Well, just don't assume then that because you don't get a reply to your query, that the subject has not been discussed.

O K

I was talking of the 'gurus' bud.

So those NASA Space Pens they advertise in newspaper supplements are genuine? I'll have to get one.
But... if it doesn't work in zero gravity, could we get a refund?

Lol yeah. How about upside down or when you write on a wall or notice board or something

Thank you for the advice, Gav.
It helped...

...you were right.

Another thing that indicates the type of person this is is his absolute reliance on Rene and Kaysing.
After I sobered up, I remembered the underlying theme in that analysis White did of the Apollo profile, and the silly discussion of fuel and such...

The underlying assumption was based on the fact that Apollo 13 entered lunar orbit. They kept saying that...Apollo 13 couldn't have done what a typical Apollo mission profile did with the LM DPS. I think it was stated that they entered lunar orbit, and then used the DPS to execute TEI.

I wonder if he (or "Dr. Rene" ( )ever bothered to learn that Apollo 13 did not enter lunar orbit???
I wonder if they can possibly fathom why not???

...boy, that would've been the bonehead move of the century, no?

Fortunately, everyone on the flight comtrol team had studied "Get Me Home in an Emergency 101" thoroughly before the flight, and had decided not to kill the crew by putting them into lunar orbit first.

(p.s., a couple shots of Jack Daniels made this 10 minutes really, really funny. I didn't feel upset at all!)

Yea, we know you like to ask live...that's OK.
Cz is correct about the pen...I think I discussed that in this thread...about a million posts ago.
Mr. Fischer made his investment back plus a bunch on that one. They're still used today on Shuttle and ISS.

There was also a felt-tip pen used on Apollo flights as well, and some other off-the-shelf items like their wrist watches and sunglasses...mundane stuff.
The paper was actually just paper...and the hot dogs were just hot dogs!

Just thought I'd mention (this being the eve of 2008) that in late October 2008 NASA is set to launch the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

How does everyone think that images of the Apollo landing sites will affect the hoax claims?

As usual, I suspect, those who want it to prove what they want it to prove, will see alien bases and mile-high crystal cities, etc, while those want it to disprove what they want it to disprove, will see proof that there's no sign of anyone ever landing on the moon. In other words, as usual in the world of conspiracy, people will see just what they want to see.

Oh, it can today. Not in 1969.



Well, you'd be right. We did want to beat the Soviets.
We did that.



I'm not so sure...




No, no.
If an hypothesis is put forward, it's because science doesn't know something. It's not a device to hide what they don't know. It's the second part of the scientific method. Following observation, hypotheses are put forward as possible explanations. Hypotheses are then experimented upon in order to validate (establish theory or law) or discredit them (toss them into the "good idea, but no-joy" bin).

This has nothing to do with Apollo, inasmuch as the program was accomplished and documented (in more detail than any other endeavor of human history). There is no hypothesis regarding the Apollo program. It's a fact. Science worked through many hypotheses in order to develop the mechanics and systems whereby we could accomplish space flight. Apollo was about applying scientific theory and law in a pragmatic sense...not about guessing.



That's the purpose of this thread.
We, who know about it, give you information, and sources whereby you can learn about the sciences and technologies involved.
You don't have to believe it. You can know.




And this would seem to indicate that you don't have any desire to learn.
Thus, it would appear that there is no point in continuing the discussion with you any further.

Think about what you just said:




Suppose I did that.
Suppose I personally went to the Moon, and brought a Moon rock right to your house and handed it to you.

"Here you go, domo kun, your very own personal Moon rock. Took this one right off Mount Hadley Delta, just for you."


Are you telling me you'll believe it?
C'mon!

How would you know it was a Moon rock?
There are distinctions in Moon rocks that make them absolutely lunar...but unless you know what they are, you'd have no idea if what I gave you was real or some piece of junk from the Rocky Mountains.

It's about knowledge, not belief.
This is why I consistently ask for questions regarding doubts.




If that's all, then we can leave it at that, and thank you very much.
If you don't want to learn about the greatest accomplishment in human history, that's a choice you can make. But if you take a look at this thread, you'll probably note that it is folly to simply express an opinion and not expect to be challenged.

