to be called Molotov? Wasn't there a prominent Russian politican with just that name?

I don't see that any of this refutes my argument. You were bending the statistics and the true ones don't support your original position.

Now I am an engineer, and I understand what is difficult to do and what isn't, so you will have to do better than this. Why is lift-off so difficult? Didn't the unmanned Russian Luna probes return from the moon with no problems, though several of them had problems getting there.

The Shuttle never killed anyone until it had flown a lot more missions that Apollo did.

And you still haven't said what substance could plausibly be present and a danger.

Moon rocks have been described in peer-reviewed scientific papers. Try doing a bit of research instead of making these unfounded accusations. The Lunar Science Conferences are a good starting point.

Indeed, Obviousman.
NASA studies all kinds of things...even those things that are probably unfeasible.

The poster was referring to a shuttle being used to go to the Moon, and of course I went all the way to the Moon and described simplistically, the problems.

That study concerned using the OV as a delivery system for lunar orbital payloads...in a time when they were trying anything they could muster to figure out ways to use what they had at their disposal.
It outlines the dificulties and feasibility of using the Orbiter as a trans-lunar vehicle and LO delivery vehicle.

...no one would ever consider analysing using the OV as a landing vehicle...that, would be funny! )

The fact that it was revealed that 712mt of cryo would have to be delivered to the ET in orbit (that's 234,000 pounds) in order to get the total payload and spacecraft out there...in order to deliver a 10,000 pound payload (which is about 2% of the payload mass the thing would have to deliver in order to be "efficient").


Thus...they termed it a "poor vehicle for payload delivery missions in lunar orbit". This of course is an understatement if one takes time to read the particulars of the analysis. And I tend to use much more simplistic terms to explain things to folks, like:



That's about right, actually.




...which is stated in the report as follows:

"...due to the TPS limitations the Orbiter cannot make an Apollo-style direct entry upon Eartn return. Therefore an EOI maneuver is necessary to brake the spacecraft into the desired LEO. This is a serious handicapo as the impulse needed is about the same as for TLI!"

Anyway...yes, the idea was studied...16 years ago. And of course, that study, diligently done, has been filed away for a long time, and shows that we ain't doin' it!

If you think that's bunk, then you have no idea about reality.

NASA has always wanted another "moon shot", as you say. In fact, "Ronnie" was a staunch supporter of space exploration.
However, what you do not seem to understand is that "Ronnie" didn't have absolute control over the purse strings (President's don't...try to remember your Government classes (I have no idea what they call Civics and stuff like that anymore...or if they even teach about that stuff)).

The Congress has control of the appropriations. "Ronnie's" Congress wouldn't have it, so it didn't happen.

That is the way it was...and it is.

That's the reason why the U.S. hasn't gone back. As to China, Russia, and Korea (?), they never had the capability in the first place.

Swanny...

As an engineeer, I also should think you're having a devil of a time understanding what that meant!

I think he's referring to boarding a vehicle and leaving the lunar surface. You seem to think so too...although honestly it's difficult to understand what

...and.......means.





However, up to a certain point, I think I understand this.



I think he's an HB, and he believes that simulators didn't prepare anyone for the real thing. Thus, we couldn't have done it.

The SIMS were pretty good, all the way around (people with brains devised these systems...folks like YOU!). And of course we have the LLTVs and LLRVs...designed by people similarly smart.

The premise of this thing was logical and sort of simple....

How do we make a flying machine that's gonna simulate how a LM will handle in 1/6 g?

Well, let's make a deal that's kinda like a LM...then let's simulate 1/6g by putting a set of jets on it with a constant thrust of 83% of the thing's weight. That'll simulate the gravity, right? Yea! Then, we'll slap another engine on it that'll let it go up and down. That's the ticket. Then, we've gotta simulate the RCS, so lets slap another set of jets on it that'll allow us to pitch, yaw and roill around, while these other engines are running.


Know what? We oughta theoretically have something that'll behave like a LM probably will!

They were right...despite the fact that the piece of genius was a bleeding train wreck that looked like a broken steam engine when it was operating.

