I guess that NASA should use the same apollo program,the same spacecrafts and capsules to send astronauts to the moon again in 2020 as they had no loss of life after 7 expeditions to the moon.Why would NASA change a team that never lost?And they should send astronauts next month to the moon.Why do they have to wait until 2020? Is it possible that they forgot how to send an astronaut to the moon?Something is very strange about this !

No. The darkening is obvious, albeit not too prominent at this angle, which is almost downsun. You observe one shot, taken from the surface, at a particular angle, and conclude that that is the same as viewing a large area from orbit?
It is well known that color and various visual perceptions change with light angle.


Here's another surface photo: we'll just go back to your previous issue about the flag and re-use one of those (AS15-88-11865).
Now, we're goping to change the vantage point about 100 degrees, to a cross sun condition...



I think at this angle, the darkening of the disturbed area in the vicinity of the LM is obvious.

The image in question is taken from orbit, which is a very different vantage point altogether. The darkening, caused by the vigorous activiuty all around the LM and a shearing of surface dust beneath the DPS bell, is evident.

Great Turbonium!..I am still waiting for pictures of the apollo moon missions wreckage.NASA makes some black spots in a moon picture and tell us that these are the apollo landing sites on the moon.Well,it seems that we will soon have black spots on Mars pictures as well..ahahahahaha

Again, the hubble has a resolution of about 300 feet per pixel at the distance of the Moon. There are no Hubble images of Apollo hardware.

The only strange thing is you seem to think it is a feasible idea. Their purpose this next time is to stay longer and take more people to the surface. The Apollo craft were not built to do either. The other major problem is there are no more Apollo craft available nor Saturn V rockets to launch them with. They can't be built overnight. They required specialized manufacturing techniques and tools that simply haven't been in use since they used them to make the Apollo craft. It is cheaper and easier to use updated tools and techniques rather than recycle 1960's technology.

No, I don't mind:
I have no relationship with him.
I never knew him, or of him, until many years after Apollo, when I heard his name mentioned as a "former astronaut", one who "worked side by side with Armstrong and Aldrin", who made some strange commentary about doubts about the accomplishments of the program's goals...those statements being used by HBs to fortify their position. He was not a former astronaut. He was a former astronaut candidate who didn't make it.



Again, I know him not. He never asked me a question. What are you talking about?



It's kinda dumb to have a PhD in Astronomy and make statements even hinting that your a skeptic about the Apollo Moon landings. It's also kinda dumb to make a statement like he did regarding his small residual doubt, without fully explaining it for the benefit of a generation of people who are wont to deliberately mis-interpret it, and take him to be some sort of validation to the Moon hoax theories.







Several. They're fun as all hell. Any time, any place. You want numbers...I'll have to consult my log books...which I won't.

What in hell does this have to with anything, anyway?


The point here was to derail your use of Dr. O'Leary as an authority on Apollo, as someone who was there, as someone who worked right along side the "Moon walkers as a "former astronaut".

He was none of these things.
Instead of asking me twenty questions...why don't you contact Dr. Joe Allen, or Dr. Story Musgrave, or Dr. Bob Parker, and ask them about it. They were there, they did become qualified astronauts, they did work right along side the Moon walkers.


On second thought...you might want to avoid Dr. Musgrave. He's something else, a hell of a guy who's done everything, and might make you regret asking him silly questions!!


Brian O'Leary washed himself out of astronaut training, because he felt T-38 jet training was unnecessary and dangerous.
Again...if this is so, one wonders about him. You sign up and get accepted as a candidate to ride rockets into space, yet you think the fun part...T-38 jet training, is too dangerous???

It says something profound.

If your so concerned about jets, why don't you contact Barbara Morgan, the elementary school teacher from Idaho who flew them during her qualification process to become a Mission Specialist Astronaut (which she did, with distinction, and just recently completed the STS-118 mission to the ISS). It doesn't really matter what I say about them. She can tell you how dangerous it is...and then she'll tell you about her rocket ride into space...

frenat,

I am thinking that UNDER THE HAT may be using sarcasm here.
It's not exactly clear. Hard to tell...

Perhaps he could cut to the chase and describe his position in clear terms???