Lil,

Honestly, I think they'll affect the hoax claims not a bit.
LRO will be concentrating on polar mapping, but if any images of Apollo landing areas are made, with the 1 meter resolution available, you're basically going to see the smallest specs on the views that represent objects ~3 1/4 feet in size on a black and white image.

For instance, this is a 1 M resolution photo from orbit of the Brooklyn Bridge (...a Russian satellite image).



The field of this image is ~0.7 SM across and ~0.8 SM vertically (a little more than a half of a square mile).
Obviously, there's plenty of reference here for you to know what you're seeing.
On the bridge, the larger objects are trucks, the smaller, cars.

Take everything you know out of this image, replace it with a lunar landing site, and you might see something perhaps half the size of the largest white objects on the bridge. That would be about what a LM descent stage would look like, size wise at 1 M resolution (one those tiny rectangles that you see all along the length of the bridge would fit a LM descent stage inside with room to spare) . You might detect a tiny shape close by it that would be an LRV...and some other utterly indistinguishable specs strewn about. Perhaps, given the right sun angle, LRV tracks might be seen as really thin micro lines extending around the site in various directions.

I think that no died in the wool HB will accept any such image as an Apollo landing site. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and state that no HB will ever accept ANY image of an Apollo landing site, no matter how high the resolution, despite the fact that they're continually asking for them.


If they don't accept this:




AS15-88-11866...what, perhaps 1 cm resolution?
How will they accept anything less than that?

the landings look fake behind belief............... the flag moves with the wind and there is no wind on the moon because it has absolutely no atmosphere......

Really? When?

Just a bit off-topic, but I hope everyone has a fantastic, fun and SAFE New Years tonight...



Cz

I agree to your suggestion of a truce, postie.

Just some final brief comments on the Trieste..

It's not that I'm accepting the Kaiko data as a 100% indisputable fact. You've raised a good point - it's entirely possible that they (Kaiko) could have faked the images/videos, and retrieved the samples from a higher depth. It appears to be more legitimate than the Trieste story, because of the videos and photos, the samples, etc. - but I'll be the first one to admit that appearances can be deceiving.

The problem I have is that the Kaiko findings (whether legit or not) fail to support the claims made by the Trieste's crew, and even seem to contradict those claims, in at least two significant aspects (the biological / geographical environments).

So, whether or not the Kaiko data is completely valid, we are still left with no independent verification of the Trieste account.

But to me, the biggest red flag is that we are still completely incapable of duplicating the Trieste's (alleged) manned descent. As you pointed out earlier, we haven't even been able to come close to matching this feat over the past 47 years, despite the numerous technological advancements, etc. we've made since that time.

'Nuff said on this issue..

And my apologies to all for my part in straying from the main topic.

I'm pleased to see you take me up on this, Waspie_Dwarf (But I do hope you're not just trying to dredge up the old "evidence" argument again)

First of all, let me make it clear that the 'Space Achievements' graph I posted is/was not a graph based on actual, quantifiable data! I simply took an image of an actual seismograph, edited out the surrounding data, and put in a few of (imo) history's greatest "space achievements". I didn't revise the actual seismogram in any way, because I wanted to show how much an actual earthquake seismogram resembles (imo) a graph of "space achievements". (A 'seismogram' is the graph output by a seismograph)

Obviously, "achievements" cannot be scientifically quantified. One can't measure "achievements" to derive quantifiable data for a chart or graph.

It's an entirely subjective term.

But, that does not mean we can't create our own, purely subjective, unscientific graph(s) of various "achievements". As I've done, with my "Space Achievements" graph.

MID disagrees with my graph, and thinks "The actual curve would look like an upward line with a couple of plateaus in it, perhaps an occassional dip downward."
That's fine - we're all entitled to our own opinions.

I'll address graphs to compare it against, next...

Really? Oh, we hadn't thought of that before. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

No i think this needs a long and drawn out debate on it, it is a new year afterall

"It was just some confirmation"?

If NASA really did accept the USSR's Zond 5 reports as "some confirmation", then obviously, NASA must have considered those reports to be entirely valid / reliable / credible.

Put the other way around - if NASA considered the reports to be questionable, or unreliable - in whole or in part - then certainly NASA would not have accepted those reports as valid - for "some confirmation", or for anything else.