...there's a reason the astronauts were adamant about not scrapping that thing...despite the fact that sometimes it had a propensity to crap out.

Of course, the lunar crews all commented that their LLTV time had been of great benefit, since it did in fact simulate terminal phase handling of the LM very well.


I wonder if you can explain to this fellow what simulators actually did, how they did it, and the minds that thought up this stuff...


You've got your hands full, me thinks!

Go gently with this guy's English people. I'm guessing he's doing a lot better than most of us would do on a Russian speaking board.

If you are having trouble understanding what Rusich is trying to say then asking him politely to rephrase it,

... i'm wondering, if this guy's english is that bad how's he managing to understand anything you're writing?

...but he does have some awesome points...

No he doesn't. He has the same old tired points that have been shown to be false time and time again. His English is poor, his understanding of Apollo is nonexistent.

Let's look at the logic of his "awsome points" shall we? He is claiming that the Saturn V was not powerful enough for the job. He has produced not one single piece of evidence t back up his claim, hence his "awsome point" is just personal opinion. When it was pointed out to him that there are thousands of experts in the world that could determine whether the Saturn V was capable of doing what NASA claimed his reply (if I understood it) was that NASA were clever enough to produce a paper design that would have the claimed capabilities.

If this "awsome point" contained a single piece of common sense it would be obvious that if a design can be producd on paper which will work then their is no reason why you can't build the actual thing that will work.

The Saturn V was not some revolutionary piece of equipment, it was much the same as the rockets that went before it only bigger.

Being able to understand another language comes first. Being able to readily use (written or spoken) another language comes later on. This is something I'm quite certain of, I teach English as a Second Language. So, I'd say understanding what's being written is somewhat easier for Mr. Rusich then composing a rebuttal in English. What to do about this issue...just keep plugging away on both sides (trust me, I do this all the time).

Or the russians and chinese know the craft will burn up going thru the belt...

Well as they are both now attempting to place men on the Moon themselves they have a strange way of showing it.

Besides which even the "real" hoax believers have enough knowledge to not make themselves look really sillly by using expressions like "craft will burn up" when talking about the Van Allen Belts as even they have enough sense to try and pretend they know what the are talking about.

what expression would I use?....this is the first time i've been flame baited by a mod...good work keep it up...the russians and chinese talk about going to the moon and thats all it is...talk...the US doesnt even talk about going back...I know they are strapped for cash...thats why they spend billions on mars....

How is it flame baiting to point out that someone doesn't know what they are talking about? The fact you have to ask what expression you should use rather confirms I am right.

Craft do not burn up passing through the Van Allen belts, even the hoax believers can understand this. You do realise that those telecommunications satellites the beam TV into your house and telephone calls around the world are 22,500 miles up and have passed through the Van Allen Belts don't you? Maybe you don't.

Honestly, it really does help matters to understand the subject one is talking about. I'm not flaming here, but the Van Allen Belts simply do not "burn up spacecraft". To say such is rather silly. See this question and answer session from Caltech. The author sums things up quite nicely:

ok I guess i dont know what im talking about...the physics of a large manned craft are the same as a small satellite or probe I guess?..and not one human from any country has passed thru the belt in almost 40 years because?....oh ya lack of funding....

They sure are. Why would they be different?

Now the point that the Moon Hoax believers wrongly make is that the human occupants would not survive the radiation. This claim is only made by those who don't realise that there are different types of radiation and that radiation exposure is dependent on time exposed as well as the strength of the radiation. If they did understand this they would be able to understand why they can't find a single expert on the Van Allen belts that will back up their claims.

Actually, yes. They are identical. Can you demonstrate that they are not?

As to funding, I can post article after article and editorial after editorial decrying even the thought of returning to the Moon by writers and Congresscritters for the entire 40 year period as a waste of money. If the people that control the pursestrings aren't convinced, we ain't going.


It's somewhat of a miracle that the current RTTM proposal is going as well as it is. As I have said before, it is dependent on the Space Shuttle being retired by 2010.

a large manned vehicle has human bodies on it that will suffer the radiation...a probe is man made material....

