Thank you very much, MUM...
I am honored, sir.

Apology unnecessary but welcomed just the same.......

My Father taught me that "manners maketh the man". My reply to you was written in haste and not checked before I posted it. You were right, it was unnecessarily condescending hence the apology was needed. I'm glad that you accepted it. Thank you.

Aawwwww..... That was truly lovely of you to say Waspie and your father was indeed very wise......

I have answered all your questions except those I could not make sense of and those that other people answered when I was off-line.

You are the one trying to make a case for Apollo being a hoax, and refusing to answer questions gives the impression that you do not have the evidence you need to back up your case.

Getting back to Apollo transmissions, you don't seem to understand that the telemetry, audio and TV were carried separately - on different sub-carrier frequencies - in the overall signal, which also gave ranging data. Molotov could separate them out, but even if he could discover which digital coding method was being used for the telemetry, he would be be faced with a meaningless string of numbers unless he knew which numbers where coming from which bit of the instrumentation and what calibration factors were being applied. However, analogue TV and audio signals are a lot easier to interpret.

My main proof this absence of proof from you.

I'm not argue. I know only about seven missions to Moon.


Championship dearly costs and dollars for this does not pay. For the championship is necessary to pay a blood.


Do not distort a statistics. Apollo-13 was not landed on the Moon.

This is not football, this is science and engineering and research = success. Research costs money. So the bigger budget tends to win.



This is one of the silliest arguments I have yet to hear. This is nonsense on the scale of 1984 Newspeak. Paying in blood is the result of getting it wrong, not proof of getting it right.

Now are you actually going to present some evidence or are you just going to continue with ill informed opinion based on nothing but guess work?

For what so crudely manipulate facts?


Ok. Show me your statistics.


Say this pilots helicopters and planes splitted when boarding.
Say this passengers splitting planes and helicopters.
Say this astronauts killed on Shuttle.


Chertok and Kamanin says that landing on the Moon is simple?
Chertok and Kamanin says that they saw astronauts going on Moon?

It is your statisicts which are crude as they give no indication of what was actually happening.



Fair enough

Let’s have a look at the statistics of the American unmanned lunar missions in more detail. I will break them up into 2 year periods. I will ignore the Soviet programme as Soviet technological success is irrelevant to what the USA could achieve.

1958 - 1959

Pioneer 0 – launcher failure
Pioneer 1 – launcher failure
Pioneer 2 – launcher failure
Pioneer 3 – launcher failure
Pioneer 4 – launcher failure
Pioneer/Orbiter – launcher exploded during ground test
Pioneer/Orbiter – launcher failure

Number of launch attempts = 7. Success rate 0%

1960 – 1961

Pioneer/Orbiter – launcher failure
Pioneer/Orbiter – launcher failure
Ranger 1 (Earth orbital test only) – did not achieve desired orbit – launcher malfunction
Ranger 2 (Earth orbital test only) – did not achieve desired orbit – launcher malfunction

Number of launch attempts = 4. Success rate 0%

1962 – 1963

Ranger 3 – Missed Moon – launcher malfunction
Ranger 4 – Impacted Moon as planned – no results due to onboard timer failure (not applicable to manned flights)
Ranger 5 – Missed moon due to onboard power failure (not applicable to manned flights)

Number of launch attempts = 3. Success rate 0%

1964 – 1965

Ranger 6 – Impacted Moon as planed – TV camera failed (not applicable to manned flights)
Ranger 7 – Success
Ranger 8 – Success
Ranger 9 – Success

Number of launch attempts = 4. Success rate 75%

1966 – 1967

Surveyor 1 – Success
Lunar Orbiter 1– Success
Surveyor 2 – Crashed on Moon
Lunar Orbiter 2 – Success
Lunar Orbiter 2 – Success
Lunar Orbiter 3 – Success
Surveyor 3 – Success
Lunar Orbiter 2– Success
Surveyor 4 – Crashed on Moon
Lunar Orbiter 5 – Success
Surveyor 5 – Success
Surveyor 6 – Success

Number of launch attempts = 12. Success rate 83.33%

The Surveyor 7 mission of January 1968 was the last American unmanned mission to the Moon before Apollo. It was a success.

Only the Surveyor missions were attempts to soft land on the Moon and these had a 71.43% success rate.

These statistics are actually slightly misleading in Rusich's favour as I have counted only missions which were a only a partial success as failures.