We know that we treated everything (or almost everything) the Soviets said in public as a bunch of lies / fabrications. By and large, we saw Soviet reports as exercises in Communist propaganda.

So, why would we treat their Zond 5 reports completely opposite to that? Why would we trust their claims and reports about their space program (or even just their claims about Zond 5), when we doubted their credibility and truthfulness regarding everything else they claimed?

That's just nonsense.



It's true that the USSR claims to have sent animals to the moon and back (Zond 5), and that all the animals onboard survived the entire mission.

But even James Lovell, former NASA astronaut, commander of Apollo 13, disputes that the Zond 5 animals came back alive...

And, so, I think in the fall or summer of ’68, they sent Zond 5 around the Moon with small animals. I think the reentry was so steep that the animals died, but it was a test that they were doing to see if they could put two cosmonauts around the Moon.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4701/session%20intro.pdf

That's from someone on your side of the Apollo argument, disputing a specific claim within that overall event. But it's barely the tip of the iceberg...

Many other "achievements" once claimed by the (now-defunct) USSR are gradually being revealed / exposed as frauds, exaggerations, and/or cover-ups of disasters. Cosmonaut fatalities hidden from the public for over 40 years are now being disclosed. Laika actually died a few hours after launch, a secret they maintained for decades afterwards.

What is your position on all this? Do you believe all the Zond 5 animals survived, unlike Lovell?

In light of recent revelations about the USSR's space program - lies, cover-ups, etc. - there are growing concerns about its credibility as a whole.



Nice reports to have - that is, if we knew, or even considered, such reports to be legit.

Even if NASA had deemed them as legit, and credible, it's far-fetched for me to believe that NASA would leap directly into manned lunar missions, either with or without "some confirmation" from a few Soviet reports!

You don't think that, after this accomplishment...

Test 3 man spacecraft. 1968

That this accomplishment makes it pale by comparison?...

Execute lunar orbital flight with that spacecraft. 1968

To me, it does.

Going from LEO flight with 2 men, to LEO flight with 3 men, is certainly a step up. But comparing it to the next step - a manned lunar orbit and return to Earth? Not even close.

Btw, why did you stop your list in 1972? Where's the Shuttle?

I am beginning to believe this exercise is a setup. You ask transparent questions that are really quite easily understood to most people, and someone answers those simple questions.

Otherwise, I do not understand how such roundabout stubborn ignorance of the facts of life persists.

It is like a game. A game. Playtime.

Why? Why? Why?

----------

Who?

So getting back to the "Space Achievements" graph...

After one looks at the historical achievements for various other fields - such as aviation - one soon realizes that they all tend to follow the same general pattern, and are perplexed to discover that none of these other "fields of achievement" - are even remotely comparable to that of "space achievements".

The first glaring anomaly in "space achievements" is Apollo 8. No other achievement, in any other field, can even come close to matching such an astounding one-step leap forward with Apollo 8!

What would other fields look like, if they also had made such an enormous single-step leap?

In terms of distance - Apollo 7 flew about 185 miles above Earth, while in LEO.
Apollo 8 flew to the moon and back - about 240,000 miles (each way)

2,594 times further in distance travelled away from Earth

If that had occurred within the field of aviation...

- Plane flies a distance of 10 miles - longest non-stop flight on record.

Just 2 months later...

- Plane flies 24,900 miles non-stop around the Earth.

Does this seem the least bit possible? Or realistic? Or believable?

More on this later...

Happy New Year Turbs (and everyone else!)

This is one of those bits of screwed up logic that causes my brain to go haywire!

Apollo 7 managed 163 orbits. Assuming a round figure of 25,000 miles per obit, that's a total distance travelled of over 4,000,000 miles - compared to around 500,000 miles to the moon and back.

Why do you think manned spacecraft orbit the earth in LEO? Why not in the middle of the Van Allen belts? Why not in Geostationary orbit? For starters, it takes more fuel to get there. Secondly, there's no point travelling through the Van Allen belts unless you're actually going somewhere (unless you want to perform experiments in the belts themselves). Thirdly, microgravity is the same in LEO as it is in a higher orbit,since you're effectively in free-fall toward the Earth. Fourthly, the closer you are to Earth, the higher resolution images you can obtain. This needs to be balanced against friction with the upper atmosphere that can cause orbits to decay. Fifthly, the Van Allen belts provide protection from solar flares, very important for long missions (e.g. ISS, MIR, Skylab etc).

