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?

A couple of reasons why it will take longer to get to the moon this time round:

Allowing for inflation, NASA's budget now is only about a quarter of what it was then.

Modern vehicles have more onboard computational power and more software. Software validation is a slow process. Look how long current fighter aircraft take to get into service compared with their 1960s counterparts.

I think you are quite right.

Think about when Concorde was in service; what about the Sydney to LA run? That's 12+/- hours for us, and it's no fun in cattle class (I looked at the business class price and near choked on my sausage roll when I found out how much).

That run is a particularly good earner for the service providers, always full flights.

Why didn't we have Concorde doing it in half the time (which is nothing for Aussies, when going Sydney-Perth is about 4.5 hours)?

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.

.....

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

...

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.

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Do you have a source for that? I thought I was pretty well informed about manned spaceflight, but I've never come across that before.

Sure, I have a source for it - ME!

I made it up in jest.

Aw, MID. I'm disappointed in you.

My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

"Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said.....

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Now, that one should have clued you in!!

You're much too serious these days, my old friend....

Well, hell Turb...
I guess it's just because you've always been serious in your posts of the past that made me think you were serious now! You've always been serious and articulate in your questions and challenges before.

After all, in looking at some of the things that have been believed by HBs, what you posted about "running on fumes"wasn't exactly outside the realm of believability for HBs.

I never thought about the phrase "What you don't know can hurt you," as being anything other than rather natural, although I'm sure the phrase didn't come out of NASA, per-se. Any flight test engineeer knows that, and of course, it was illustrated profoundly on January 27, 1967.

Maybe a or a might have made your intent clear...?

M~

Will do, MID. My apologies. I really thought it silly enough not to require a smiley-face.

I should have remembered what can happen when you don't add a smiley-face. In a post I made on another forum, I said Big Oil, GM and Ford were all being run by money-grubbing Ferengis. Then, I mentioned there were secret photos of Unocal Ferengis, giddily rolling around atop mountains of gold-pressed latinum inside a gigantic vault.

Cheers...

Well, if it's any consolation, I wouldn't have taken that seriously!

M~

We did land on the moon, the video shown to the common people doesnt have to be the true one, though.

We did land on the moon, the video shown to the common people doesnt have to be the true one, though.

Sshh...don't tell anyone that. After all: "Never let the competition know what you're thinking.", Ferengi Rule of Acquistion #85

link to complete list.
(Yes, this is humor!)

We did land on the moon, the video shown to the common people doesnt have to be the true one, though.

Preposterous...

We're you actually serious about what you said...or are you just playing games?

It looks like a drive by posting to me. I'll be very surprised if Preposterous actually returns to answer any of our questions.

If they could fake lunar surface videos, why didn't they do one for Apollo 12, the mission where the TV camera failed?

We did land on the moon, the video shown to the common people doesnt have to be the true one, though.

Hi again everyone

I've heard some juicy explanations for this in certain quarters.

"TV audiences were gullible enough to be taken in by the poor quality for Apollo 11, but better cameras hadn't been developed in time for Apollo 12, so they decided not to use one"

"There was something they didn't want you to see"

"It was an act of whistleblowing on the part of the astronaut who deliberately pointed the camera at the sun" (Of course, if they weren't on the moon but on a huge sound stage...)

"This is further evidence of NASAs deception"

Even if it works, the best you could hope for is a bright spot with a shadow. Images like that are already available for some of the Apollo missions, why don't you believe those?

I suspect that this will be interpreted in some quarters (not necessarily Turbo) as evidence of the robotic landers that were sent to collect soil and rock samples.

I've recently been in discussion with someone on another forum who came up with the suggestion that "they" (presumably NASA) have been sending secret missions to the moon for some time in order to place Apollo artefacts on the surface. The idea is simply ludicrous, but that is how far some people's thought processes will twist in the wind in order to stop that cosy consiracy bubble from being burst. A conspiracy at all costs: never mind the evidence! I see this kind of behaviour from conspiracists who have been arguing their side for so long that they probably see it as a sign of weakness to conclude that Apollo might just have happened after all - despite all the evidence in favour of Apollo, and the distinct lack of evidence favouring a hoax. The other side of coin is, it can be refreshing to debate with someone who is new to the conspiracy theory. They seem much more open to objectively looking at the actual evidence and analysing it on its own merits, rather than rejecting it out of hand.

I think the utter silence speaks volumes about what really happened.

I've recently been in discussion with someone on another forum who came up with the suggestion that "they" (presumably NASA) have been sending secret missions to the moon for some time in order to place Apollo artefacts on the surface.

Why do yOu capitaLise randOm lettErs in your SentEnces?

Why do yOu capitaLise randOm lettErs in your SentEnces?

PS: Hello fellow seasoned NASA disinformationists

Preposterous was playing games. As this is not the forum for riddles I have removed the post.

Preposterous, if you attempt to derail this, or any more threads with such nonsense it is likely to get you in to trouble. Either remain on topic and post relevant material or don't post at all. Your choice.

Last warning Preposterous.

What was that all about?

Well apparently Preposterous can't tell us that outright so it was in a cunning code which is simple enough for people on this board to translate but difficult enough so that those naught people in power (you know the ones, employ the best code breakers in the world to use the most powerful super computers on Earth) can't understand it.

How can it be that NO NASA employee has EVER come forward and offered irrefutable proof of the faked moon landings?

