Well you know what they say, the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. The whole moonlanding event reeks of SOMETHING. What exactly, Im not sure. I don't think the astronauts are being totally honest. I think they, and top brass at NASA, among others know something and aren't saying anything about it. What exactly they are not being totally honest about, who knows.

Why do you think that the astronauts and NASA in general aren't being honest? I've never noticed anything in this regard myself, could you give us some specific examples that lead you to feel this way?

The original post. The astronauts wouldn't swear on a bible that they actually went to the moon. If some annoying A-hole who didn't believe I landed on the moon, and asked me to swear on a bible that I did, I would do it. Its just a little fishy.

Q: did we land on the moon?

A: Yes

People who beilive we didnt seem to point out rubbish to support their claims. What about the fact it was recorded video?and the laser that sends information back to earth? How about the photos which you would have to be completely stupid to ignore?

Case closed for me.

If one rocket can get us to the Moon and back in 1969, why would we need two rockets in 2020? By all logic, this should be the other way around.

I'm well aware that 4 men will be able (at least, are planned) to go in 2020 , compared to only 3 in 1969. And, that they will be able to carry more cargo than Apollo's Saturn V. But the differences are much too small to make two rockets necessary. Consider the payloads....

Apollo:

Capacity
Payload to LEO 118,000 kg
Payload to Lunar orbit 47,000 kg

Ares V:

Capacity
Payload to LEO 130,000 kg
Payload to Lunar orbit 65,000 kg

Ares I:

Capacity
Payload to LEO 25,000 kg

When does technology ever regress, instead of progress?

Virtually every single technology critically relevant to manned space travel has already become much more advanced since 1969. And in another 10 - 15 years, we will certainly be more advanced than we are today.

Take a Saturn V rocket, and then break it down into some of its basic components. Structural materials. Electronics systems. Propulsion systems. etc..

Then break down each of those basic components....

Structural materials - metals, alloys, plastics, etc. Most of the materials in a Saturn V have since become modified or replaced with lighter, stronger, overall superior materials.

Electronics systems - computer processing, sensors, relays, etc. This field has advanced so much it's too ridiculous to even talk about.

Propulsion systems - much superior to Saturn V's, from top to bottom.


The Space Shuttle is far more advanced than the Saturn V, yet can't go beyond low Earth orbit. Because, "It wasn't designed to go to the Moon!", as is always said in reply. But, now that we are designing Moon-bound spacecraft, we don't even know if we can get there by 2020, with two rockets.

I won't even start about how space radiation wasn't a big problem for Apollo to overcome, but now that we know it's a huge hazard, they were just incredibly "lucky" way back then!

The key concept here (for me anyway) is "some annoying A-hole". I mean, even if one does go ahead and swear on the Bible in front of such a person it's unlikely to stop there. Frankly, the "annoying A-hole" is simply going to now screech about perjury and damnation....it's a no win situation for any astronaut cornered by likes of Mr. Sibrel. In my opinion, there's little question of why astronauts avoid such people like the plague.

You might also want to watch carefully and note that a couple of them did in fact swear on Sibrel's bible...

That of course accomplished nothing, as he called them liars anyway.

Apollo did in fact do precisely what we said it did, what the world watched it do, and what tens of thousands of scientists worldwide have substantiated in the most documented occurrance in human history. Frankly, the idea of a faked Apollo program is ludicrous.

Hi Turb.
Interesting questions.

Something which should be understood about Ares 1 and 2 is this:

These vehicles are not designed exclusively for a manned trip to the Moon.
The Saturn V was.

This is a very big difference, and it involves a completely different design paradigm. We have two vehicles which are being designed to assume many different functions.


ARES 1 will be the manned Earth orbital delivery system. It will of course serve to launch crews aboard the Orion spacecraft, both for EO missions, ISS replenishments, and Lunar missions. This vehicle replaces the Shuttle with a multi-purpose spacecraft that can be used for planetary and Earth orbital missions.