Are you suggesting that it makes more sense to fly toward the moon, then turn round after 10,000 miles and come back? Next mission, fly 50,000? Next mission 100,000? What's the point? Once you've made your burn, you're going to the moon anyway, and are effectively coasting (not withstanding a couple of mid-course corrections). You're going to burn more fuel putting the brakes on and getting back to Earth than you are just going to the moon.

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here. Without resorting to the argument from personal disbelief, can you be specific about what it was about the design of the CSM that prevented it from travelling to the moon in the prescribed manner?

Just because neither you nor I have the "right stuff" doesn't mean those guys didn't!

Just in terms of distance traveled:

Gemini IV, June 1965 - 1.728 million miles traveled
Gemini V, August 1965 - 3.257 million miles traveled
Gemini VII, December 1965 - 5.61 million miles traveled

Apollo 8 traveled significantly less distance than either of these three missions that happened 3 years earlier and also significantly less distance that Apollo 7 traveled 2 months prior.

The technology necessary to put Apollo 8 on a trajectory to lunar orbit, achieve lunar orbit then return to Earth have been proven on previous manned and unmanned Apollo missions. Orbital mechanics and the necessary maths needed to calculate the proper trajectories was (and is) certainly well understood (although not by me ) by the engineers and technicians of the time. In terms of technology, all that was essentially needed to put the spacecraft on a free-return trajectory to the Moon was for the S-IVB stage engine to ignite and burn for a little over 5 minutes at the proper time/place in LEO. A later mid-course correction burn would take them off that trajectory and onto one that would put them in a position to enter lunar orbit.

The technology, science and hardware had been tested and proven and it worked with Apollo 8 as well.

All your "theories", comparisons and hand waving still have not shown that it was not possible for Apollo 8 to orbit the Moon.


Cz

You beat me to it, Postie


Actually, this is essentially what Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 did, but you're right about the fuel economy. SO instead of sending them straight out, stop and turn around, the used the engines to increase their orbits. Same technological challenge, different trajectories.

During Apollo 4, the S-IVB stage was fired and it sent the unmanned CSM out on an orbit with about a 17,000 kilometer apogee. The SPS then fired to send it out to about 18,000 kilometers. On it's way back, the SPS was fired again to increase its speed to about 40,000 kph (25,000 mph) to simulate the entry speed on a return from lunar orbit.

On Apollo 6, the S-IVB stage failed to fire due to what was determined to be a ruptured fuel line in the J-2's igniter, so the SPS engine was fired for about 7½ minutes (longer then on any other Apollo mission) and it went out about 22,000 kilometers. Due to the longer than planned use of the SPS, it could not be used again to increase the CSM's re-entry speed.



Cz

EDITED 'cuz I got miles and kilometers mixed up at one point...

The question that I always ask myself.
I know what you mean... I suppose that if someone believes something strongly enough, they'll never be satisfied by getting straight answers to their questions, and so they'll just keep asking again and again about the same point which has already been answered about 20 times, possibhly in the hope that someone will eventually say "Oh, i give up.. yes, you're right".

I shall assume this is just an opinion that you wanted to post, rather than a form of argument or in-depth analysis...
Thanks for that.

Ditto to you Cz...

Absolutely no apologies needed gentlemen, it made for interesting reading.

Topics can wander, it is often part of their natural progression. Sometimes it is a deliberate ploy by someone with an agenda, which is why we have rules on the subject. Clearly this was a case of the former rather than the latter. However that this is a huge topic already and I felt that further discussion on the subject would be better served in it's own thread. It also opened up the possibility of all sorts of other conspiracy theories being discussed an derailing this thread.

You exaggerate, Turb.
We knew the Soviets were capable. We also knew that they hid their accomplishments as best they could genrally speaking, until after they accomplished their missions. This of course was their paradigm, and it wasn't entirely successful.
There was actually no reason to doubt Soviet reports of accomplishments, and everything they said was not treated as lies and fabrications. We knew better than that, and they certainly didn't treat our reports any differently. They knew better. Of course, they knew about our successes and our failures. We knew about their successes but not their failures...until later.