When the statistics are presented by date as above, it shows a far different picture from that which Rusich would have us believe. It shows that far from being a near impossible task to land on the Moon in 1969 the USA had steadily improved the techniques needed to land. They had learned from the problems that had blighted them at the start of space exploration (hardly surprising) and by 1969 had developed reliable missions to the Moon.

What are you talking about? Do you really think NASA hands out Moon rock to anyone that says "I don't believe you went to the Moon?"

The proof IS The hundereds of peer reviewed papers from experts from all around the world. The proof IS that geologists have examined the material and have concluded that it could only have come from the Moon.

You are the one trying to overturn conventional belief, it is not up to us to provide evidence it is up to you. You have to prove that these geologists are wrong. You have to prove that the astronauts are lying. You have to prove that the Saturn V was under powered. You have totally failed to do any of this, in fact you have not presented on single piece of evidence. All you present is your opinion.

Your biggest piece of evidence that Apollo 11 was faked so far seems to be that it wasn't filmed by a Lunokhood that hadn't even been launched yet. How do you expect people to respect your opinion when the only facts you do provide are laughably wrong?

I suppose, in one context, you could refer to Apollo as a race between the Soviets and the Americans. Thus, perhaps in some rather twisted sense, one could call it a championship.

I however, never thought much about that. It was always more about the compelling nature of what was being attempted, developed, tested, and hopefully, perfected.

In either case, a "championship", or a compelling scientific / technical project involving flying machines, there is risk involved, and often, success, or, a "championship" comes at the price of blood, as you say.

The fact of the matter is, the U.S. did pay a price in blood for it's victory.

What I was illustrating were some Soviet firsts that are not often discussed...the disasters and deaths that accompanied a program that was run by the military, and often pressed beyond the limits of reasonability and scientific sense.

The Soviets paid a huge price in blood, and they lost.



That is why it was described as "damaged", and a non-success as pertains to its intended mission. The facts are not distorted. They are accurate.
Apollo 13 was also, in another sense, a grand success and triumph of the U.S. system.




Perhaps you could kindly rephrase that?
The syntax does not allow adequate interpretation of what you're trying to say.



Look, rusich:

You want to argue that Apollo didn't happen.
This of course is not uncommon here.

There is a certain minority of people, mostly of your age group and younger, who believe this sort of thing.

You tend to paint statistics and it seems to me that you do so for the following reason:


By showing the failure rates of Soviet missions, and by illustrating the difficulty in the enterprise by those statistics, by comparing the Shuttle disasters with the success of Apollo (which is not apples-to-apples and therefore is somewhat irrelevant), and other such statistical measures, you seem to be implying that Apollo couldn't have happened because the Soviet program failed, and that we've catastrophically failed in subsequent years.


This is not an adequate basis upon which to base a premise of Apollo fakery.

Apollo succeeded because of a certain group of people were allowed to do what they knew how to do, and were not interfered with by overt Government pressure to succeed. There were special people involved, special people who were responsible fully for what they did, and accountable for it. The Soviet program failed, in large part because they were not allowed to do what was necessary to accomplish the task, and who were pressed by the Government to stretch the limits of reasonability in several cases. They compromised safety in favor of success, and it killed their effort, as well as alot of people in the process.

This is a well-known past paradigm in the history of manned space flight.

This of course, says nothing against the brilliance of the Soviet scientists who put their minds to work on the effort, nor of course to the bravery and effort of the Cosmonauts. However, it does speak to the fact that these fine people were unduly influenced by a Government who demanded much, and did not allow complete control of the project to fall into the hands of the experts who were qualified to execute it.

I can guarantee you that if the Soviet Government wasn't in charge of the Soviet space effort, the race to the Moon would've been a race indeed. Because of that aspect of the effort in the U.S.S.R., the Americans were on their way to a landing on the Moon in July 1969, while the Soviets were cleaning up their utterly destroyed program.

When the U.S. came upon a problem, where it was said, "Look, we don't think we can do it this way. It's not safe," the response was, "Well, then, study the matter, come up with something else that will work, fix it, and move on."

In the U.S.S.R., the same problem was typically met by, "We don't care. Try it anyway, we've got to beat the Americans to the Moon."

That is a formula for defeat and disaster in an experimental flight program. That is in fact what happened.


You speak to simulation technology, as if that is something that was not within the capabilities of Soviet scientists. It most certainly was. I don't know, but perhaps they didn't allow adequate simulation technology to be developed in the Soviet program because it was a waste of resources?


The bottom line here is this; you are an HB, and are claiming a fake in the U.S. lunar landing program. Your arguments are shallow and based upon a complete lack of knowledge of what went on, in the U.S. program, and it seems in the Soviet program.

