Hi MID

Well, not that you'll take this as a shock, but I have to disagree with your argument. To me, these images are not evidence of dust disturbance caused by LM engines, and I find such claims are not very convincing.

In one image you cited (AS12-47-6908), the ALSJ states.."...we get a good view of the clean-swept area under the engine bell."....



To claim that this area is "clean-swept" is entirely absurd, especially after considering one of the other images you cited (AS12-47-6910)....



Look at the image above, and see if you can point out where the "clean-swept" area ends and the "unswept" area begins. I know I can't see any evidence for it. The footprints have left distinct impressions in the dust, yet, merely a few feet away, there is no indication that the dust has been disturbed under the LM engine.

As I said - if an astronaut can leave deep impressions like these, how could the engine leave absolutely no visible impression?

Now, regarding the surface markings in your images, which you claim were caused by the LM engine....

The first two images, which you claim show "radial pattern" scouring . Perhaps you could point out exactly where these scour patterns begin and end, because I honestly can't see them. The second image is the same one claimed to be "clean-swept" of dust below the bell in the ALSJ.

In the last image, are you referring to the "V"-shaped markings on the left side of the image? I don't see any dust disturbance under the bell itself.


To sum up - I have not found any valid, clear evidence that dust was disturbed in any way by the LM engines in these images....images specifically cited as some of the best examples of visual evidence in support of that claim.

Cheers

The problem is turbonium, that yet again you are not presenting any real evidence, only your subjective opinion. The dust under the bell doesn't look to you the way you think it should.

How should it look? I'll be honest, I have no idea how the area under the engine bell should look, but unless you can present evidence rather than your opinion that those photographs are wrong then your post is totally worthless.

You use the word absurd but I'll tell you what is absurd, that someone who has spent as much time as you on this subject can still ask a question like this:

The reason is VERY obvious and VERY basic science. It is the same reason that a woman (or man if that's his kind of thing) in stiletto heeled shoes will make a deeper impression in the ground than an elephant (not wearing stiletto shoes obviously, that would be silly). It's the same reason that snow shoes work. The astronauts are exerting their entire weight over a very small area, where as the blast from the engine is spread over considerably wider area. The actual force per square inch is much greater from the astronaut.

This can be said about a great many things discussed here ( 'no stars' or 'fluttering flags' anyone?).

Some issues are a bit more difficult, I will admit. However, everyone needs to accept that there are times when "common sense" is simply not enough. Sometimes we need to know the science (be that complex or basic) behind something before we can manage anything close to a reasonable analysis. It's with this that the proponents of the moon landing hoax fall short (very short).

No, I'm not surprized...

However, it is absolutely clear, in each image, exactly what marking the LM DPS left.





You do realize that the ALSJ is a massive effort, involving a decades work and millions of words of writing, and that the phrase "clean swept" is a figure of speech?
It is obvious that beneath Intrepid's engine bell, the radial (circular)scour pattern is clear.


What did I say about it?



It's not actually "clean swept", but the pattern caused by the engine exhaust is utterly clear. Apollo 11's is much more "clean swept", actually revealing hard substrate and cracks in it.








I did not say anything about a "clean swept" area. You are grabbing hold of a figure of speech written in the millions of words in the ALSJ and attemtting to take it literally and at it's word. It's clear what is seen in the photo you site. The pattern from the engine exhaust, at this particular angle of sunlight, shows that the engine disrupted the surface in a relatively narrow pattern, from left of frame to center of frame, and ends just prior to the immediate under-the-engine bell area...and quite logically, as the DPS engine was cut down and the thing fell to the surface at that place.

The pattern is obviously somewhat narrow, as this was created close to the surface, with little exhaust gas spread, and thus it is more pronounced at the center of the pattern than outward toward the landing pads. It didn't take all of the dust off the surface. and almost none immediately beneath the bell, quite naturally. Footprints are obvious between the +Y and -Z struts because it's also obvious that the dust disturbance there was non-existent.











Under the engine bell are small "cobbling effects" (all those little cratering marks). There is no major disturbance under the bell, as was usual , because as I told you, the engine was cut down above the surface.

The sweep pattern is obvious, as I said, moving from just above left center toward the center of the frame.

It clearly indicates an engine under low thrust moving from the above left-center of the frame toward the right lower center of the frame, then cutting down some distance above the surface.






The engine did leave obvious effects, and, as I said, and detailed, the LM DPS engine did not disturb the soil outboard of the immediate area beneath the LM on it's final descent trajectory to the surface. The bell was too close to the surface to disturb what was between 1 and 3 inches of dust on the surface outboard of the engine bell area in the area of the foot pads, which were, as I also explained about 15 feet away from the bell.

The evidence is obvious that this physical effect is in fact the case.


As Waspie said (and I can really add nothing to that):





I also, if you remember, offered an experiment you can do for yourself concerning this matter.
You can blow on surface dust on Earth, and observe the nebulous effects. You can simply touch your finger to it and leave a distinct imprint. It's very basic physical principals.


I could drop a penny onto the lunar surface and leave a distinct impression. An engine, thrusting with an average pressure of 1.5 PSI, cannot do that.





And I should conclude that despite the clarity in what's been presented, and the rather basic physical principals involved, you cannot see it. In much the same fashion, you've seen very clerar evidence of arms and hands and TV monitors and curtains and stagehands in a few seconds of rapidly sweeping Apollo 12 video transmission...things that no one else can clearly see at all (and which are in fact...not there).