Based on what we understood about the space enviroinment, Zond 5's accomplishments were not surprizing.



Turb, you make the mistake of taking Jim's comment, where he speciifically states that he "thinks" in fall or summer 68 the USSR sent Zond 5 around the Moon, and re-entry was too steep and the animals died, etc...as a statement of disagreement.

It is not. It is an astronaut thinking back, trying to remember things he, at the time, was hardly concerned about (since he was in deepest training to be the CMP on Apollo 8). Undoubtedly, Jim read something about it, or heard something about it. His recollections are his, and I am certain at the time these things were happening, he wasn't all too concerned with anything but his mission.


Zond 5 was successful, by all reports. NASA management knew about this, and that the Soviets were likely planning a manned lunar flyby mission in short order. That's why Apollo 8, with Frank Borman's concurrence, was re-planned to execute the lunar orbit mission while we waited for manned flight article LMs to be readied.

Zond 5 was launched in September 1968, sucessfully entered the Earth's atmosphere, and was a sucessful biological mission. Zond 6, on the other hand, launched in November 1968, did not succeed in that respect, as the live payload was lost. This was not due to a steep re-entry, but a cabin depressurization that killed the living things in the cabin. The vehicles parachutes also deployed too early, resulting in the vehicle crashing into the ground.

Of course, we knew about Zond 6 as well, but not the failure, as the Soviets didn't divulge their failures, only their successes.


Relying on one man's memories about things, which appear to be a merge of things he'd heard, is hardly grounds for saying he is in disagreement.
The title "Astronaut" is not a guarantee that such a one is all knowledgable about all things...especially things that were not exactly priority one on his to-do list at the time.






Again, NASA did not "jump" directly into manned lunar orbit flight based upon Soviet verification that it was possible. Their reports indicated that THEY WERE GOING TO ATTEMPT A MANNED FLY BY. We responded to that, by executing a mission which, although not in sequence as planned, was the only mission option available, and we already knew we had the capability and the spacecraft that could do it.

I think you emphasise the wrong things here.
Soviet reports of success were not ignored. Whether they were true or not was inconsequential. We knew of their successes, we didn't initially know about their failures. What do we do? Completely discount their reports as baloney and ignore them?

Not a chance.

I know it does to you, Turb.
That's really the major issue here.
You look at what I like to call the emotional value of a lunar orbit mission, which is somewhat natural, certainly.
There's something awesome about being in lunar orbit. No one could disagree.

However, that emotional accomplishment, as-it-were, is unrelated to the technical requirements of the mission, requirements that we had accomplished.

As Posty and Cz have pointed out, Apollo 8 traveled about 500,000 miles on it's journey to the Moon and back (more like 600,000 including the Earth and lunar orbit phases of the mission...but whatever). Apollo 7, the shakedown flight of the vehicle, traveled abbout 7 times farther, and was in space for almost twice as much time. Apollo 7 proved the CSM in a very thorough engineering test flight.

Quite frankly, the distance is inconsequential. If you can fly in space, you can fly in space. If you have a proven vehicle that's executed 11 days in orbit, and has performed beautifully, why not send it out on a six day mission? Nothing's different about what it has to do from a technical standpoint, save that it's only got to do it's thing for about half of the time that it just demonstrated it can sucessfully accomplish. The thing works. What's necessary is to push it out there, rather than leave it in Earth orbit. We have that capability, so...what's stopping us?

From a spacecraft performance and capability standpoint, it's less of a strain than the previous mission was.
From an emotional standpoint, it's a leap. But the emotional standpoint was not a concern in an engineering test flight program.

Without diminishing the accomplishment of Apollo 8 (and I never would), the fixation on the wonder of being at the Moon, something we were entirely capable of trying, with reserves to spare, has no bearing on the technical requirements and actual execution of the mission. It was possible, it was logical, and it was well within the technical capabilities of the spacecraft and the people managing it.




That's because we're talking about Apollo.
The accomplishments of the Shuttle program are a separate and unrelated matter to a manned space exploration program with a specific and short term goal and a completely different paradigm of operation.