ARES 2 is the new heavy lift booster. It will be used to transport large payloads into EO, and will also carry the much larger and beefed up lunar landing vehicle into EO, for rendezvous and docking with Orion. It will, in that case, provide propulsion for the trans-lunar trip.

So, what we have now is a Shuttle, which provides heavy lift and manned transport to EO only. What we will have is a multi-purpose group of vehicles which will do everything the Shuttle can do, plus provide capabilities that the Shuttle does not have.

It is not so much that we need two vehicles to do what one did before. It is that we need two vehicles to provide flexibility and economy in doing everything we want to do in the future.

(...if we simply designed a huge vehicle to go to the Moon, we'd have to use it for ISS missions as well, which would be a huge waste of a heavy-lift booster that is not-needed for the mission. We're designing full capability vehicles here, with alternatives for various missions...not simply a mission specific vehicle like the SV).


As to the radiation issue, you generalize and over-simplify the Apollo issue and its relation to the Constellation issue.

Radiation was in fact not an operational poroblem for Apollo. It will also not be for Orion during its flight to the Moon. However, in contrast to the longest Apollo lunar stays (3 days on the J-Missions), the new lunar program is planned to use a very beefed up landing vehicle/base which will feature lengthy stays on the surface.

The effects of radiation are related to time of exposure. With excess time on the surface, research must be done on those potentials, and is being done. It was not luck during Apollo. It was knowledge of the hazzards and research which clearly indicated a lack of an operation problem given the time of exposure planned and the protection provided.

It will not be luck when the new program goes back to the Moon either. It is of course a problem, but the whole program is a "problem" that needs to be solved through research, testing, and development. We did it before. We'll do it again.

M~

One minor correction MID, the larger launcher is the Ares V, not the Ares 2. The numbers were, of course, given to honour the Saturn launch vehicles.

As well as the reasons given by MID for the two launchers there is also the fact that it was a simple policy decision. After the problems with the shuttle many felt that NASA should never again launch cargo and men on the same vehicle. The result of that is the Ares vehicles.

There have been proposals for a long time to use shuttle derived hardware to produce a heavy lift unmanned vehicle. Constellation starts off with such a launcher rather than back engineering it.

It would also be a good time for you to check a bit of space history turbonium, specifically what was the last launch of a Saturn V?

You will find that the Saturn V's last flight was as in a modified form: an unmanned heavy lift vehicle. It carried the Skylab space station into obit. The manned Skylab missions were launched using the smaller Saturn Ib vehicle. Remind you of any currently proposed launch vehicles? So even with Apollo progress went from a single launch vehicle to the system NASA is proposing for Constellation.

There is also the fact that the Moon is not the proposed final destination of the Orion programme. It's ultimate goal is manned missions to Mars. Such a mission would require several launches using a heavy lift rocket to assemble a spacecraft in orbit, before the crew was launched. The Ares vehicles are being designed with that ultimate goal in mind.

Having said that, there are problems being faced by the Ares I / Orion combination. Orion is over weight and the Ares I is currently not capable of launching it unless more weight is lost. One of the alternatives being looked at is the Ares IV. this is a hybrid launcher which will be based on the Ares V but be capable of carrying Orion as well. If the Orion weight problem is not sorted out then NASA could end up with a similar vehicle to the Saturn V anyway.

Yep...you're right. 2, 5...I always had trouble with numbers!

Thanks, Waspie

Another slight correction. Although the Saturn series were originally designed for a lunar landing, there were studies conducted to use it for a Mars landing. This was the Saturn MLV series:



These were studies only, and none were ever built.

With regard to Turbonium's point about progress: yes, you are right. Things have progressed.

So we have our Saturn V, our moon rocket. Let's say we will stick with the original F-1 and J-2 engines.

But we have improved metallurgical abilities, so we can make the whole thing lighter with the same strength. And we can replace the earlier electronics with improved models. Also saving weight.

But those designs were flight tested. So we have to make the Saturn V again, this time with different (better) materials, and different (better) systems. You've changed the design, so the whole thing needs to be flight tested, man-rated.