You see clarity where there is none for most people, and don't see the clear where it's obvious, and photographed by arguably the best camera we had on the planet at the time. The evidence provided by these photos alone is clear enough for the person who knows what they're looking at, and most scientifically educated people, to understand and clearly interpret. The patterns are obvious, not natural, and were caused by some outside force (the DPS engine).


There is no possibility of a blast crater, and indeed, under the pressure exerted by the DPS engine during that phase of flight, no possibility of anything but that which you see...which is none other than a clear scour pattern, with other effects produced by an engine cutting down.

I should add the following:


Part of the activities in the first several Apollo mission involved describing and documenting the effects of the DPS on the lunar soil. One must remember that on July 20, 1969, we had no tacit manned experience with the regolith yet. We had an idea based on Surveyor landings and pictures what it might be like, but we had no idea how a LM would penetrate the surface, and we absolutely had no idea exactly how deep the surface soil was, nor any idea about it's exact nature, or the fact that several inches below it, was a compact, very firm surface.


The descriptions and photographic documentation of the soil beneath the DPS area, and the samples themselves, and the visuals of crews working on the surface, taught us a great deal about the Moon's surface structure and the nature of the surface soil itself. It was all consistent and valid data that taught us something about a world we knew precious little about.


Surveyor had a mass of about 2300 pounds, and of course sucessfully landed on the Moon's surface starting in 1966. Three years later, we landed a 25,000 pound (+/-) vehicle with two men in it on the same surface. It was a decent bet that the thing wouldn't sink in too deep, but we really were hypothesizing (it's one of the reasons why we designed the foot pads so large....those basic physical principals. Dispersion of mass over a large area ...like snowshoes, prohibits sinking too deep).

The photos of the area beneath the engine bell, and the patterns it made in the soil, were essential in understanding the nature of the soil covering the Moon's surface. Every one of these photos, all perfectly consistent, taught us volumes about the character of the place.

Well said, MID. For those interested in a little light reading, here are a few related selections from the NASA Technical Reports Server:

LM Soil Erosion Studies: Final Report , NASA-CR-128075, January 31, 1968.

This report was written about a year and a half before Apollo 11 landed. From the summary:

QUOTE

It is concluded that soil erosion during LM lunar landing will be small and
- The erosion crater will be less than 0.6 feet deep and will not cause a significant degradation in landing stability even if a footpad landed in the crater.

Comparison of Soil Erosion Theory with Scaled LM Jet Erosion Tests, NASA CR-66704, October 1968.

This 163 page document shows the results of a great deal of testing that was done to try to model the LM DPS engine effects on the lunar soil and a comparison of those results with theoretical soil models.

Apollo Program Soil Mechanics Experiment: Final Report, NASA-CR-144438, January 1975.

This post-flight report summarizes the observed effects of the LM DPS on the lunar surface for each of the Apollo landing missions. From the Apollo 11 summary:

QUOTE

The relatively high lateral velocity of the spacecraft in the few seconds before touchdown means that erosion was never developed at one place as fully as would occur under vertical descent conditions. However, an analysis of shadow lengths in photographs, estimation of landing-leg shock absorber stroking at touchdown, and the observed footpad penetrations of 1 to 3 inches suggest that 4 to 6 inches of material may have been eroded. The lunar surface may not, however have been level at this location before the landing.

It is apparent from photographs in the vicinity of the nozzle that some soil must have been removed by the exhaust gas. This is supported by the relatively small astronaut footprint depths in the immediate vicinity of the LM. Farther away the penetration of the boots was greater, as will be described later in this paper.

For an organization accused of forgetting to include the descent engine crater on the "moon set," NASA and its contractors sure seem to have put an awful lot of effort into documenting this exact phenomenon both before and after the flights.

1.5 psi ?!?!

To counterbalance a 33,000 lb. lunar module descending at X mph?

The LM descent engine supposedly was able to throttle down....

For a successful manned lunar landing, the Lunar Module had to have a descent engine that could be restarted easily and could be controlled with a throttle. The astronauts needed the ability to fully control their descent and to 'hover' over the lunar surface and change the landing site as required.

Now, read this July 16, 2007 article...

A variable acceleration rocket would tremendously useful for landing on the Moon. Instead of firing the landing rockets in short bursts, astronauts could throttle down for a nice smooth landing. But building an engine like this is harder than it sounds.

NASA researchers think they've got a prototype engine that should give the variable rate of acceleration astronauts are looking for. The newly developed Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine (CECE) is a variant on the RL10 engine that boosted the Surveyor robot landers to the Moon back in 1966-68. The RL10 is designed to only go full throttle, so adding the variable thrust was difficult.

The main problem is that changing the throttle affects how the whole engine functions. At low power, liquid hydrogen can slow and vapourize in the coolant lines. This might cause the engine to stall. During one test, the experimenters discovered that the engine "chugged", vibrating 100 times a second. It turned out oxygen vapours were forming on the injector plate, inhibiting normal flow, causing the vibrations.

It's not ready for space yet, but CECE might eventually become part of the design of a future lunar lander. The astronauts returning to the Moon will be very appreciative.

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/07/16/bu...-throttle-down/

Some day in the future, ...astronauts could throttle down for a nice smooth landing.....down to maybe even... 1.5 psi?




Nonsense. I've shown the stills to dozens of people, simply asking what they see in the images. And guess what they all say? That they see an arm, a chair, and people, every time.

I don't bias or taint the question by saying "These are stills from a video clip of the Apollo 12 Moon landing". You assume that you're seeing totally impartial opinions about the stills, in a thread discussing a Moon landing hoax. You're not.