Again, this gets back to the emotional value idea.
The glaring anomaly you see in Apollo 8 is a result of that, not any quantum technical leap. As I said, from the engineering standpoint, it was a logical, incremental progression.

The airplane analogy is irrelevant...not in any way an apples-to-apples comparison. That would indeed by a quantum leap in accomplishment, skipping alot of incremental development and testing, no doubt, and getting mighty God awful lucky in the process. Apollo 8 did not do that, or anything close to that.

...Apollo 8 was not three white-scarved jet jockeys throwing all caution to the wind to try something that had a low chance of being sucessful at best. It was a group of fine people who tried it because they thought, based upon test data, intense training, and real, incremental performance data, that they would be sucessful.

Apollo had already flown millions of miles. It's altitude above the Earth is irrelevant.
It had to fly less than a million to go to the Moon and back. All that's necessary is to navigate it in the right direction (there was of course alot more concerning Apollo 8 that we would be doing first...but again, we knew how, we just hadn't tried it all yet...but you've gotta go at some point).

On the mission being thrashed out by one or two Was there enough oxygen for the mission or was it scrubbed and re used?
SORRY TO BUTT IN

belial,
Your questions are interesting and deserve answering. They might also be of interest to those that have an interest in spaceflight but do not follow the debate here in the Conspiracy section. As this thread is already so complex better place to ask them might be in a thread that MID started sometime ago in the Space and Astronomy forum, The Apollo Program: The Moon Landings, Questions, Answers, Discussion, and Learning, which can be found HERE. This thread was specifically started to answer questions such as yours (but is not for discussion of the Hoax Theory).

If you are in agreement that this is a better place for such questions I will move your post there, this will keep this thread free for more direct discussion on the hoax theory.

I am beginning to see that this incessant inability to not over-exaggerate Apollo 8 into the realm of a quantum leap has resulted in what may be deemed a diminishment of the technical accomplishment of the mission.

Thus, I should describe Apollo 8 and what it really did.


First, it must be noted that we had the following available to us:

1..a fully capable spacecraft, able to execute all functions pertinent to a mission into lunar orbit and back again.
2..a fully capable booster with the ability to propel the spacecraft out of the Earth's gravitational influence and into a trajectory to intercept the Moon.
3..the abiltity to execute a lunar trajectory, which we'd done numerous times already...thus, the mathematics involved were well understood and demonstrrated repeatedly.
4..the ability of humans to perform effectively in the microgravity environment for much longer than it would take to execute a lunar mission.
5..the software containing the programs which would allow us to navigate that trajectory with the spacecraft.

And so, we set out to execute the mission we were prepared to do.

However, there were most assuredly firsts, unexplored territory, as-it-were, that Apollo 8 accomplished, and that of course is part-and-parcel of any of the manned missions that preceeded it.


1..we flew men on the Saturn V. First time. Again, that was just a matter of doing it, but it was significant.
2..boosting that much mass into trans-lunar flight precisely. Ditto. We knew how, but there's a first for everything.
3..executing mid-course corrections in cis-lunar space to fine tune the path. Also a know-how-to-do it quantity, but it had not been done with an Apollo spacecraft yet (despite the fact that it was a demonstrated capability).
4..flying men to the Moon, which was merely a matter of going for a ride in a different direction...the spacecraft had no problems with it.
5..executing a precise LOI maneuver. Never done with an Apollo spacecraft, but we knew how.
6..adjusting that lunar orbit once we got into it, which we alse knew how to do, but had never done around the Moon (it's no different than doing it around the earth).
7..executing TEI. Again, we knew exactly how, but had never done it.
8..re-entering the Earth's atmosphere at ~ 36,000 FPS, with men aboard. Never done, but a demonstrated capability for the spacecraft, and the men who would have to endure it.


What we were doing on Apollo 8 was taking capabilities we had attained, and putting them all together in order to execute them in a complete lunar mission package. Was there risk?

You bet.
Any one of these things we could do, any aspect of this daisy chain of events, could crap out, for one reason or another. The list of possibilities is daunting, and could result in anything from a really tricky get back down to Earth maneuver during an early TLI SIV-B failure, to a fatal incident somewhere out in space.