And that makes the craft burn up? Well you have now made it clear that you don't understand the word "physics" either.

no i dont understand physics....I understand logic though...honestly I dont know if we made it to the moon or not...I know the US govt lies incredibly, and if it was a hoax. they could never tell anyone.. or risk being overthrown...Im just fascinated that if people did go to the moon.. then why not go back for 38 years?...and have no plan too....

Obviously


Really?


Then where is the logic of getting involved in a debate in which you admit you don't understand and don't know whos is right?


Then why didn't the Soviet Union, or the Chinese or any of the rest of the USAs enemies that would have been aware of the truth reveal this to the World and watch the US collapse. And you claim to understand logic?


Just how many tiome does this have to be explained to you?


Now you are just plain wrong. The USA is planning to go to the Moon again (in their case by about by 2020), as are the Russians, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese and possibly the Indians (I don't think I have left anyone out).

This is the third time you have said this. Have you not heard of Project Constellation?

Project Constellation

You may take it is a lie or not, but it is an announced plan to return to the Moon and go on to Mars.

your right I had no business commenting here....I bet noone makes it to the moon in your lifetime though...good luck with the NASA agenda...peace

Ah, young Grasshopper, I suggest these sites to go on your journey to enlightenment:

Moon Base Clavius

The Bad Astronomy Moon Hoax page

Both of these sites have forums devoted to discussing (and debunking) the Apollo Moon Hoax.

If you want to really learn about one of Civilization's greatest achievements, please, drop in for a spell. Tell 'em AtomicDog sent you.

It's not about having a right or not, you have as much right as anyone else. It is an issue of common sense. If you are going to come in making statements of fact about a subject which you admit you know nothing you are going to crash and burn. If you phrase the ame thing as a question then people will answer it and you don't end up looking silly.


I intend to live well past 2020. I expect to see the first NASA moon base, the first non-American mission and the first woman on the Moon in my life time. I also suspect I have a very good chance of seeing the first human on Mars.

I find it amazing that someone that believes that NASA is hiding the technology to cross interstellar space can not see the contradiction in believing that NASA has not got the technology to go to the Moon.

Indeed, just a teeny bit contradictory (to say the least).

Twelve men have already walked on the moon in my lifetime.

Since the NASA agenda is the human exploration of space, I'm sure that NASA appreciates your wishing them good fortune in their endeavors. On their behalf, I accept your wishes of good fortune.

Yes, in the Stalin's government was a foreign secretary of Molotov. This name well known all foreigner. I 15 years a work with names of people. Each workday I reads 10 - 20 names of new clients. I can not recall that I saw such surname for these 15 years. This rare name. But this not it is important. It is Important contents of this article.


Molotov speaks that they took talks of astronauts with the Land and telemetry. But it does not speak be able they decode telemetry. But telemetry of more important talks of astronauts. Actions of space shuttle are reflected in telemetries. Decoded telemetry possible to compare to information walking from astronauts. But about this not said nor what.
But said that diameter of ray antenna was equal to half a disk of the Moon. So they could not say that does an Apollo beside Moons. They could say that something sends signals from the Moon. And so much for!

Speak of television picture now. This simply funny cartoon! We its have named a picture - ultrasonic study of pregnant woman. This collapse our observing of Apollo.
Hereon speaks that he saw a debarkation of americana on the Moon can only foolish man.
But we got a scene with our Lunohod. That is got, signal of TV from the Apollo was more weak than from our Lunohod?
Choose that you more like.
In any event we were not witnesses of debarkation of americana on the Moon.

I'm still having difficulty following your arguments. What is so difficult about separating the audio signal - the astronauts voices - from the rest of the signal? Amateur trackers in the west have been doing that with Russian transmissions for decades - try googling on "Kettering Group" for more details. One member of that group picked up Apollo voice transmissions from the moon with a much smaller antenna dish that the one Molotov used.