And since it's a fact that there is no variable thrust engine for astronauts right now, it's also a fact that there wasn't one back in 1969. If you'll allow me to rephrase your comment, because it seems very apropos....

"The evidence provided by" that article "alone is clear enough for the person who knows what they're looking at, and most scientifically educated people, to understand and clearly interpret."

Yes, at the time of landing - bearing in mind weight is dramatically reduced as it had already got rid of most of its descent stage propellant AND it had lost nearly all of its acceleration due to gravitational pull just before it landed, AND with gravity being less on the moon, AND with the engine throttled down, AND with the wider exhaust plume because they were in a vacuum, I would not be at all surprised that the thrust divided by the cross-sectional area yielded a pressure of about 1.5 PSI.

"AND with the engine throttled down"??

Do you always just pretend something exists when it really doesn't?

Yes, the lunar module DPS engine could throttle down. If you read the entire article you quoted, you'll find an "Original Source" link at the bottom of the page which takes you to this NASA page, where you'll find the following:

QUOTE

The Apollo Lunar Module (LM) descent engine, the all-time throttling champ, did it perfectly on six landings in 1969-72. It could throttle from 10,125 lbs down to 1,250 lbs. It was also a simple engine, burning corrosive fuel and oxidizer that ignited on contact, and fed by pressurized tanks, eliminating the need for pumps.

FYI, the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), first tested in 1975, can also throttle from 67% to 109% of rated thrust. The XLR-99 engine for the X-15, first flown in in 1959, could throttle from 50% to 100% of rated thrust. Just because a new throttleable rocket engine is being developed doesn't mean that earlier engines weren't able to throttle.

I did read it. What you don't see is the inherent contradiction staring you in the face....

A variable acceleration rocket would tremendously useful for landing on the Moon. Instead of firing the landing rockets in short bursts, astronauts could throttle down for a nice smooth landing. But building an engine like this is harder than it sounds.

NASA researchers think they've got a prototype engine that should give the variable rate of acceleration astronauts are looking for.

Well, what's going on, if they already had "the all-time throttling champ", which "did it perfectly" 6 times, some 40 years ago?

Think about it.

Key phrase here "40 years ago". Think about it. Would you be happy to fly on a brand new airliner that used 40 year old engines? There is a concept the rest of us have grasped called progress. You are just inventing issues here that don't exist.

Hey turb, multiple 1.5psi by the 10000 or so square inch cross section of the engine bell, and tell us what you get.

I think the answer you're looking for is in this part of the article:-



The new trips to the moon will have larger payloads, hence they need an uprated engine - the one being tested has a max throttle capability of over 13,800 lbs, capable of being throttled back to 10% of that value. As you know, the Apollo descent engines were throttleable to a maximum of 10,125 lbs. That's an increase in power of over 35%.

The question I would ask of you Turbs, is why is progress evidence that something didn't work in the past? Should CPU designers stop trying to improve efficiency and processing power just because current chips work extremely well? The Model T Ford was a mass-produced engineering wonder of its day - does the existence of far superior modern vehicles prove it couldn't possibly have worked? We can't fly supersonic across the Atlantic while supping champers, yet people did this regularly 30 years ago - was Concorde faked?

I'm struggling to follow your logic on this one. Is it your assertion that trying to improve on a previously successful design is proof that the previous design didn't work? If not, what is your position?

Cheers

Also, the LM DPS is a hypergolic engine. The RL-10 that they are trying to modify is a cryo engine. Different technologies altogether. It is obvious to me that the article was illustrating the challenges of adopting one technology to perform the tasks that another did 40 years ago.

I found this great Google video and story
what looks like a German post saying that they live in America and still under Nazi rule.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3111397269396284361

With great conspiracy prattle:

Subtitled German text with English translation by Pirate News TV. Germans ran the NASA Apollo moonscam program with Nazi warcriminals in ... all » OSS CIA Pentagon's Operation Paperclip. Germany is still an occupied nation in 2007, without its own lawful government. The coverup of the Allies' Holocaust of 1-million German POWs after World War II is still classified Top Secret in sealed govt files. President Nixon was president during the Apollo moonscam. Nixon resigned and was illegally pardoned by pedophile unelected president "Gerald Ford" (a/k/a Leslie Lynch King Jr) rather than face arrest and death penalty for treason and murder of President JFK Sr, as confessed in 2007 by Nixon's Watergate felon CIA trial lawyer E Howard Hunt.

NASA Apollo 11 Flight Director Gene Kranz says Apollo 11 telemetry has "disappeared": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0hsMJj9Q-A&eurl=

"Regarding the Apollo mission, I can't say 100% for sure whether these men walked on the Moon. It's possible that NASA cut corners just to be the first to allegedly go to the Moon. NASA could have covered it up. It's possible they may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment." —Dr. Brian O'Leary, Ph.D., Apollo astronot, FOX TV's "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"

Astronauts Gone Wild: Colonel Buzz Aldrin of Apoll 11 punches Bart Sibrel in the face for asking him to swear on a Bibile he walked on the Moon: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=728...nauts+gone+wild

WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON music video by Gulf War military veterans wins awards in Hollywood, banned at Gitmo during Support The Troops Tour. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4195343968141016185 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...86924&hl=en http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dma5i4yguvQ http://myspace.com/ufoetry

Luciferian NASA Freemasons named Apollo for SATAN:

"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. This is the great dragon of chapter 12, Satan or Azazel. He has a number of names, but in each case, he is the king of all the demons, Lucifer, who became Satan." -Revelation 9:11, Christian Bible (KJV with Forerunner Commentary) «




Man, are they angry. I guess we will lose the UK and now old Nazi Germany if they turn against America.