Apollo, and Mercury and Gemini, were known all over the World when they happened. We did everything live and in color and in full view of the world...and that includes the government of the Soviet Union, who saw it all, you can be sure. They just didn't show their citizens our sucesses. They didn't want to, for good reason. They kept the pressure on, because they knew that we were "winning", and of course, they couldn't lose face in the eyes of their population.

Thus, they also kept everything they did a secret, until, and if it was a success, and only then did they broadcast it to the world.

There's a huge and obvious difference in approach there.


But none of that is really significant in respect to proving that Apollo was a hoax. That of course, has never been done.


Perhaps you have some questions, or something more substantial to present?

We will be all ears, but please, think about it first.
Apollo succeeded, and the scientific community the world over has substantiated that fact time and again.

Lots of people, especially the younger generations who became cognizant of their world in the post-Apollo era don't realize these things. Perhaps you are one of these people.


Ask a question about your doubts...you'll get an answer.


But please, don't ask for proof that we did this. The proof is abundant. Tell us why it didn't happen. The HB must prove his or her contentions...not the other way around.

It is fine! I expected exactly such answer. This example of logic of child at age of three years.
Following your logic is got, link-up Soyus with Apollo is incredible prodigy!

If you expected such an answer why did you ask such a question? The logic wasn't childish, it was the answer required by the question asked. We have a saying in the UK, "ask a stupid question, get a supid answer".

They say they were working to put a Russian on the moon, something you denied at the start of this argument.

They accepted the reality of the Apollo missions, and who in Russia would be better placed to detect a fake?

I have not manipulated any facts, you are the one doing that. Where is there any evidence that a lift-off from the moon has failed, US or Russian?
The missions you list as "Luna?" were launch failures. That leaves three successes, three failures in attempting to land on the moon. One of the failures, Luna 23, was only a slightly hard landing which damaged the sample collection device. If a miniature crew had been aboard, they could have simply returned without samples.

Let us see.

You said this:




...which seems to have alluded to the idea that verification of our lunar landings could've come from a "meeting" of the Soviet Lunokhod with Apollo astronauts (??); a rather silly notion at best. Waspie rather destroyed that argument (if that is indeed what the argument was) by pointing out:





Which would of course be correct...the Soviet craft was 16 months behind Apollo 11. That piece of easily verifiable information should, one would think, prompt the logical person to understand his or her mistake.


But no. You call that 3rd grade logic. Good one.

The fact is, the only thing 3rd grade in this exchange was your response.


Now, perhaps you could stop with the barbs and silliness and get down to business.
I reiterate:

You not rule. We, russian, be aware of the debarkation of americana on the Moon.
On this have reported in main newspapers. Device Saturn5, Apollo and LM was described In research journals. But tv-reports from Moon we not saw.
Debarkation of americana on the Moon of joy beside us did not cause. We were unnerved.
I think reports from Moon didn't show us on other reason.
You do not present what indignation have caused in russian internet video's and photo's materials of NASA! On free forums much speak of NASA forgeries. Only on the official sites like "http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/" this subject of discussion is mercilessly suppressed.

If in 1969 s we have shown reporting from Moon, this has caused greater indignation of research workmans. Moon swindle not to manage to save in the secret.



I nor what did not miss, all materials be available on NASA's sites.

I hate to go off topic, and I rarely post in any of the million or so "moon hoax" threads that we have floating around this forum, but I just have to add that Rusich has the cooest Russian accent I have ever read...not heard, but read. I might be the only one, but I can't read his posts in my mind without thinking about every Russian spy movie I have ever seen. I like the accent, it is cool...

I am obligated to issue myself a warning for posting off topic. Dang.

It was worth it...

Rusich,

I think most of us have a little trouble understanding what you are saying at times, so please forgive us if we misinterpret a post from you. Even so, as was remarked earlier, you are doing far better than we english-speakers would do on a Russian-speakers forum.



If I follow you correctly, why would you be unnerved? The USSR had reason to be proud of it's achievements - and would go on to make more with Salyut and Mir. The Apollo programme had no real military applications - why would people be unnerved?




I don't understand - could you rephrase this?




Likewise, throughout the internet there are forums and webpages that maintain that Apollo was hoaxed. Their big problem is that none of their 'facts' stand up to scientific scrutiny. They are not suppressed - merely shown to be wrong. Is this not the case in Russian-speaking forums?




Again, I apologise, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.




Then if you take those materials to other than US scientists, they can confirm that the papers describe what is possible. Have you done this?