But since we had seen all of these things demonstrated as capabilities, since we had simulated them ad-nauseam, trained to the point of being exhausted, and seen everything work individually at various times, the risks were deemed managed, and adequate for everyone involved in the mission.

Since we were in fact doing all these things with an eye toward putting it all together once everything was fleshed out as best it could be, and going to the Moon, and we were ready to try it...what else do we do?

Someone's got to go. When it's as ready as it can be...without actually doing it...you do it. It's certainly risky. It's loaded with potentials of a really bad day. But there comes a point where you go. Apollo 8 was that point.

Sticking it all together and executing it, as was done in December of 1968 was a magnificent accomplishment, but to consider it some sort of untenable quantum leap is to lack understanding of what was involved in the lead up to it...efforts of thousands of people.

We collected our chips incrementally until we had the whole stack of 'em. Someone's going to take that stack of chips and run with it. That was Apollo 8.

Apollo 9 added a bunch of chips to that stack, and Apollo 10 added the final set. We then had enough loot to go for broke with as much confidence as we could possibly have. Thus, Apollo 11 took the whole bag of 'em and did what was only logical...again, a magnificent accomplishment, but not a quantum leap in a technical capability sense. It was a logical progression.

All of the missions had risk. None can be diminished in any way. But you cannot look at any goal mission, like Apollo 8 or Apollo 11 as being individual leaps of untenable nature. Each of those missions had a load of stuff in their pockets from the previous missions.

I often refer to Apollo 11 as the capstone of a large pyramid, a pyramid which included everyone who participated in every mission that preceeded it. It was actually the logical and incremental laying of the capstone on top of a pyramid that contained the total experience and knowledge gleaned from the 20 manned missions that preceeded it.

None of the missions magically put a stone somewhere up above where there was support for it to sit upon. All of them laid a logical next stone in the pyramid. There'd be no way to do anything else. You build from the bottom up. You cannot skip from the foundation to the tenth floor. You gotta have floors 1 through 9 installed first.


The implication in the recent argument is that we did infact put the top stones on the pyramid before we laid the rest of it down. That is impossible, and it didn't happen.

I think Waspie's right, Belial.

I'm going to put an answer over in the thread he mentioned (Space and Astronomy section) for you....

Your question is your own answer...You can see that it will be concentrated on polar mapping..Another stupid lie from NASA.We are tired to hear lies from NASA.We will never have an actual picture or video from moon landing sites.

No, no, no, that's not to conceal that the moon landings never happened... that's so they don't show the mile-high crystal cities.

This is a half truth, here is what NASA ACTUALLY says, from the LRO site:
(emphasis mine)

So although there is interest in the poles (an area not imaged by Apollo) LRO will be exploring the whole of the Moon.

What we are really tired of UNDER THE HAT is your total avoidance of anything resembling facts or evidence. You post a lot and say little. All you offer is your opinion with no substance behind it. Are you ever going to back yourself up with any evidence?

You read as well that the spacecraft will work on low polar orbit...This will be enough for NASA to say that they are very far away from apollo landing sites and this will be the reason for not showing any picture or video from the apollo hardware on the moon.This or any other excuse will be used by NASA.You will remember me when this day comes.
Waspie,if you are tired of me,you should complain to a moderator.But please,find an impartial moderator for that.
Happy new year!!!

UNDER THE HAT, you need to do some research, you are commenting on something which you have demonstrated you know nothing about. You clearly do not have the vaugest notion as to what a polar orbit actually is. It is an orbit which carries a satellite from pole to pole over the object it is orbiting (in the case the Moon) allowing it to pass over EVERY point on the surface of the planet or Moon. This is the one type of orbit which guarantees that the LRO will overfly the Apollo landing sites.


Attack on my moderating noted and reported so that it may be dealt with by other moderators. If you have a problem with my moderating you should contact another moderator or an administrator through PM NOT make this kind of attack in open forum. I will leave it at that as it will be dealt with by others.

NASA already has photos of some Apollo landing sites at a similar resolution, as well as take-off footage from inside each LM.