Why would after winning WWII would they turn against us.

Perhaps due to the CIA harboring Hitler and his super weapon all these years made America too much like Hitler.

And they are not going to take it any more.

"Progress", indeed!! Perfect choice of words.

"NASA TRYING TO REINVENT THE WHEEL!!"

Do you grasp the concept of progress?

It has already been stated that a hypergolic engine is not sufficient for the performance that NASA now wants for a Lunar Lander. Do you not grasp that concept?

Progress doesn't go backwards.

They don't make computers that can't do what they did 40 years ago, with an absurd excuse like "Well, we're developing new technology, so until then, the CPU's will be slower than in 1958!"

The "return" to the Moon is exposing the fact that we were unable to go there 40 years ago. Excuse after excuse. For why so many radiation studies are now "needed", when it was supposedly "problem solved" 40 years ago. For why a variable thrust engine worked "perfectly" 40 years ago, but "Well, now we can't because it's a different type of engine" or "We'll have a bigger payload", etc. etc.

Progress with lame excuses is not progress. It's called covering one's ass - because it was a lie that you did it 40 years ago, and still can't do it, so you have to make up reasons why you can't do it now.

Cheers.

Calling valid reasons "lame excuses" does not make them lame excuses.

Of course, a lot of our knowedgable staff here have answered some of your points, but I suppose adding my two cents will only help muddy the waters further!




Exhaust gas pressure is a measure of the thrust of the engine per square inch. As has been pointed out to you, my figure has to be multiplied by the engine exhaust area to derive the total impulse, which on average was about 3400 pounds +/- for that figure (I think that was from Apollo 17's landing).
Some missions had less thrust in that phase, like earlier missions. Apollo 11's LM had a mass of about 15,000 pounds...a weight of 2500. To hold it up, only 25% of rated DPS thrust was necessary. You're moving weight.

That's why the APS had a 3500 pound thrust engine and was lifting 10,000+ pounds of mass sharply. It only weighed 1725 pounds +/-.


To answer the actual question: Yes, 1.5 psi, even less could do the job.





If you read the article, and linked to the NASA information that it was taken from, it is clear that the LM used a throtlleable engine. You leave that out, and are painting a picture here which says we'll need one for the LSAM, and we never had one before, which is utter rubbish, and you could've seen that with a click of your mouse in seconds.



It is not possible for a man to land a vehicle on the Moon without throttling capability. The vehicles weight is constantly changing, and landing requires manual throttling in the terminal phase so that a controlled touchdown can be attained. Surveyor, an unmanned craft, used three throttleable verniers, controlled by the autopilot, which was supplied ranging and velocity date from the dopller radar and radar altimeters.
We were using throttleable engines to land on the Moon in 1966.

And indeed, throttling capability on the LM DPS was used at PDI, a 10% throttle level, to allow the computer to observe position and decelleration / velocity data and establish the LMs position precisely prior to going to full throttle at 25 to 30 seconds into powered descent. It was automatically controlled throttling at that point.

We are developing a specific engine for LSAM, a completely different animal from the LM DPS, designed to be throttleable, more powerful, and land a more massive spacecraft safely on the Moon. It is also using different fuels, greater technological enhancements, and requires more complexity and redundancy that the very reliable LM DPS had. It's called engineeering to meet the needs of the challenge.




Since you say there isn't now, you derive the conclusion that there wasn't then?


You're wrong on both counts, Turb. We have one right now. The SSMEs have always been that way, and they have to be because of the flight profile and design of the Shuttle during ascent. We throttle down to 65-70 percent rated thrust as the spacecraft passes into MAX-Q, so as to minimize forces on the Shuttle structure, and then always throttle back up to 104% thrust. We also have always throttled down from 104% about 40 seconds prior to shutdown to limit g loads to 3.0 during ascent, and the SSMEs throttle down automatically in increments during the shutdown sequence.

We do have one today. We've had them since 1966, when we had to in order to land Surveyor on the Moon. And of course, we had one in the Apollo LM DPS. I'm sorry, but your are dead wrong.




As I said, "that article" is taken from NASA information, which you could link to yourself, which clearly explained that we had one in the LM. The only evidence it provides is that which many an article which doesn't spell out everything necessary provides...a lack of subject-matter knowledge which creates a false impression.



I'd love to know who these people are. If they all say that they clearly see what you do, without baiting them...then they are all of a similar mindset. Further, they all know what they're looking at it and likely believe in a Moon hoax, and are probably aware of this theory which you hold to.



C'mon, Turb...if you didn't tell them what they were looking at, they'd have no idea what was being represented. You're trying to tell me you show these stills to people, without any description, and they're all telling you that they can see chairs and arms and hands?

You're stretching credibility a little thin here.




You have clearly said that there was no throttleable engine in 1969.
You are wrong, Turb. There was, even before 1969.

A small amount of research...even into your article posted, would show you this.

Thank you, my lunar orbit low-point friend!

Yes, light reading indeed!!!

Strawman argument. This is a totally different scenario. Computers have continued to evolve, they have been constantly manufacture over the last 40 years. On the other hand no one has built a new manned lunar lander since Apollo. If there had been no computers built for 40 years do you really expect that when production restarted that they would simply dig out the old designs and start building them again? Or is it more likely that they would start again from scratch, use cutting edge technology. The latter is exactly what NASA is doing, so why do you find it so strange?