Fluffy, one warning up....d***, that probably means me too But I agree, the accent is great - reminds me of when I took Russian some 15 years ago for the fun of it

Best,
Badeskov

I say not about separation of telemetry signal. I say about decoding of telemetry signal.
Our electronic espionage did not gives us objective information.
So much for that I wanted to say you.
I does not want to enter in technical jungle. I want to speak about things, comprehensibles for any persons.

Here is exactly! Unlike you, for us this was a question of life and death.
If we did not create an atomic bomb and did not create a rocket capable to deliver this bomb on USA, we ceased to exist! Bombers USA have destroyed our city as they have destroyed a japanese city Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perished groups of ten million people. Only, fear of death has forced us to become to be first in cosmos. So death near two hundred person this good charge per the life of groups of ten million people.

Rusich, I don't think this is really relevant, but do I need to remind you of the Tsar Bomb? It was originally designed to be 100 Mt, but scaled down (and tested) at at least 50 Mt? This was an air-deliverable device; the Tu-95 could deliver the weapon.

What really does this have to do with the Apollo moon landings?

I believe it is called a hand waving tactic. Try to distract people from the real issue because you have no real evidence to present. So far Rusich has talked a lot but said nothing. Despite several requests he has failed to present any evidence to back uo his claims. I can only conclude he does not have any.

Why do you say Novosti Kosmonavtiki is official? It's a magazine, and a very good one too. Do you think "Spaceflight" or "Flight International" or "Air et Cosmos" are official? How about "Aviation Week", well known for carrying leaked information?

None of these magazines support Apollo being a hoax because their are aimed at an informed readership that has the technical background to see how ridiculous the hoax theory is.

You don't want to enter into the technicalities, because that is where all the data are that refute the hoax theory.

In other words, don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.

Here is interesting link about landing on the Moon

http://greyfalcon.us/restored/German%20Moo...ase%20Alpha.htm

And a site that makes the idiotic claim that the Germans landed on the Moon in 1942 is supposed to support the fact that America couldn't get to the Moon in 1969 how exactly?

Use your brain, life don`t give you everything on the plate

Interesting only if you like badly written science fiction.

I did use my brain which is why I described the site as idiotic. Now please avoid personal attacks in future.

Ok, I think that these folks (the German moon base authors) don't even have 'the plate'...let alone any evidence to put on it.

I object to you calling this science fiction, that implies the use of at least some science. Fantasy would be a more appropriate genre.

I didn`t attack you in any way. If you feel attacked it is your problem

*Sigh* When you imply that someone isn't "using their brain" it just isn't very nice, it's clearly an implication of stupidity on their part.

No, use your brain means: think, don`t wait other to do something for you or tell you everything. If you are interested in something think about it before you ask anything. And when someone say somethink think about it, don`t just accept it or not...There are many stupid texts and books, but if you see little bit deeper in every you can find something good what can help you in building a puzzle. So, use your brains and don`t be a sponge.

I have an honest question for those with NASA knowledge.....If the moon goal had already been obtained by apollo...why not design the space shuttle to reach the moon?....and why cant the space shuttle reach the moon?....please dont be sarcastic in answering. im honostly perplexed by this?...

Do tell? So, exactly what leads you to believe that one of the forum leaders from 'Space and Astronomy', 'Science &Technology' and 'Space News' is not using his brain in this regard? Exactly where, why, and how is his analysis of this "German moon base" notion scientifically flawed? In other words, other than the piece of fiction linked to...where's the evidence that this outrageous idea is anything but fantasy?

Because although it is possible, it is very wasteful of money.

Would you like a link to the study?

The Shuttle was designed to a mission model that consisted mainly of low earth orbit flights, eg space station support. It was supposed to use additional upper stages for geostationary and earth escape missions, as indeed it did on quite a few occasions. If it had proved as cheap to operate as initially claimed it could have supported a manned lunar programme, but it would have needed several Shuttle missions to assemble each moon flight's hardware in low earth orbit. As the Shuttle proved in the event to cost a similar amount per mission to a Saturn V, this approach would have been ruinously expensive.

thanks for the replies...so it's just a matter of money I guess...

I didn` say do I believe in German moon base and I didn`t say any my opinion here. People use their brains, someone more someone less..like here. I hate when people ask me questions which I can see they didn`t think about. They ask just to say something against. Ego people..

I highly grateful by Waspie_Dwarf that it said my thought on good english.