With an antenna that can only see an area half the size of the moon, it will be easily observed if what you are tracking is in lunar orbit or on the surface. In one case you will have to keep scanning the antenna across the lunar disc, in the other you keep pointing it at the same part of the moon. In addition for the orbiting case, there's doppler shift and loss of signal when eclipsed by the moon.
I agree that the TV picture shown in the article is of poor quality, but TV requires a much better signal strength than audio, and the Apollo TV system had some unusual technical features that Molotov's system may not have been compatible with. As I recall, Lunokhod had a slower frame rate/lower bandwidth than Apollo, which would give a better picture quailty for a given signal strength.

limited,

If your age is correct on your profile, you might want to consider, as flyingswan said, that 12 men have walked on the Moon in your lifetime.
Further 24 different men have been there, three of them twice...and all of them did so in your lifetime.
This of course happened between the time you were 7 and 10, but that would be old enough to have at least remembered the events, for most people, I should think.



It was just 2 pages ago where this was explained, and it's been covered at length in other sections.



This statement is rather contradictory.
You say you do not understand physics, yet you say you understand logic.

Do you realize that the two things are not mutually exclusive?

If you actually understood logic, it would not be possible for you to make a statement like this:



Logic, combined with the astounding amount of information, and verification available, would lead you to the logical conclusion that this could not have but happened.


What is true is that you don't understand physics (as evidenced by this continual reference to the van Allen belts as an impossible obstacle), nor, by extension, much about space flight. In order to discuss Apollo from a position of some cohesiveness, a rudimentary understanding of these things is necessary.

I am distorts statistics? So you will satisfy?

"Pioneer": 100% - bad;
"Ranger": 67% - bad; 33% - well;
"Lunar Orbit": 100% - well;
"Surveyor": 29% - bad; 71% - well

You are a future engineer? You are a vigilant elf, protecting value of West from goblin's attacks from the Orient(ha-ha-ha, we too look "The Lord of the rings").
Well, you are engineer, then answer for me. That speaks a sequence of these numerals for you?


Landing on Moon is simply either as ride the bicycle. How to learn to ride a bicycle? Go to burn-in common-room, sit on the bicycle's simulator and turn a treadles. After ten trainings, you can do a cross-country bicycle-race (ha-ha-ha!). Previously you buy a medical insurance, but better place on the graveyard(ho-ho-ho!).
Our devices for delivery of soil of the Moon:

14.06.1969 Luna? - damage
13.07.1969 Luna15 - damade
12.09.1970 Luna16 - well
02.09.1971 Luna18 - damade
14.02.1972 Luna20 - well
28.10.1974 Luna23 - damade
16.10.1975 Luna? - damade
09.08.1976 Luna24 - well
-------------------------------------------
Total: 63% - bad; 37%- well

It is small problem?


But Shatll is not landing on the Moon!


Dust presents a greater danger for health itself. Presently in seal have appeared reporting that discovered polonium in the Moon soil.


I say to you about 380 kg soil of the Moon. You may present 380 kg of Moon soil instead of the paper? You may present whole Moonstones instead of the paper? Expert operation on the subject of authenticity of your Moon soil nobody did not conduct.

Rusich, you are playing he oldest game in the hoax believers book. You know full well that the evidence proves you wrong so you just claim the evidence is a lie. If you do the research that has been suggested you will find that this "Moon soil" and Moon stone" you claim exists only on paper has been studied by experts from all around the world.

You have not given a single piece of evidence to support you own point of view it is time you started doing this as simply. Saying "you are wrong" to every point that proves you wrong does nothing to support your case.

Sorry Waspie but this statement sounds contradictory to me......

First you state that bone density issues become a problem on missions lasting several months, then you say that the Russians were able to walk within 24 hours of missions lasting over a year......By stating this, you suggest that they didn't experience bone density problems......

So which one is it ?? Do Cosmonauts/Astronauts suffer from this problem or not ??

A little bit of thought will show that there is nothing contradictory at all in that statement. Many older people suffer from osteoporosis but are still capable of walking, so where is the contradiction?