Incidentally, Turb, this is incorrect. NASA doesn't claim this. They specifically state as fact that there were 24 men who traveled to the Moon and back, not 30. Three of them did so twice.

Borman, LOVELL, Anders...8
Stafford, YOUNG, CERNAN...10
Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins...11
Conrad, Bean, Gordon...12
LOVELL, Haise, Swigert...13
Shepard, Roosa, Mitchell...14
Scott, Worden, Irwin...15
YOUNG, Duke, Mattingly...16
CERNAN, Schmitt, Evans...17

I agree that his position is not clear. I still thought a concise answer to the question would be ehlpful for all though.

Absolutely, I hope he reads this and clarifies himself for the benefit of discussion!

This was not sarcasm.I would say that sarcasm is present in your answer because the motives that you gave me not to use the apollo program again are not serious.How can you compare a program that suposedly went 7 times to the moon and back without any death with a modern space shuttle program that killed serious and good people that were working in a low earth orbit? If I ask you in which spacecraft would you like to go to the moon today - apollo spacecraft or a modern space shuttle - which of them would you choose? If you answer the second option,I will not think that it will be a sarcasm of yours.I would just think that it is a lie! Remember when John Glenn came back from space shuttle travel,he said that apollo spacecraft was much more reliable than the space shuttle.And I am pretty sure that he was right.To stay in low earth orbit,the apollo capsules were much more reliable,as we had no deaths during the apollo program in space.I am sorry friend,I do believe that those astronauts on apollo program never left low earth orbit.

The answers to not use the Apollo program are not serious? So are you saying we still have this hardware somewhere? Or that we could rebuild it quickly when the tools and techniques used to build it are no longer in use or are gone? Or that the Apollo hardware would somehow be sufficient when the requirements of capacity and time are greater now?

No, of course I wouldn't choose a modern space shuttle to go to the Moon because it was not designed to go to the Moon. I would of course choose the new Orion system being developed as it better meets the goals of capacity and duration needed. I never compared Apollo and the modern shuttle. Neither did you until just now. The shuttle does not have the fuel available to make it there and if it did it would be going to fast on reentry to survive. There is simply no comparison. The deaths that occured on the space shuttle were partly due to its design and partly due to critical flaws not being fixed due to lack of funds. But since the shuttle has flown many more times and been in service much longer it is again an invalid comparison. The new Orion program still in development is being designed to return to the Moon.

I've heard a lot of arguments from the pro hoax side, but this is one of the silliest I've heard. I'll make this simple. Look at the deaths that have occured on Columbia and Challenger (RIP). They both occured during re-entry and launch. Hoax believers argue many things, but I've never heard the argument that they simply didn't launch. You do understand that you are claiming more people should have died during Apollo and then comparing the fact that people have died in the space shuttle program as something that can be put on a level playing field for analysis? It is akin to comparing the amount of people who die in road accidents to the amount of people who die in air accidents. Also, you've not even taken into account the fact that there have been 120 launches and re-entries during the space shuttle program. How many manned Apollo launches were there? 12. That wasn't short of its failures either, take a look at Apollo 13. We nearly lost the crew. We DID lose the crew of Apollo 1. It is simply not possible to compare STS and Apollo, so don't even do it.

No,I am talking about staying a longer time on the moon.This is only an empty excuse that you gave.



I am not an idiot.We all know that the space shuttle stays in low earth orbit.And that is why I compared apollo spacecrafts to space shuttle.Because both of them never left earth low orbit.I asked what if we have a space shuttle capable of going to the moon.Would you choose it instead of a absolutely total reliable apollo spacecraft?
And please friend,don´t tell me that "The deaths that occured on the space shuttle were partly due to its design and partly due to critical flaws not being fixed due to lack of funds".Lack of funds to fix the space shuttle but not to launch it again and again and again....You must be kidding.
And if the apollo program left low earth orbit,why does NASA present a totally fake video like this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L46kiNGpKNU

With out any death? Are you familiar with ANY aspect of the history of spaceflight? Do the names Grissom, White and Chaffee mean any thing to you? Apollo killed a crew before it had even left the ground. It came damn close to killing another crew on Apollo 13, but don't let the facts get in the way will you.