But some of the techniques were specific to the Saturn V. After production ceased, those people were out of the Saturn V business. It's been nearly 40 years since they built them and the expertise in production has been lost. So you have to regain that expertise.

Also, there has been other progress. The 'young guns' have come up with improved ways of doing things.

So why retrofit the old design with new ideas? Why not take the knowledge from the old system, and use it to build a newer craft? You still have to flight test it, so no saving there.

There used to be a saying in aviation: the only thing that could replace a C-47 / DC-3 was ANOTHER C-47 / DC-3. Why didn't we re-open the C-47 production lines, with updated systems? Then came along the Caribou (DHC-4). Now we say the only thing that can replace a Caribou is another Caribou... and guess what? They are building 'another' Caribou - but not the same aircraft. Not even the same manufacturer. Doesn't even look like it. But it drew on the knowledge from that aircraft, and they are building a better design that will also go on for years.

Look at the 747. Improvements were made, introducing new systems and a better aircraft - but they have new designs now. Why? Why not just fit the new equipment to the proven design? Because sometimes there are better ways to do things, and it is better to start with a clean slate rather than improve a design.

Another example, close to home for me. The Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprite. It was a proven airframe (like the Saturn V), and we decided to update it. Fit better engines, new improved avionics. Make it state of the art.

What do we have? Eleven airframes in preservation at 805 SQN, not flying, because we tried to change it too much. Unforeseen fatigue issues with uprated engines. System integration problems. An ITAS that is great by itself but doesn't work to specs in the airframe.

Turbonium, there are points of diminishing return when you consider risks of changing a proven design. At a certain point, it is better to start from scratch - utilising the knowledge you have gained from previous designs, and starting anew.

And said quite rightly. For missions beyond low earth orbit the Shuttle always carried an upper stage as well as the payload. Shuttle-launched payloads have in fact reached as far as Jupiter. The Shuttle could have supported a manned moon programme, but it would take three or four Shuttle-launched payloads, assembled in low earth orbit, to equal the payload of one Saturn V, thus making the scheme prohibitavely expensive.

I like the analogy sir, so I am going to pick it up and run with it.

To explain why things are being done differently now, and also to show that the often use hoax believers argument, "if we could land on the moon in 1969 why is it going to take until 2020 to get back" is false I think we should look at the 747 and another aircraft that first flew at the same time, Concorde.

As Obviousman has said, the 747 is has been improved since the late 60's when it first flew (IIRC the first flight of the 747 and Concorde both occurred in 1969). Under the skin the improvements mean that the modern 747 is a far better, more efficient, safer plane than the early models. Had America continued to use the Saturn V it would have evolved in the same way. Many if the variants in Obviousman's illustration would have been built and we would probably now be using versions that simply have never been dreamed of. It is possible that NASA would have employed the, "if it ain't broke. don't fix it" mentality, and the SaturnV would be the first choice vehicle for the Ares V role.

The Saturn V did not go down that route however. Production was stopped after only a limited run, making it far more like Concord. Only 14 Concords ever entered service. As a result there were no new versions. No Concord mark 2's with extended range, better fuel economy, more passengers. Until it retired from service the Concord was essentially the same plane that first entered service. Now it is gone. No airline in the world has a supersonic capability. Does that mean no airline ever did and Concord was a hoax? Britain and France built a Supersonic airliner but the USA never did. Is that evidence that the technology simply did not exist. The Russians tried to build a Supersonic airliner, the TU144, but it was not successful, proof surely that it is impooible for a passenger plane to fly at Mach 2?

Moreover if there is ever a market again for a Mach 2 airliner I can guarantee that the aircraft manufacturers will not reopen the Concord production lines. They will build on the knowledge gained from Concord, but they will start with a clean sheet of paper. They will build a new aircraft, they will not power it with Rolls-Royce Olympus engines. Why? Because things have moved on. Unlike the 747, the Concord did not evolve. Beautiful machine though it was it is a dinosaur. The same is true of the Saturn V, it was not allowed to evolve.