Your statistics not differ from my statistics in principle. We say - "first pancake always a lump". Or on english - "you must spoil before you spin well".
Accuracy of numerals to me was not it is important. I wanted to show you a trend of statistical data. From bad to good.
In case of LM this statistical trend is violated. Land and liftoff LM is the most difficult stage of debarkation on Moon. Apollo-10 not checked this device on real unmanned land on Moon. This may compare with astronauts start on Saturh-5 which was checked only on stands. End be easy guess.

I am not russian spy. I worse than russian spy - I am russian conspirolog.

You have still not given any real reasons why you think LM landing and lift-off so difficult. Why is LM landing any different from landing a helicopter? Why is LM lift-off any different from Luna lift-off which worked every time?
The Saturn V was flown unmanned twice before its first manned flight. Although one of the tests had problems, in both cases the Apollo CM was recovered successfully. The trouble with the Russian N1 was that it was never checked on a stand before the first launch attempt.

That is what I said. The TV from the Moon was not broadcast iun the U.S.S.R.
I did not say that the news wasn't eventually made public. Everyone knew about it quickly...the Soviet people, a little less quickly.



I am aware of that.
I have also explained to you why that would have been.
The "other reason" was that the Soviet government hid everything. It was all in secret, until it was completed. They only ever gave brief, cryptic descriptions of missions to their people...until, and if there was a success. Occasionally, they said too much, too soon (refer to Soyuz 1--a mission that should never have been launched, in a spacecraft that had never sucessfully flown un-manned and which had over 100 un-corrected technical problems) given the condition of their space program and spacecraft.

You were not shown the television coverage from Apollo 11 because it was in fact a humiliation to those in power. Of course, they already knew that the race to the Moon was lost completely by that time. I am quite certain that showing everyone Apollo 11 as it happened would've been horrific for those in power, as they would further lose face with the people.

That's really the only reason. The Soviets knew full well we had succeeded, and they knew they couldn't pose a serious challenge after the July 1969 disaster at Baikonur involving the ill-fated N1.




I am fully aware of the "free forum" situation pertaining to NASA "forgeries", etc. That is why I am here.
I am not here to address that junk. I am here to explain the situation to people who buy into this silliness.




If I am reading this correctly, it seems to confirm why the Apollo 11 mission was not shown to Soviet citizenry.




I was refering to seeing it as it happened, not to what is available today on NASA sites.
You missed it when it happened.

Besides, you weren't old enough to have completely grasped what was happening at the time anyway.

The two programs have nothing to do with each other.

The Shuttle was ostensibly designed to be a more cost-effective, re-usable Earth-orbital delivery system. Originally, a workhorse vehicle to serve as a support for space staions, and the construction of manned vehicles for planetary exploration missions, etc. A truck...in other words. Not "the program", so-to-speak, but an integral and essential part of it.

Of course, this became a bit of a problem, but the bottom line is, we design vehicles for a specific purpose. The Shuttle, despite being studied as a possible lunar-orbit delivery system (which was done 10 years after the Shuttle program became flight-active...because we were looking for ways to use what we had for possible future projects, given the fact that the budget wasn't entirely forthcoming to allow anything else), was not designed for that purpose, could not efficiently perform it, and has an intended purpose and flight regime for which it has been designed.


...the study has been linked herein. It shows the obvious inefficacy of such a proposal.

When the Shuttle program became the primary U.S. manned-space program, there were no plans for further lunar exploration. The vehicle was designed and built for LEO operations, because that was the program. To return to the Moon, special vehicles will be built which are designed to efficiently execute that task, which is of course being done now.


It really isn't any more complicated than this.

This is precisely what I have implored HBs to do right here on this board.

You, however, appear to take this to mean that one should do precisely the opposite, a rather typical, but skewed reveral of the concept.

Waspie says (regarding your link to utter non-sense):




So you say:




You seem to be implying that this nonsense link has something to say?


No, life doesn't give you everything on a plate.
If you want to learn, you need to work. You need to study, and understand.

People like Waspie have done so in their lives. They are intelligent and discerning enough to realize that a site such as the one you link to is baloney. They know something of science. They know something of Apollo and the lunar program, which of course, happened precisely as it has been documented.


Using your brain would've led you to the conclusion, and the knowledge that this 1942 German lunar landing stuff was baloney.

I understand that Dr. Teller was concerned about using space as a platform for conducting tests on nuclear devices. Was there a treaty signed, back in the 1960's to prevent such efforts? I also read (source unknown) that NASA made plans, nonetheless, to carry out such a test on the Moon.

I would imagine simple physics models would satisfy any such curiosities.

Is this historical trivia innacurate information?