An excellent point and it's not just NASA employees. What about the employees of the aerospace companies involved in the design and manufacture of the Saturn launch vehicles, the Apollo Command/Service Module and the Apollo Lunar Module? Then there are the sub-contracted companies. Whilst it is true that many of the employees of these companies were not in a position to know whether Apollo could do what it was supposed to, by necessity there were many who did.

Even if they didn't know about how the whole system worked, every subcontractor would know whether their widgets met the specification or not, every major contractor would know whether their component would do the required job.

Ah, the good old "I've absolutely no evidence, but how do you like this idea?" approach. How exactly do they propose to hide a space launch, which is after all a prominently visible event, with the subsequent stages detectable both visibly and by radar to downrange observers? Throughout the cold war, the US was in the practice of announcing Russian launches when the Russians neglected to do so, so why wouldn't the Russians/Chinese/whoever announce a secret US launch?

Back on subject. I have a question about most “conspiracy” theories such as the faking of the moon landings. Since when has the American government been able to keep a secret for more than 30 seconds, let alone almost 30 years? All of the the moon landing arguments of the conspiracy theorists are explained on web pages and in books. But even with that, let’s put it this way. “In July, 1969, I, Joe Schmuckatelly, helped fake the moon landings and here is absolute proof.” Sounds like a huge cash-cow to me. How can it be that NO NASA employee has EVER come forward and offered irrefutable proof of the faked moon landings? Loyalty? Come on…. think of our buddy Joe. “Well, I can keep my mouth shut and keep collecting my measly government pension or I can show my proof and make a fortune.” Fear? Imagine the headlines. “Joe Schmuckatelly Found Dead Two days After Providing Proof of Faked Moon Landings.” A little late then. Wouldn’t you want to bump Joe off BEFORE he went public? In order to do that, you would have to bump off all the people involved before they could go public. That is a very long list of people. Last I heard, many of the people involved in the moon landings are alive and well and I haven’t heard of any freak, mass die-off of NASA employees. Before you says, "Yeh, but what about when So-and-So said he had proof and then died in a freak garbage disposal accident before he could provide his proof.” Is anyone living under that kind of threat really that stupid? Anyone with any brains knows that under that kind of threat you don’t announce you are “going public.” You GO PUBLIC. It is the only way to SAVE your life.

Why do yOu capitaLise randOm lettErs in your SentEnces?

PS: Hello fellow seasoned NASA disinformationists

You should do a bit of research before you post, Turbonium. Even with adaptive optics it is very unlikely that a single VLT telescope could detect a LM on the Moon ("400 ft across"). The instrument that may be able to detect a LM is the VLT Interferometer, which combines the main VLT telescopes and a number of auxiliary telescopes. This instrument combination is still being commissioned:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-r...5/pr-06-05.html

Doctor West couldn't carry out his planned observations because he retired before the instrument was ready. If you think anyone else should pick this up, why don't you ask ESO?

Perhaps you are the one who needs to do more research. First of all, I never claimed one telescope would work.

Second, your link is about auxilliary telescopes. The combination of all four telescopes (VLT interferometer) began in 2002....

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older...F/20022370.html

That's why Dr. West mentioned this could be another option, if one scope didn't succeed at first.

Although the four 8.2m diameter Unit Telescopes can be combined in the VLTI, most of the time these large telescopes are used for other purposes. They are therefore only available for interferometric observations for a limited number of nights every year.

In order to exploit the VLTI each night, four dedicated ‘Auxiliary Telescopes’ (ATs) of 1.8m diameter are available. The ATs are mounted on tracks and can be moved between precisely defined observing positions. From these positions, their light beams are combined in the VLTI.

During the nights of September 15/16 and 16/17, 2002, preliminary tests were successfully carried out during which the light beams from all four VLT 8.2-m Unit Telescopes (UTs) at the ESO Paranal Observatory were successively combined, two by two, to produce interferometric fringes.

While there is still a long way ahead to the routine production of extremely sharp, interferometric images, the present test observations have allowed to demonstrate directly the 2D-resolution capacity of the VLTI by means of multiple measurements of a distant star.

Much valuable experience was gained during those two nights and the ESO engineers and scientists are optimistic that these test observations with the numerous components of the VLTI will continue to progress rapidly. Five intense, technical test periods are scheduled during the next six months; some of these with the Mid-Infrared interferometric instrument for the VLTI (MIDI) which will soon be installed at Paranal.

Next year, the first adaptive optics systems for the VLTI will be inserted below the telescopes. By drastically reducing the smearing effects of the turbulent atmosphere through which the light has to pass before it enters the telescopes, this will further "stabilize" the imaging and increase the sensitivity of the VLTI by a factor of almost 100.

The points made about no "whistleblower" ever appearing are absolutely correct. Let's examine a hypothetical.

I have either found documentation proving the Apollo missions were faked, or was involved in their faking. I decide this information must be made public. What am I to do?

Well, if I were in such a situation, I would:

1. Mail out CDs (or other media) to various outlets which would release the information ("proof").

2. Give trusted friends copies of the "proof", asking them also distribute it to sympathetic media outlets (that includes websites like ATS or any one of the various radio people).

3. Visit a lawyer / bank / institution to have MORE copies of the "proof" held in safety and to be released in case of my death.

4. Use e-mail to likewise spread the "proof".

5. Create a webpage with said "proof" on it.

6. Note that I had circulated said "proof", and any suspicious demise of myself should be investigate thoroughly.