As for a Concord replacement, if the go ahead was given now how long do you think it would be before a replacement entered service? The Airbus A380 was first proposed in the late 1990s. It was officially launched as a project in December 2000. The first aircraft did not fly until 2005 and in 2007 it is still not is service. And remember this (although being huge) is just a conventional airliner. If it takes this long to build a new airliner is a target date of 2020 for returning to the Moon unreasonable.

Turbonium, none of your objections that the Ares launchers suggest that Apollo was a fake hold any water when you really examine them and compare them to the reality of the aerospace world. On the contrary, they suggest that everything is exactly how you would expect it to be.

Indeed. Had the shuttle worked as originally advertised and dramatically cut the cost of spaceflight instead of making it even more expensive, this may very well have been the way that we returned to the Moon and then went to Mars.

Had the shuttle worked as advertised we would probably be back on the Moon by now and we would not be having this conversation (with all but the must fanatical HBs anyway).

Getting away from all the technicalities because I'm no expert in that, my thoughts come down to something quite simple, if you look at the picture I have linked here where Armstrong has his photo taken by Buzz and you can see a reflection in his visor of whats behind Buzz, how come there is horizon on both sides of them?? Unless you were standing on something very small (and the moon is not that small it is 2200 miles in diameter 1/4 the size of Earth's) would you only see horizon on either side of you? Its like the horizon has just been cut off on both sides to give the appearance of blackness in the background to make it seem there is nothing but space, if you look at it, it doesn't look normal. To me anyways.

What? You're standing on a flat plain. Why wouldn't horizon be all around you, be it the Moon, Earth, or Jupiter (if you had a surface to stand on.)

I've traveled in Arizona and finding horizon on all sides isn't hard at all. I'm sure that Australia has lots of similar places.


P.S. Those photos were of Buzz, taken by Neil.

Oh OK. Just looks odd to me but then again I haven't stood on many flat plains. Wasn't it in Arizona they apparently took these pictures anyway?

Nah. Arizona has oxygen.

Hmmmm....and lots of flat plains with horizon all round.......the plot thickens...

But the air thins...

Ironic how your answer disproving me has lead me to believe even more the photos are fake.........

Dang weareallsuckers has an excellent argument, I mean just look, those picture look just like Arizona... the black sky, the rocky gray ground...hmm.. maybe he is on to something.

How? What evidence is there in those photographs that they were taken on Earth? Belief is a fine thing but it is no substitute for fact.

Rambo, there is no need for that degree of sarcasm.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not Rambo...lol....but at night it would look like that. Wouldn't it???

Good point, except that many of the lunar photographs show the sun.

Like I said I'm no expert on this but isn't it the theory of conspiracy theorists that the moon landing photos were taken in the Arizona desert?

The trouble is, the Arizona desert looks nothing like the Moon. As dry as it is, there are signs of liquid water activity all over the place. It wouldn't fool anyone with any training in geology.

Or area 51 in Nevada, or Utah or Australia depending on which hoax believer you listen too. They can't make up their minds for the simple reason that none of the Apollo photographs actually look like any of these places.

Can I just check if I understand your reply. You don't understand whether the photographs are evidence of a hoax, but when someone makes a comment suggesting why they can't be faked you believe they are fake even more? I that right?

What Atomic Dog was hinting at with his "but the air thins" comment is the fact that as well as the photographs we have movie footage shot at the same time. The way that things move (dust in particular) shows that there was no air and one sixth gravity. Conclusion, the movie footage can not have been shot out side in Arizona (or anywhere else on Earth). As the movie footage corresponds perfectly to the still photographs they can not have been taken outside, on Earth either.

Like this; I pointed out how I thought the horizon was odd that it was all around, so Atomic Dog told me that Arizona could have horizon all around, which then made me think they COULD have been taken in Arizona as is often put forward by conspiracy theorists.