Nothing has gone backwards, NASA is merely making a better more powerful throttleble engine for a bigger heavier moon lander, how is that not progress? What NASA is doing is taking an engine which it has a lot of experience, the RL-10 and modifying it into a an engine that can be used on the next generation lunar lander. But let's use your logic (and I use the term logic in this case quite wrongly) shall we. The engine that has been chosen for the upper stages of the Ares I and V is a modification of the J-2 engine used on the 2nd and third stage of the Saturn V and the second stage of the Saturn Ib. NASA rejected an engine based on the space shuttle main engine for the first stage of the Ares V. How can this be so? Well using "turbonium logic" it most be proof that the 40 year old technology of the Apollo Saturn vehicles worked and that Apollo was genuine and that the space shuttle is a fake. This argument is of course nonsense. It is nonsense when I use it here and it is nonsense when you use it.


What the return to the moon IS exposing the lie of the moon hoax theory.



Because we are going for long duration missions this time. Do you really not understand this? Are you really that clueless about the differences between the Apollo programme and the Constellation programme?

There is a huge difference between spending a few hours on the Moon and a spending a few months in a permanent Moon base. It really isn't difficult to understand. Harm caused by radiation is dependent on the amount of radiation and THE LENGTH OF EXPOSURE. The studies before Apollo showed that short term missions were safe. Hence the "problem" was solved in the context that was required 40 years ago.

Now NASA is looking towards long term missions, a totally different kettle of fish. An inaccuracy in the radiation measurements of, for example, a few percent either way is not going to make a difference on a short term mission. However try and extrapolate that result over a period of several months and that level of inaccuracy can give a very wide difference which could be critical.

Let's use a simple example. You drink 5 pints of beer every night for a week. Once you have sobered up a doctor checks you and says you are perfectly healthy. Now can we extrapolate this data and say that it is perfectly safe for you to drink 5 pints of beer every night for a year and suffer no health problems? Of course it isn't The same holds true with radiation exposure on the Moon.

(An Unexplained-Mysteries health warning: Waspie_Dwarf recommends sensible drinking and does not encourage heavy use of alcohol... even after reading hoax believers posts).

The other problem is Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs). These are strong enough to cause serious radiation sickness or death to an unprotected astronaut. Because the Apollo missions lasted only a few days the risk of experiencing a CME was very low and it was considered an acceptable risk. With missions to the Moon (and later Mars) which will last many months it is highly probable that crews will experience a CME and will, therefore, require the protection that was deemed unnecessary for Apollo.



A word to the wise turbonium, be careful with quote marks and alleged statements from NASA, you have admitted to inventing quotes from NASA before. You do not want accusations of dishonesty levelled at you.

It is only you and your ilk that is claiming NASA can not return with 40 year old technology, no one that actually understands the reality is making such a claim. Choosing not to use 40 year old technology is not proof that it did not work, it is simply proof that things have moved on and there are now better ways of doing it. You are using circular logic here:

• NASA is building new engines for their lunar lander, why?
• Well it must be because the old ones didn't work,
• What evidence is there that the old engines didn't work.
• Well they can't have done because they are building new ones.

Progress is progress. Choosing to ignore reality and calling it "a lame excuse", is certainly not progress.
How is developing a more powerful throttle engine for a bigger, heavier lander going backwards? If this mentality had existed in the 1930's then now doubt there would have been some airplane hoax that claimed that trying to create the jet engine was proof that the propeller didn't work so the Wright brothers faked the flight at Kitty Hawk.



This is a really silly argument. If the landings are still impossible why has NASA been pushing to return? Why risk revealing that it was a fraud 40 years ago? If it is impossible then the last thing NASA would be pushing for is to do it again. They would simply keep quiet, keep their heads down and keep to low Earth orbit. If it is impossible why are Russia, Europe, China, Japan and maybe India all talking about manned missions to the moon?

The answer: because it is not impossible, was not impossible and (hopefully) never will be impossible for men to land on the Moon and return safely to the Earth.

I should suggest you think about it Turb.
With all due respect, you're grasping at straws once against to bolster an untenable position.


The article you cite is not written by professionals. It also links directly to much more complete information.
You're taking this statement:



...and you are inferring that since it says it "would be very useful", that we never had one before.
That is ludicrous.

It also says, "...instead of firing the landing rockets in short bursts," a statement which might make someone think that's the way we did it before. We've had throttleable engines for years, where necessary and for specific purposes. We DID THROTTLE DOWN TO NICE SMOOTH LANDINGS, for 6 years. What is so difficult to understand about these easily observable facts?


We did it 41 years ago. because...WE HAD TO. That's what top-notch American engineers used to do...design and build stuff that served a purpose. Today, we're doing it again...and, it's gonna be fun!





I am trusting that you've received an adequate answer to this from the other astute folks herein?


That all-time throttling champ was landing an Apollo LM with hypergolic fuels. It performed flawlessly, 7 TIMES (including saving Apollo 13's butts). The LSAM engines are being designed to provide the same reliability in a much more powerful, much more complex engine that is buring very different fuels. We cannot resurrect the LM DPS to power the LSAM. With all due respect, what makes you think that idea is at all feasible? We know more than we did 40 years ago. Do you think we shouldn't use what we've learned?

What is going on is this:

Engineeers, being given a task, are now designing, testing, and fabricating systems to execute a completely new project.
If any of them said, "Oh well, we did this before...let's just re fabricate the LM DPS," they would not only have proven that they received their engineeering degrees via e-mail, they'd be summarily dismissed.


We are not executing Apollo again. We are executing Constellation, a very diffierent program with different goals and premises. It requires new systems, new spacecraft, and much, much more research and development.