As was perfectly clear from my post I was answering this claim:


and demonstrating it was wrong on both counts.

Concerning Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar orbiter, you are correct.

Concerning Pioneer, you are incorrect:

Pioneer sucessfully executed 10 of its 20 mission, for a 50% success rate.
That averages 64% sucessful.






This was a little more than a small problem for the Soviets.
Only about half as sucessful as the U.S. efforts...

An examination of the history of the Soviet manned space program will similarly reveal a large number of failures, some catastrophic.
The Soviets did place the first man into orbit around the Earth, but they also had the following firsts:

First man to die in a ground test.
First man to die in space.
...and the second, third, and fourth men to die in space.
First to kill lots of ground personnel in disasters.
First to destroy an entire launch complex in a catastrophic explosion.
First to fail to develop lift capacity required for a lunar landing mission.


Flying to the Moon was difficult.
The statistics clearly show that the U.S., despite the difficulty inherent in the task, had an easier time of it than the Soviets did. They suceeded, the Soviets did not.

Your data shows a pattern...


U.S. manned lunar landing flights:

Apollo 11-Well
Apollo 12-Well
Apollo 13- Damage
Apollo 14-Well
Apollo 15-Well
Apollo 16-Well
Apollo 17-Well
_________________

Total: 86% well, 14% bad.

It was alot more than a "small problem".
We just did it better.

You said that taking off from the moon was the difficult bit.

All three Russian lunar take-offs were successful, Lunas 16, 20 and 24. That's 100%.

Now your argument has collapsed, you switch and say that landing is the difficult bit.

As to your statistics of landing attempts, two of the missions in your list failed during launch from earth, so are hardly relevant to moon landing. Has it occured to you that landing might be easier with a human pilot in control?

MID has already told you about the flying simulators.

Perhaps you could also explain why landing the LM on the moon is so much more difficult than landing a Harrier or a helicopter?

Incidentally, what are your comments on Chertok and Kamanin?

People breath dust all the time.

You know perfectly well that the presence of polonium means nothing unless you specify in what quantities. Is your recent polonium discovery anything like this 1973 Apollo one?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973Sci...180..957B

You have yet to present any case for a prior indication of a hazard.

I don't think he can...

According to the men whgo flew the LM, it was quite similar (which is one of the reasons they all did lots of helicopter flying in their training regimens for the landing missions...).

There was no contradiction in Waspie's statement.

Here's the deal:

Astonauts/Cosmonauts do indeed suffer from bone density loss over prolonged periods. Studies conducted from the time of Mir through the current ISS missions, where crews typically serve six month expedition durations, show bone density loss in the vicinity of 10%, and muscle mass strength and mass decreases of upwards of 45%.

...the loss reaches an equilibrium in these ranges and doesn't progress beyond those levels significantly.

Any astronaut of Cosmonaut who spends a couple weeks in space has some degree of post-flight effect. Even during these shorter duration missions, there are effects on strength and calcium loss. However, they are not profound in any case.

Long term astronauts all suffer these effects. Muscle mass and strength are recoverable over time, and bone mass rebuilds. However, bone structure recovery is apparently a much more long-term process (in excess of a year), and of course studies still continue on these matters.

There is nothing severely debilitating about either of these conditions in the short term. Of course, an astronaut returning from 6 months in space will be sitting down alot, and won't be bench pressing 300 pounds. But getting up and walking within 24 hours of returning from a year in space simply means they got up and walked...not impossible, and probably not a brisk power-walk on the trail either!. But one can do it.

These effects, however, have little relation to our Apollo lunar landing missions. The duration was too short on any of them to produce marked effects in the astronauts.

Not only that but in one huge respect unmanned missions have a distict disadvantage over manned missions. When an unmanned mission suffers a technical problem that will cause the mission to fail it will fail. When a manned mission suffers a technical problem that will cause it to fail it will often be repaired by the crew and will succeed.

Apollo 11 is a prime example of a mission that would have failed had it not had a crew on board. Armstrong took over manual control and avoided a rock field which the LM was heading for. If that had been an unmanned mission it would have attempted to land in the rock field and would almost certainly been destroyed.