Ok then *SNIP* removed inflammatory remark

that going to the moon,landing on the moon and returning safely is as easy as travelling to low earth orbit and comming back !!! So I have to ask you another question - If you have to choose between one of those missions,which of them would you choose?I guess that you will choose to land on the moon in a stupid,fragile and entirely non approved LEM that almost killed Neil Armstrong on earth during tests only to convince me that your point is right.

Please read my phrase again.The astronauts that died were not going or comming back to/from the moon.You have to understand what you read before answering.
Thanks!

And by the way...Apollo 13 crew was almost lost only in your dreams.I guess that Tom Hanks was much more in trouble than the real astronauts in low earth orbit.

We are actually on page 182!

Forgive me, but debating Apollo is kind of like debating Copernicus. Apollo skeptics please answer me these:

Why are you convinced that the landing was faked? Not little problems that you have with the event, nor how it hasn't been proven, but why is there a certainty bordering on religious faith that the US has never put a man on the Moon?

Also: What would it take to change your mind? Rational people change their minds based upon evidence, so what evidence would change your minds?

Apollo wreckage on the moon.This evidence was never presented...And please dont tell me that we don´t have conditions to take pictures or make videos of that because we DO have technological conditions for that.!!!!

No need for the personal attacks.

'Non Approved LM' lol!

Give me one, scientific, reason why the LM couldn't have landed on the moon. Just one.

Absolute Rubbish. This can be shown (in this example I'm using the hubble telescope) with basic physics.

Simple science for you.

Largest thing on the moon left by the Apollo missions, lets say five metres wide.

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.

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.

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

How so? It is a specified mission goal and the Apollo craft are not able to carry the consumables needed for the duration required. Not an empty excuse at all. Maybe you need to look up the definition of empty excuse.


I never called you and idiot but you never specified a shuttle capable of going to the Moon and even mentioned John Glenn and his trip in the existing shuttle. The only reason other's are not understanding you is you are not being very clear. You also have no proof that Apollo never left Earth orbit when there is plenty of evidence otherwise.


Why should I not tell you the truth? Have you even researched this at all? Part of the problem of the shuttle is because it is mounted on the side of the booster. This means when stuff falls off it has a chance of hitting the orbiter. The critical flaws that were not fixed were primarily due to a lack of funds. This is a fact.

From an article written by Alex Roland
Professor of history, Duke University, and former NASA historian
found here
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ai...327.html?page=1

Research it a little more before you stick your foot in your mouth.


And how is it fake?

I am sorry for my bad english.And I don´t want to attack anybody.I was called an idiot by him before I gave my answer.
I am not an engineer to talk with you about the LM.All I know is that it almost killed Armstrong and after that we never had any conclusive test that indicates that it was a reliable spacecraft.And I will not start a dialogue about the LM because it has so many weak points that we will be here after a month still talking about it.

So engage me in the conversation. List a weak point. List a critical design flaw. List anything. Don't make statements and then cop out of them because you can't provide any evidence. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (the one that malfunctioned, Armstrong didn't crash it) was nothing like the Lunar Module. It was designed as a simulator so Astronauts could get a feel of what it would be like to land the LM. Making a vehicle perform in 1g similar to how it would perform in 1/6 of Earth's gravity is a hell of a lot different than making it work in 1/6g.

Well, Hat, since Orion will be going to the Moon, and many nations are sending probes, maybe someone should take a couple of memento pictures. But: would you believe them?

Tell me: do you disbelieve the other space missions, or just this one? Do you consider it technically impossible, infeasible at the time, or do you distrust NASA?

How about the probes that are orbiting the moon at this present time? Oh...we can see the solar spots,the solar flares,we can see a car parked on the streets of Bagdah from the satelites orbiting the earth,but when we talk about the moon,without clouds and 1/6 gravity!!!...Oh well, everything is much more difficult to do when we talk about the moon.We can´t see anything on moon surface because 1/18 pixels and billionths of degrees across and bla , bla ,bla..... Please friend,stop this kind of empty conversation. Deal with the reality that we don´t have anything of apollo missions to be watched on the moon surface .