And in your last paragraph the answer seems pretty sure you gave but why is there a conspiracy theory about the moon landing at all if it's so clean cut?
Personally I hope they did land on the moon but as usual I can't help but question it. Sometimes things come off the top of my head without the technical thought, you know?

A combination of reasons.

In many ways you have answered your own question, you don't have the technical knowledge so you don't know whether Apollo is true or not. This perpetuates the hoax theory.

The driving force behind it is different. In many cases the motive is straight forward... money. There are people like Bart Sibrel, David Percy and others that make a living by selling videos and books which promote the conspiracy theory. People believe them because the half truths and down right lies that these people spread can seem believable to those without technical knowledge.

There is a strong distrust of Government and a lack of understanding of science and other technical issues these days. People like Sibrel bank on that to make their profit. this is why you do not find huge numbers of photographers saying the pictures are clear fakes. This is why there are not thousands of aerospace engineers from around the world saying Apollo was not technically feasible. It is why you will find no physicist on the planet that specialises in radiation and no astronomers that doubt Apollo. these people DO have the technical ability to understand the truth and they do not doubt the authenticity of Apollo.

On top of that you have those that we believe just about everything is a conspiracy. Jack White who calls himself a photographic expert and is responsible for some of the most incompetent photographic reviews of both Apollo and the JFK assassination ever made. will quite happily tell you that not only is evolution untrue but that it is a wicked government conspiracy. These people not only believe that governments lie (we all know that) but that everything governments say is a lie. these people are "believers" they will buy into the Apollo conspiracy and refuse to accept any evidence that proves their belief wrong. These people are like religious zealots. You could take these people to the Moon and show them the Apollo landing sites and they would still not believe.


Questioning is fine, question is great. If you express doubts and ask questions there are many on this board infinitely better qualified than me to answer those questions. As I said belief is no substitute for facts and there are plenty here that can provide those facts.

The easiest question I have ever had to answer, no.

Good explanation Waspie and I take it on board. You're right of course, unless you know true facts and technicalities it's easy to make something out of anything, I'm always doing it, my mind just wanders, glad we had this discussion, I 'think' everything is a conspiracy theory.......... my name is not weareallsuckers for nothin'!

Well, I'd say that's fair enough!

Waspie and Obviousman and Lilly have done a darn good job of explaining these matters.

There were a couple points you made I'd like to add my two cents to:



This is a relatively common association concerning the Apollo lunar surface photos. Waspie made a quick reference to the sun, I think, in some place here.

The thing to understand is that it's not night. It's broad daylight...a much broader daylight than we have ever seen on earth (that's why things are illuminated...the Sun). All landings took place during various phases of lunar morning. The "sky" is black because there is no atmosphere to cause the light to split into the normal blue we see on Earth.




Again, I think Waspie addresed almost every aspect of this idea in rather thorough fashion (he's a pretty astute guy, you know!). In all of the Moon hoax conspiracy ideas, there is another salient feature. That is that those who put forth the ideas have little or no education pertaining to the subject matter which they attempt to address. To the educated in these matters, their efforts are highly transparent. To the educated, be it in photography, astrophysics, celestial mechanics, or the various technologies involved in space flight, all of the associated hoax ideas come from a basis of lack of understanding.

For instance, did you know that there are actually no anomalies in any Apollo photographs? In other words, they all show perfectly natural representations of what it looks like in a vacuum on the surface of an alien world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anything shown in any of them...in fact, they substantiate completely that men were indeed on the Moon.

Waspie mentioned Jack White, perhaps one of the most thoroughly qualified charlatans in the Moon hoax business. He claims to be a photographic expert, yet, his analysis of these Apollo lunar surface photos has the quality of someone who has absolutely no knowledge of depth perception, backlighting, or how shadows should appear when photographs are taken in a vacuum. It is apparent, to the educated, that his contentions point to the fact that he is either a complete charlatan, or is mentally bereft (I'm personally not sure that the latter is not the case. I actually think he was a photographic expert at some time, but that his mind has been somewhat twisted by some of the factors that Waspie outlined in his post).