We did Apollo starting 38 years ago and ending 35 years ago. Do you expect perhaps that we simply resurrect old technology and do it all over? We have a different program to execute, with vast improvements in technology. We're using those advancements to construct new devices to execute a new program. Sure, we're looking at Apollo as a model of the mechnaics involved, and indeed, perhaps the most reliable spacecraft design ever made will be used as a model for the new equipment, but this is not Apollo. It's designed to do much more, quite naturally, and it'll be much more than Apollo was.

Quite honestly, I don't think I'd care one iota about the moon landings (or much of anything for that matter) after drinking all of that!

(just pulling your leg a bit...actually a very good analogy)

I think you've misunderstood my analogy, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I thought you were insinuating that a present requirement for improved technology (i.e. progress) was proof that the Apollo hardware couldn't have worked.



Well, seems to me as if the new engine will be an improvement over the Apollo descent engine. I can't see how that can possibly be considered proof that the Apollo engines didn't work. If someone kindly swapped out my perfectly reliable 1.8L 4 cylinder and replaced it with a turbo-charged V6, I'd consider that an improvement in power, not proff that my old engine didn't work. (I'd still want the new engine thoroughly tested of course!)

Question: if you wanted to plan a mission to the moon which could land 4 people with sufficient resources for a stay of a few weeks, would you do it by using "nut for bolt" a 40 year old system that was only capable of putting 2 men on the moon for 3 days? Or would you try to develop new technology that was better suited to the task? Would you want to rely solely on existing radiation data that was used to plan missions lasting a few days, or in a much more safety conscious world would you want to study the long term hazards faced by astronauts who will be on the moon for up to six months?

Personally, I'm glad that the scientists and engineers in charge are improving on the Apollo technology: that in no way detracts from what was a quite remarkable engineering achievement.

Cheers

Turb:
You have now descended into the innane.
I frankly didn't expect this from you.

These things that are being told you are not excuses. They are facts.

Why so many radiation studies are needed now?
Are you kidding me?

The problem concerning Apollo was solved many years ago, and was proven out through empirical means.
We're talking about a month on the lunar surface, not three days maximum!


How is it possible that you do not understand the difference between these two things?

Constellation is an extension of what we started in Apollo. There are different considerations, and long term, long-duration space exploration plans associated with it that are very un-related to rudimentary explorations of the Moon that occurred almost 4 decades ago, and which were thorougly planned for and impeccably executed.

We need to plan, design, and execute accordingly...TODAY. We cannot take the Apollo plan and repeat it. We are not doing Apollo again...we are doing much more. It is very complex, and very detailed, and years of furrher research and development are necessary.

Listen to yourself here:







This is emotion-laden, deparate HB crap. I'm sorry my friend, but this is what I'm seeing here. You have been the most erudite and thoughtful anti-Apollo posters we've seen. But this is stooping to a low you haven't exhibited previously.

No one's making up reasons why we can't do it now. What we're doing is developing the systems whereby we can DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN THE FUTURE, based upon what we're looking to do, the technology available, and the realization that what we're planning to do is alot different from Apollo!


The return to the Moon is exposing nothing other than this:

We're going to do alot more than we did in Apollo.
We're needing more knowledge, more preparation, and better systems than we had in Apollo to execute what we have in mind.

What is so emotionally disturbing about this salient engineeering fact?

Good posts, Posty and Pericynthion, and Waspie and Lilly...(did I forget someone???).

I think we're all repeating each other in various means...!


...which, I completely understand...

Guess where I came up with the analogy? Yep, in the pub discussing the moon hoax theory with a friend.

Despite the fact all I have drunk today is tea and water I still seem to have changed tenses for no readily apparent reason. In the text Lilly quotes "of course it isn't" should read "of course we can't".

Normally I would have gone back and edited my post but I have been caught out by Lilly quoting me. D'Oh!

I'm a slow (and bad) typist. You weren't even on line when I started my reply but your posts were there when I finished (it didn't help that I was multi tasking by doing the washing up at the same time).

To repeat myself again, D'oh!

I generally multi task while typing an drinking a few American amber lagers (hic!)!






It is a good analogy...
I can certainly resonate with the idea of drinking a couple pints!

But 5 pints every night for a week?

That's 6-7 12 oz. bottles a night...


Well, OK...I guess I could handle that!!!!





...depends on what it is, though.

A dear English Ale might render me stupid! Then again, I've drank half a dozen pints of Bass in a night (plus), and walked out of ther pub on my own recognizance !


We make some pretty nice IPAs here at some of the American micro-breweries (the greatest gift God has given to man since the Lunar Module!). They'll kick you in the pants!

Kind of reminds me of a date I went on a while ago, I don't know how but we got onto the subject of the moon landing (I'm sure you fellow Apollo lovers know what I mean, it just pops up). A few alcoholic drinks had been consumed before hand, and we were both a little tipsy. The moon landings got bought up and she immediately said she didn't believe we landed. You can of course imagine that my heart died a little right there and then!! I asked her why, and she bought up the common theories, flags, stars, shadows, which I calmly explained but she didn't seem to believe what I was saying, and I'm not kidding, I'm really not, but she said that it was government misinformation. As you can imagine I exited quite sharply on that date, and never contacted her again Thinking about it, a good leading question for future dates should be "Do you believe we landed on the moon"!!