Of course not. Why would anyone say that?


First of all, the LLRV (Lunar Landing Research Vehicle) that "almost killed Neil Armstrong" was not the same thing as the LM that landed on the Moon. It was a trainer designed to operate in Earth gravity that used jet engines to compensate for 5/6 of the weight of the vehicle. Neil's accident was due to a failure of components specific to that trainer and not something that had to do with the LM. Neil and other astronauts have remarked that the trainer was very helpful in preparing them for landing on the Moon. The LLRV and its cousin the LLTV (Lunar Landing Training Vehicle) together made hundreds of succesful flights. They were very good for their purpose.

UNDER THE HAT, please be advised that personal attacks are not allowed on these forums.

Refer to the rules here:

QUOTE

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members

This will be your only informal warning.

Yes, please don't let science or facts get in the way of your ridiculous conspiracy train.

Sunspots you say? Yes, they are not that incredibly difficult to see seeing as though their average size is the same size of the Earth. I'd imagine that might have something to do with it. Flares are even bigger.

Sorry friend, trinitrotoluene is presenting good, hard, verifiable, scientific fact. You can research it and see for yourself whether he is correct. That you consider "fact" to be empty rather backs up my statement... don't let the fact get in the way. It is you that dismisses the facts with nothing but your opinion. It is your argument that is more vacuous than the lunar surface.
You have been asked to present facts to back up your argument. Your failure to do so is highly conspicuous.

[quote name='frenat' date='Dec 18 2007, 12:01 AM' post='2044577']
Of course not. Why would anyone say that?


Frenat,my friend,it is hard to dialogue with you.You don´t understand the answers we gave and then you keep asking silly questions as the one above.Then you provide me with this kind of answer with personal attacks - " Research it a little more before you stick your foot in your mouth." .

Great..How about cars on the streets of Bagdah?

How about giving us comparable specifications of the angular size of a car and the capabilities of a spy satellite in orbit so we can see if apples are being compared to apples?

Believe it or not there is not much need for an imager in moons orbit that takes pictures at such a resolution. Not much activity there

No need for that.Do you know google earth?

Ok Trinitrotoluene! That is what I want ot hear.So you agree that we have technological capacity to take pictures or make videos from the apollo wreckage on the moon.Thanks god! This is a beggining.One of the moon landing believers now decided to assume that !! Now you only have to be convinced that we don´t do that because there is nothing there to be shown!

And what were those pictures made with?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes the technology exists. Is there anything currently orbiting the moon that can do it?

No.

I don´t know man.But if you say to me that it was one of those satelites that take pictures of cars on Bagdah streets,I would not disagree.

If JAXA tell us that the Kaguya probe can send us HD videos from the moon , but can´t capture the apollo moon wreckage on video or picture,we have to accept???...NO,IT IS A LIE !!! They know that there is nothing there to be shown!

If you don't know, why are you using Google Earth as an example of the capabilities of spy satellites?

Well,if you are able to see cars on the streets captured on pictures from a very high altitude,why do you keep asking if there is technological capability to take pictures of apollo missions wreckage in an environment without clouds and 1/6 G ,where probes can orbit very near the surface (comparing to earth conditions)?What is your point? Tell us please!

The point is that Google Earth uses aerial photography, not satellite imagery, on those close up photos of people and cars.

Google Earth resolution

"Most land areas are covered in satellite imagery with a resolution of about 15 m per pixel. Some population centers are also covered by aircraft imagery (orthophotography) with several pixels per meter. Oceans are covered at a much lower resolution, as are a number of islands; notably, the Isles of Scilly off southwest England, are at a resolution of about 500 m or less. These pictures are provided by Terrametrics."

Why did you assume that all Google Earth images were satellite?

How is that a silly question? The only person here who has mentioned going to the moon being as easy as orbiting Earth is you in the question you asked. I answered. No it is not as easy. I understand your answers even when many of your posts seem to be written in pigeon English. You don't seem to understand the answers given to you. Nearly everything you've asked has been answered with detailed facts and you often brush it off by calling it silly. And that wasn't a personal attack. You were wrong. I showed you to be wrong. You hadn't researched it and made a wrong statement, or in other words, you put your foot in your mouth.