At any rate, my contention is that Apollo hoaxes are opportunities to educate, since all of them are based on a lack of understanding.

Jack White has no idea of how shadows should appear when photographs are taken in an atmosphere, either. A lot of the things that he claims are impossible anomalies in Apollo photos can be demonstrated to be perfectly normal features of shadow and perspective by anyone who bothers to take their own pictures on a sunny day.

Flyingswan, from what I've seen of Jack White's work everything after the first 5 words of your post is redundant.

I noted that as well...

I believe that Waspie was the one who showed these perfectly natural photographic effects with his own camera ( ), and essentially laid the issue to rest for straydog (well, at least I thought he did...certain folks wouldn't buy it, despite the fact that his photos proved the points we were making about shadows and perspective, etc...), some time ago in the old Moon hoax thread.


But from what I've seen of Jack, he's still pounding his highly skewed photgraphic mis-interpretations. He's a really sad case, to be honest...

As many have done before me and many will continue to do (a lot of them far better than my modest attempts).
The fact is anyone with a camera can test some of White and Percy's claims and show for themselves that they are false. If an amateur with very little training like myself can replicate effects these, so called, experts claim are impossible you have to doubt their competence and/or integrity.


In your dreams MID. Although no longer a member he is still continuing to post the same old stuff at other sites. He also continues to insult everyone that produces the evidence that prove he is wrong. It seems that you can lead a dog to culture but you can't make it think.



And producing some new ones as well.

You know, Waspie, I agree with this completely.
An amateur can indeed do this. I have little photgraphic expertise (I am not bad with a camera, but I'm certainly not an expert photographer). I can look at a poicture and see what's happening, and I, like you (who are likely much more experienced), can go outside and replicate the effects. There is no doubt that Percy and White are charlatans. Their ideas can be disproven and/or explained by common folks like us!



Yea, I know. I was just trying to be polite.
I've seen it in its continuance. It is frankly, most disturbing.

Did we land on the moon?
Yes we did.
NEXT.

With all due respect, statements like this are not going to persuade anyone of the authenticity of Apollo, any more than the statements of hoax believers who simply say, "it's a bit fishy" will convince anyone that the landings were a hoax.

Did we land on the moon?
I dont know, you dont know
NEXT

You may not know, R3LOAD.
I do (as well as several others around this place...).


If you'd like to know, this is the place to get the information which will give you the knowledge that we did.

Your questions, and anyone else's, are more than welcome.

I found this interesting:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constell...inspection.html

With out getting into the philosophical argument as to what knowledge is and whether any thing is actually knowable, I can say that I am as sure as it is possible for me to be that between 1969 and 1972 Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon and returned them safely to the Earth.

I have seen far more evidence for this occurring than I have for Hillary and Tenzing reaching the summit of Everest, Amundsen reaching the South Pole, Picard reaching the Challenger Deep and Alcock and Brown flying the Atlantic combined.

All of these events required great courage and were on the very edge of what was technically achievable at the time, in that they do not differ from Apollo. All of these events have far less evidence to back them up than Apollo and yet very, few people in their right mind, doubt that they happened. We don't have charlatans trying to prove that Everest has never been conquered and that the photos are fake, so what is it with the Moon?

I base my opinion not on pure belief and wishful thinking, but on the vast amount of evidence that shows that Apollo happened and the total lack of evidence to show that there was any hoax.

I admit that I don't understand all the arguments (for example I have never taken photographs in a studio with studio lighting so I am not in a position to comment on that but I do understand landscape photography). I am by profession a chemist, by hobby a photographer and astronomer so I understand a fair few.

When I look at the arguments put forward by the so called (and usually self proclaimed) experts that claim Apollo was a hoax I can honestly say that of those arguments I do understand not one of them holds up to scrutiny. When I can see that those who put forward the case for Apollo being a hoax are purveyors of falsehoods why should I take their word on the the arguments I don't understand?