It also go bought up the other day at work (not by me this time), but my colleagues were on the subject of space, which turned into a conversation on the moon, when I heard "Well we didn't land it was faked by the government". As you can imagine, my internal 'Apollo Switch' switched on, and I was ready within a second. This is when I entered the conversation, and cocky as hell infront of all my colleagues he said, "Ok then, who filmed Neil Armstrong when he set foot on the moon, if he was the first person there?" Without even pausing to think I gave a detailed explanation on how the TV camera was pre set up in the MESA, and I told him how Neil opened it, and I even whipped up the Apollo 11 Press Kit while explaining and scrolled directly to the page where it tells how he will be recorded. He went bright red and turned back to his desk without saying a word! I have too many of these stories lol.

I can't say as I have many stories like TNT's, maybe because I have worked in labs all my adult life I have always worked with people that understand science and what does and doesn't constitute evidence. The only person I've come across that entertained the idea the Apollo missions may have been hoaxed was (at the time) a young lad who had been taken on as a trainee.

He was reading Percy and Bennett's fraudulent tome. He started talking to me about it one tea break (I miss the tea breaks I used to have in those days. Several times a day a bit of work would interrupt them). At the time I hadn't destroyed many of my brain cells by inflecting that book upon it. I had a quick look through it and debunked a couple of points. The young lad, whom I shall call Dave (it is a sensible thing to call him because it is his name) started thinking about what I had said.

By the time he had finished the book he found it as laughable as I did and had dismissed most of the arguments within it (he is a smart chap and is now a better qualified chemist than I am). The only thing he was still unsure about was the photography. He came to the conclusion that Apollo was real but maybe some of the photographs were faked. It is interesting and telling that he stopped believing even that once he bought himself a camera. He then saw that how shadows really behave in photographs is a little bit (to say the least) different to the claims made by Percy and Bennett.

I think I might be able to top Gav's story (in the silliness/nonsense area anyway).

I was recently waiting in line at my local pharmacy and the people were chatting to pass the time. One of the folks commented that a certain location up in Maine (I live in Mass.) was as remote as the dark side of the moon. Another person chimed in and asked if there really was such a thing as the dark side of the moon. Before I could say anything the female pharmacy assistant (who was about 40+ years old) said, "Oh yes, Apollo 13 landed on the dark side by mistake". With as much tact as possible I corrected her politely saying that Apollo 13 was damaged and never landed on the moon at all. To this she then answered, "Well, one of those Apollos landed on the dark side of the moon, I'm sure of that!". I gave up and waited for my perscription (it was not psychoactive so I had to pour myself a tall glass of Merlot upon arriving home).

Well, my friend, I'd offer you one of these, but they haven't made them now for a number of years and I only have this single empty bottle:


To be honest, though, I think the bottle may have been a lot more special than the beer contained within.

Cheers!

Well now I'm starting to feel left out. I've never met anyone in "real life" who admits they believe the moon landings were faked. Probably just as well, don't want my social life getting consumed by the lunar conspiracy the way my online life has been!

No, it's not ludicrous. The full sentence reads as follows...

A variable acceleration rocket would tremendously useful for landing on the Moon.

It "would" be useful. Why say that?



Obviously. The sentence in full...

Instead of firing the landing rockets in short bursts, astronauts could throttle down for a nice smooth landing.

Why say "instead of"? Why say the "astronauts could"?

Combined statements as written in the article....

A variable acceleration rocket would tremendously useful for landing on the Moon. Instead of firing the landing rockets in short bursts, astronauts could throttle down for a nice smooth landing.

"Would". "Instead of". "Could".

Don't carp and huff about how "ludicrous" my viewpoint is, when it clearly reads that way through the entire article.

They should have written something more like this...."A variable acceleration rocket was / is tremendously useful for landing on the Moon.", if it already existed in the Apollo LM's, as you claim it did - wouldn't you agree?

If that was the only sentence in question, it could reasonably be excused as a typo, or simply a poor choice of words. But it didn't stop there.

"Instead of firing the landing rockets in short bursts, astronauts could throttle down for a nice smooth landing." This is much more than a typo.

Why are they describing a future solution to a problem that isn't supposed to have been a problem, even 40 years ago? But it doesn't end there....



Hmm...isn't that sort of what the article said they were doing, and have now developed?..

NASA researchers think they've got a prototype engine that should give the variable rate of acceleration astronauts are looking for. The newly developed Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine (CECE) is a variant on the RL10 engine that boosted the Surveyor robot landers to the Moon back in 1966-68. The RL10 is designed to only go full throttle, so adding the variable thrust was difficult.

They resurrected old technology - the RL10 engine - and have now developed a variant, based on that 1960's design.

And now, this last point raises even greater questions....



Each one of the Surveyor landers weighed about 660 lbs. - compared to about 33,000 lbs. for an Apollo LM. So if larger payloads are a concern, why would they base the descent engine of future landers around the RL10 Surveyor engine?


Several claims (excuses) made so far to dispute my argument, such as these...

"They aren't going to resurrect old technology"

"They need brand new technology because future payloads will be greater than Apollo"

...are clearly wrong.

But there are much more serious problems....

Why wouldn't they have used the Surveyor engine as a base to develop a variant for the Apollo landers??

Why did today's engineers pass on the "perfect" LM descent engine as a base point to develop future lander engines, and choose to go back even further in time and technology - with an engine that doesn't even have variable thrust?

This isn't a small, insignificant issue. It raises serious questions about the authenticity of Apollo.

The Surveyor landers were genuine. The technology behind them was, and still is, authentic. And that's why the engineers of today have been able to use the Surveyor engine for the development of advanced variants.

But the Apollo landers?

This only ends up making them look evermore like movie props.

To clarify - each of the first two manned missions (Orion 13, 14) plan on the astronauts being up to 7 days (max.) on the lunar surface, not a month. Orion 14 is the last mission planned and scheduled for Project Constellation. No missions beyond that have been added to the schedule released by NASA.