Just because it is HD doesn't mean it has the resolution to make out the landers. I can take HD video of the moon from my backyard. Should I expect to make out the landers on that? The Kayuga probe does not have the resoultion to make out the landers. Period. Can you show mathematically that the probe should be able to see the hardware? Can you provide any proof that it should?

No. That image wasn't even among the best examples which I could have posted, such as these...





I agree.



First of all - didn't you just accuse me of what you're now doing, yourself?......

"You observe one shot, taken from the surface, at a particular angle, and conclude that that is the same as viewing a large area from orbit?"

But even this photo doesn't support your argument. Look at the area just behind the LM, on the left hand side. Also, look at the area below the LM, just to the right of the LM's 'middle' leg. Notice something? The LM is casting shadows directly onto the lighter colored surface area!

The region directly behind the LM would also have to be dark, not just the area in front and/or beside the LM. It is not, so you have no argument.

Furthermore, a slightly darker shade of gray will not create the very distinct black dot which appears in the Clementine image.

There is no evidence that the lunar surface is any darker around / within the vicinity of the LM, than it is elsewhere.

Look through the Apollo 15 archives, and try to find even one image that supports your argument.



Absolutely not.

The Apollo 15 photos overwhelmingly support my claim, not yours.

Rather ironic, isn't it?

I stand corrected.

The Clementine image isn't an ordinary photograph. It's the result of image processing to enhance and identify areas of disturbed regolith. The dark color isn't necessarily representative of the actual color of the soil.



For a start, try looking at the high-resolution versions of the very same images you claim don't show any color variations:

AS15-88-11895HR Cropped


AS15-88-11895HR Cropped with Levels Adjusted to Improve Detail


The above photo actually shows two phenomena at work here:
1) The descent engine plume scrubs away the upper layers of dust and actually brightens the surface.
2) Astronaut activity churns up the soil and, as MID mentioned, reveals darker material.

This can be seen in many Apollo photos, both on the surface and from orbit.

Here we see a long shot of the Apollo 15 lunar module. The brightened swath from the descent engine plume is clearly visible:

AS15-84-11324 Cropped and Enhanced


Here's the Apollo 15 landing site from orbit at two different times during the mission. You can clearly see both the bright area from the descent engine and the darker areas churned up by the crew:


Comparison by Markus Mehring for the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal


The same bright descent engine swath can also be seen on Apollo 16 & 17 photos:

AS16-112-18269HR Cropped and Enhanced


Apollo 16 Landing Site from Orbit




AS17-139-21204HR Cropped and Enhanced


Apollo 17 Landing Site from Orbit



I think not.

That's an understatement.



I can go along with that.



Well, that would seem to make sense, since (as you've already noted) the LLRV "was not the same thing as the LM".



What else would they say? That the trainer was a useless piece of junk or something?



And that's fine - one would expect NASA to thoroughly test protoypes, make the necessary revisions, improvements, etc.



And that's also fine with me.


It's the rest of the story - which you don't get into here - that I have a really big problem with. I'll just address one problem by comparison here...

Apollo 10 launched on May 18, 1969:

The purpose of the mission was to confirm all aspects of the lunar landing mission exactly as it would be performed, except for the actual landing....Apollo 10 was a “dress rehearsal” for the landing missions that would follow and as such, it was a fully configured spacecraft. Unlike the previous orbiter mission, Apollo 8, which carried a nonfunctioning lunar module test article, this mission included a functional lunar module. This was necessary in order to test descent and return operations, which were the main objectives of the mission. It should be noted, however, that the lunar module was an early design that could not be used for a landing as it was too heavy to return to orbit from the lunar surface.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apo...lo_10/overview/

Apollo 11 launched on July 16, 1969 - just 2 months later!

Very few changes were made to the Apollo 11 space vehicle from the Apollo 10 configuration. The most significant structural change was to the lunar module (LM). Added were provisions for the scientific experiments package and the Modular Equipment Storage Assembly (MESA), which housed the experiments and tools used during the lunar surface activities.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apo...lo_11/overview/

This basic comparison raises some serious questions.

I'll have to continue this tomorrow, not enough time left tonight....