When I look at the arguments of the experts that show that the Apollo evidence is genuine I find that it holds up to what I know to be correct. In some cases this is because of my professional training or my experience with my hobbies. In some case I have replicated some of the results for myself (several of my photographs appear in various threads on this subject). So when I can see that the pro-Apollo experts are correct in their assertions why should I doubt their word on the arguments that I don't understand?

This is how I came to my conclusion, not the result of blindly following the government line (it's not even my government). Not the result of not being able to see the truth, or think outside the box, or being a sheep and following the majority, or being blind, or being stupid or being a NASA disinformation agent (I have been accused of all of these things). I came to my conclusion the same way I came to my conclusions when analysing a sample in the lab, by believing the evidence before me.

This, ladies and gentlemen of the CT and HB persuasion, is an illustration of SCIENCE in action, as described by a SCIENTIST.
It is a valuable lesson to learn.


Advice for anyone who wishes to call Waspie stupid ( ):

Chemists are not stupid. Chemists are really smart folks who do stuff that always made me crazy (Chemistry was always the toughest science for me. Those guys were always smart beyond smart in my book). I could only follow them so far before my eyes got blurry, and that was because they were really alot smarter than me.


Advice for anyone who has called Waspie a NASA disinformation specialist:

He cannot be one. As he pointed out, he's not an American.
He is a Brit...who happens to have more knowledge and more passion about the history and execution of American spaceflight than many Americans do!

Me too. I became a chemist by accident. I would rather have been a physicist. Anyone that loves organic chemistry has a serious psychological problem in my view.


I am not a great fan of generalisations. Some of the smartest people I have known have been chemists but I have had the misfortune to work with at least one chemist, with far better qualifications than I, who was stupid to the point of being dangerous.

One of the smartest people I know is a friend of mine who is a factory worker.

Qualifications do not always show how bright someone is but they do show that they have expertise in a relevant area. That is why I will believe dozens of qualified geologists that say that the moon rocks are genuine over a (second rate) documentary film maker that says they aren't every single time.

38 years ago, it wasn't that difficult to put men on the Moon.

In 1961, JFK announced men would land on the Moon before the end of the decade. And so we did, 8 years later.

But times have really changed since then. And hardly for the better.

In 2004, Bush announced men would return to the Moon by 2015......well, by 2020, tops.

To the casual observer, it may seem quite odd that it could take up to twice as long to return to the Moon as it did the first time, several decades ago.

Others are puzzled as to why the return trip apparently will require two rockets, when they only needed one rocket, back then.

The answer is really quite simple - we now know much more than they did in the 1960's!

For example, space radiation can be lethal nowadays. In 1969, it was just as lethal. But, since we didn't know that, it wasn't that big a deal. In fact, it was during the Gemini program in the mid-60's when NASA coined their now-famous phrase...."What you don't know can't hurt you!"

As for needing two rockets in the future? It's a little known fact that Apollo capsules were literally running on fumes by the time they got back to Earth. Next time, we'll have a second, fully fueled-up rocket waiting for us in Earth orbit.

I can't wait.

As a matter of interest, Turbonium, how long do you think it will be before a supersonic airliner comes into service? And was Concorde therefore a hoax?

I'm glad you said it, Waspie!





You are, of course, absolutely correct, my friend.
Absolutely correct.

To be honest, I know of one chemist who is indeed intelligent, smart, and all that, but is one of the most miserable human beings, with an overtly inflated ego and dominating nature, that I've seen.

I also know factory workers and truck drivers who are damned smart people.

I've probably told you before, somewhere, that most all of the guys in the MOCR during the Apollo missions were smart guys. You'd never guess it by their demeanor. BS's all, these fellows were, by and large, just regular beer guzzling guys with alot of passion and desire. They were no more qualified than many to do what they did...in fact, most will tell you that none of them were qualified to do what they did....they invented how to do what they did as they went along.

As Bob Carlton (an Apollo flight controller) once said: "We were just a bunch a dumb guys who didn't realize it couldn't be done."