Question: since you believe that NASA faked this material, why would you believe any other NASA photos? If they showed evidence of Apollo artefacts at Apollo landing sites, would you simply say those photos had been faked as well? Or would you accept it as evidence that Apollo was real? If you accept new NASA photos as being real and not faked, why won't you accept Apollo photos? If you won't accept new photos as evidence in favour of Apollo, why are you bothered whether they image the sites or not?

yes we landed on the moon , somebody always has to try to deny anything that is remarkable

Unless Waspie has taken moderator action against you in order to support his point, which he hasn't, then I don't see how the fact that he is a moderator is relevant.

Lets keep personal attacks and snide remarks out of this debate please.

I did not ask a question, Hat.


I was merely pointing out a fact, which you don't seem willing to counter.

p.s., we DO HAVE actual pictures and video from Apollo landing sites...

As may have been pointed out to you, Hat, a low polar orbit does not mean that they will be very far away from Apollo landing sites (my suggestion is that you investigate the LRO orbital plans...available to you as we speak).
The fact is that the vehicle will probably cross some Apollo landing sites on it's orbital track.

What I clearly stated was that if the LRO actually wastes its time gathering images opf Apollo landing sites at its proposed 1m resolution, they will have no effect on those who wish to believe that Apollo was faked, because:

1...they will show no detail close to the detail we already have (please read my illustrative post to that effect).
2...HBs will say they're fake anyway!

We'll do so if it's allowable in the planned activities and we happen upon an equitorial transit that happens to concur with an Apollo landing site that's correctly illuminated. It will show nothing satistfactory to the HB...



What day is that?




Same to you Hat. Happy New Year...
But really...I'd advise a careful read of what's been said to you...(Waspie is a moderator..., and as are most all of them here...very patient).

I like the question, Posty.



Hat, read this one carefully, and answer it, please.
This post (of Posty's) addresses the point I've been attempting to stress.


Will you, in fact, accept 1m resolution photos that will show you obscure images of what might be LM descent stages when we already have photos clearly showing these things on the surface at ~100 times the resolution?

If so, why?

And if not, what's your point?


There's got to be something to this sudden obstinance in the face of simple facts and questions directed at you, Hat. You absolutely must have questions.


Again, I stress, cease with the declarations of fact based upon lack of knowledge. Ask that which you're confused about.
We're actually here to help...

Thank you MID. Not wanting this to go off topic (having asked others not to do so) I shall make this the final post on the subject...

My patience is irrelevant, that of the Site Administrator, SaRuMaN is not. He sets the rules by which all members of this site are bound (including the moderators). I believe those rules to be fair and tolerant, if I did not then not only would I not try to enforce them as a moderator but I would not be prepared to follow them as a member. Like all members here if I don't like it I am free to leave.

SaRuMaN also sets the additional rules by which we moderators are bound. Those rules reflect SaRuMaN's patience (a virtue he has in abundance.. far more than I do).

Impartiality is something we try to achieve in our moderating, it does not however prevent us from having or expressing an opinion on subjects which are discussed on this site, we are, after all, first and foremost members here too.

I had huge respect for the moderators before I joined their ranks, now that I know first hand the hard work that is put in and the abuse that is often received I respect my fellow moderators even more. I also am privileged to see some of the huge amount of work that SaRuMaN puts into running this site, a site with over 57,000 members and more than 2 million posts. The success of this site reflects the work that he puts in here.

That said, we are human, we are capable of mistakes. If that happens then a polite PM will usually sort out the problem.

Rant over, back on topic.

Happy new year for you too ,MID.
Yes,I misunderstood about the polar orbit.I didn´t think it was an orbit from pole to pole.But I keep saying that other excuses will come from NASA for not showing apollo hardware on the moon,even in a low polar orbit.And when this day of NASA excuses comes,then you will remember that I had already told you that this would happen.And then all the propagandists will come here defending NASA and the show will keep going on and on....
1mt resolution will not be optimum,but we will be able to see some hardware and tracks of the lunar roover on the moon.
Mid,aren´t you curious to see the untouched scenario of the first landing on the moon 40 years ago?My God! It is just me that is curious about that? All the propagandists are not curious about that? For me ,it is like a mummy buried in Egypt to be discovered...
Ps - Mid,you didn´t answer me if you were one of those men that worked on mission control on apollo missions.