Only now are we beginning to develop the computer ability to make these sort of decisions but even then the human brain is still the best decission making machine we have available to us.

MID, I hope you realize that many appreciate the example of your time and knowledge. Also, Waspie, et al.

Though, forgive me for this revealing look at the Moon Hoax subject. If this is typical, then it confirms that not all apply themselves equally to the task of understanding science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLigfPQERo

Molotov say, that they could not to decode telemetry. The Apollon's telemetry is secret for they.
They could not to receive the qualitative TV picture from Apollo.
This collapse our observing of Apollo.
Here are two variant:
- or, our engineers could not cope with problem
- or, your engineers could not make transmission of qualitative television's picture
in any event we, russian, not witnesses of your debarkation on Moon
Once again repeat, from Land it is impossible attest a debarkation of people on the Moon!
But you had a possibility to get a russian witness of your debarkation on the Moon!
This meeting your astronauts with our Lunohod on the Moon!
You are not decided on this. Why?

You do not answer my questions, this gives me a right not to answer your questions.

Because Apollo 11 landed on the moon on 20^th July 1969 and Lunokhod 1 wasn't launched until 10^th November 1970.

Next question.

leadbelly:

Thank you so much for you kind comments....and especially for:


THAT LINK!


I think that perhaps it says what some of us have thought...but decided to restrain ourselves from saying in good company.
I especially like the exposure they give to that drunken moron, Rene...the self-educated engineeer( ... ). That is revealing....

Perhaps no one has been more foolish than he in this whole Moon hoax affair.

Ah but alas...perhaps no one has encapsulated the entire thing as well as Penn and Teller in this little snippet. They say what some of us (I AM SURE) have wanted to say (and probably have, in select company), but of course could not say here on this board.


I have just peed myself!

Thank You.
It has been a while since I laughed so hard.

That is truly a gift!
Kindest Regards,

M~

Too bad you didn't have one of those nifty Apollo pee bags handy! I must agree, that was hilarious. Penn and Teller simply do not do "politically correct" very well do they?

Is this your polite way of saying I'm a thoughtless twit ??

Maybe you should take a leaf out of MID's book and learn to explain yourself without appearing condescending.......


Thank you MID for the clarification.......

You always come across well-researched and intelligent and most importantly, a true gentleman........

Or, a third variant....your government at the time DID NOT ALLOW IT'S CITIZENS TO SEE IT...which would in fact be the case.
You didn't see Apollo happen in Russia because the government of the Soviet Union didn't broadcast it...for obvious reasons. That was the 'collapse of your observing of Apollo'.
Despite the fact that Apollo was broadcast live, for everyone to see the world over, the Soviet Union didn't show anything having to do with an American space mission on Soviet television until the ASTP mission in 1975.

However, a little more than half a billion people watched it happen live. Not in the Soviet Union however. It was...an embarrasment, I should suppose.



There is little doubt that you are too young to have remembered.
However...NO ONE saw us "debark" from the Moon on Apollo 11...or 12, or 14...

There was no TV coverage of that, like there was on the J Missions....but you would've been what, 9 years old in 1972?
No matter...the live broadcasts of lunar liftoff from Taurus Littrow weren't shown on Soviet TV...

Perhaps by "debarkation" you are speaking of leaving the LM for a stroll on the Moon?
If that's the case, we all got to see that too...the world over...except in the Soviet Union.

From American land...and anywhere else in the free world, it was most certainly possible to attest to debarkation from the Moon, and we saw it all happen live....not in Russia, however.

You missed a great deal...

That was not my intention and I apologise if it came across that way.

...no, they don't. Gotta love 'em for that!

We called it the UTCA (Urine Transfer and Collection Assembly...gotta love it...).
It was pretty nifty...I guess....


But I sure coulda used one about an hour ago...


...on second thought, the whole FCS (another of those old Apollo acronyms...for fecal containment system) would've been a better idea!!!!!