Perhaps the epitome of smart...


At any rate, I pay you a compliment.
Despite taking three years of Chemistry in high school and college, I was always intimidated by it (or perhaps, more properly, I should say that I found it difficult), and by the chemists whose brains operated in a way that seemed daunting to me (I was just a dumb guy who liked to fly airplanes!!!).

One way or another, you're a smart guy who's posts on this board clearly illustrate that fact. As I've said before, it's not the qualifications...it's the content which is telling.

Content, you've got.

I have to argue with you Turb...

It was indeed difficult. Trying, dangerous, and costly in a manner that I sometimes wish to forget.




This I could likely not agree with more, in certain respects.





We do indeed know more now than we did in 1961.
Twice as long involves the fact that we have to develop spacecraft and launch vehicles not only to go to the Moon again, but to serve the long-term plans of the manned space program far into the future, in lunar exploration, planetary exploration, and EO operations.

This is actually a much more complex scenario, and it does not involve a political threat, or a need to prove ourselves better than the Soviet Union, which, if it existed today, might push the program along at a breakneck pace. We will now take our time, and develop a versatile, multi-purpose STS that can serve us long into the future. This is a very different program from Apollo.




I shall have to argue this as well.

Space radiation has the potential to be lethal now, just as it did then.
As I've pointed out, radiation's effects are exposure influenced. It was well understood what the exposures would be in a two week Apollo Moon mission, and the program was designed and constructed to deal with those exposures. The fact is, we did know about the radiation, and it wasn't an operation problem because we understood it and planned for the exposures that would be encountered.


Now, we plan for extended stays on the lunar surface, and will of course be planning missions to Mars. The exposures increase the dangers, and planning, research and experimentation is being done to adress this well known threat. This is not a mystery. It is prudent scientific development surrounding a somewhat known quantity, or at least a quantity that we need to know more about specifically, so we can design around it.




I think it has been thoroughly explained why the development of two launch vehicles is prudent, and very wise, given the use of each one and the plans for manned exploration and Earth orbital spaceflight requirements in lieu of the Shuttle. It is high-end engineeering being done.

I think the statement about Apollo capsules "running on fumes" is a little nebulous, and essentially incorrect.

The Apollo CM was designed to separate from the SM prior to entry, and was designed to operate on batteries from that point until splashdown.
Electrical power for the Apollo spacecraft was not a problem. All of them landed with ample power, fuel, oxygen, and water reserves...by design.

If we look at the Apollo 11 CM, it is clearly shown that 83% of the CM RCS fuel was still on board the vehicle at re-entry, oxygen was at 42%, hydrogen was at 35% of launch-loaded values, and of course water was not a problem, since the H2 and O2 produced the water as a by product of electrical power generation via the fuel cells. The AS-11 CM potable water tank had more water in it at re-entry than it did at launch.


Thus I am a little confused at this assertion of the little known fact that the Apollo CMs were "running on fumes".

Quite the contrary, these vehicles had ample reserves at re-entry. They were designed to have them; they utilized SM consumables during the trip to the Moon and back, and the SM had reserves when it was jettisoned just prior to entry.


As to the future lunar exploratory plans, Orion is intended to return to the Earth in a very similar manner to that which the Apollo CM did. It will return from the Moon and re-enter the atmosphere, under it's own internal power, will deploy parachutes, fire retro rockets, and soft land on the ground.
It will do so with ample power and consumable reserves, just as the Apollo CM did.

The primary difference is that the Orion will be recycled for future use.

There will be no other rocket waiting in Earth orbit for an Orion lunar return. That will be unnecessary.
In the future, however, an Orion will be the Earth entry vehicle for Mars missions. It may be waiting in Earth orbit for a future manned Mars exploratory craft, or it may be a part of the Mars vehicles configuration. I am not sure at this point.

But the bottom line is, Apollo CMs were absolutely not running on fumes when they returned to the Earth, and neither will Orion be when she returns from a lunar mission.