To the issue...

Not only are they still studying the radiation hazards within the Van Allen Belts for future manned missions - they have intensified the research. Why? That is, if Apollo has already proved that the belts pose no hazard during the limited time spent speeding through the belts, during missions to the Moon?

Current models of the trapped radiation environment (AP8, AE8) are over 20 years old. These are static models and do not take into account the dynamics that can occur within the trapped radiation belts. The Space Station platform will provide continuous coverage over many years to enable data to be collected in which to improve the models and facilitate improved projections of crew doses. Data from the Space Station active monitors will be used to update and verify models of both the trapped radiation environment and the cosmic radiation environment. Improvements in the models to accommodate transients as well as to correct for the physical shift of the SAA will be incorporated. Data gathered from prototype development flights has been used to provide a better understanding in the current structure of the LEO trapped radiation hazard.

http://klabs.org/richcontent/Tutorial/radi...lth_program.htm

Another curious point - the various recent studies on VA Belts, space, and lunar surface radiation, never seem to include any radiation data from the Apollo missions in their reports. They usually just note that there is very limited data available from previous radiation studies. Why don't they consider the Apollo missions - as claimed to have accumulated a wealth of radiation data - and include it in any of their studies? You'd think they would jump at the chance to use all that valuable information!

Once again, like the LM descent engine, it doesn't seem to be worth looking into for future manned missions....

Oh, good Lord, turbo. I can't believe I'm reading this. You're actually arguing that a nice little amateur article about the development of a new throttleable rocket engine is proof of the Apollo hoax because it's written mostly in future tense? You'll disregard reams of detailed technical and historical documentation on the Apollo DPS engine in favor of one small Web article, by an unnamed author, which uses a sentence structure you find incriminating? To be blunt, that's a pretty pathetic claim. The author is clearly just summarizing the original NASA article and even provides a nice big link back to orginal source -- which in no uncertain terms praises the throttling capability of the Apollo LM DPS engine.



You haven't done one single bit of research on this before crying "hoax," have you?

The RL10 engine is NOT the Surveyor descent engine. It's the engine used (as a pair) in the Centaur upper stage of the Atlas/Centaur booster which launched Surveyor to the moon. See here and here for some details.



Also, the RL10 engine is not "resurrected old technology." It may have been first tested in the late '50s, but it's been in continuous development ever since. It's currently in production as an upper stage engine for both the Delta IV and the Atlas V boosters. The current versions of this engine put out 22,000 - 24,000 pounds of thrust -- more than twice as much as the Apollo DPS. The CECE demonstrator is only intended to generate 15,000 pounds of thrust, but that's still about 50% more than the Apollo LM DPS. The final flight engines will likely have greater thrust. And that's just the sort of thing required for the heavier LSAM.

Some links:
Pratt & Whitney RL10 Page
Space and Tech RL10 Page
Wikipedia RL10 Page

I've tracked down the author of the article that turbonium has posted, and I've asked him to further clarify on his article. If he replies, I'll post it in here.



Indeed, I'm quite dissapointed actually as I didn't think Turbo would take himself this low.

Thanks for the links Peri.

The RL10 wiki article states:-



I'm no rocket engineer, but would this orbit change require a lot of "delta v"? Is this another reason why the Apollo descent engines wouldn't be practical for a polar landing.

Turbo, I think the question you posed was answered in the quote you gave:-

So, which makes more sense - to modify an engine design (LM DPS) that no one has had any practical experience with for nearly 40 years, or to modify a design (RL10) that is current and that is in use every day?



ETA: Also note that a variant of the RL10 was also used in the DC-X: a test demonstrator for a vertical landing vehicle - with throttleable engines.

You haven't done one single bit of research on this before crying "hoax," have you?


Just like he didn't with the Apollo 12 "Two Astronauts In The Visor" picture earlier in the thread.

Why wouldn't they have used the Surveyor engine as a base to develop a variant for the Apollo landers??


Probably because the Surveyor landing profile was nothing like Apollo's. Surveyor 1

The Surveyors flew to the moon directly from earth, decelerated to 11 km altitude above the moon with a retrorocket which was then jettisoned, and then Surveyor continued directly down to the surface on three vernier engines. There was no descent from orbit, no hovering, and no translation across the surface.

The LM descended from orbit, could and did hover, and translated over the surface as was demonstrated by Armstrong when he had extend his landing profile to avoid a boulder field while landing Apollo 11.

The requirements for this kind of landing was quite different from Surveyor, so they decided that a different type of descent system was needed.

Turboniun, are you confusing the RL10, which was clearly stated as the engine which boosted the Surveyor spacecraft to the moon -as in an upper booster stage; with Surveyor's descent vernier rockets?


From the article:

"NASA researchers think they've got a prototype engine that should give the variable rate of acceleration astronauts are looking for. The newly developed Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine (CECE) is a variant on the RL10 engine that boosted the Surveyor robot landers to the Moon back in 1966-68. The RL10 is designed to only go full throttle, so adding the variable thrust was difficult."

Note the phrase "boosted the Surveyor robot landers to the Moon." Boosting is not a phrase used for a spacecraft landing. It is a phrase used for the launch and orbital insertion phases of spaceflight. It is not commonly used for a landing phase, and certainly was not in this instance.


From you:

Each one of the Surveyor landers weighed about 660 lbs. - compared to about 33,000 lbs. for an Apollo LM. So if larger payloads are a concern, why would they base the descent engine of future landers around the RL10 Surveyor engine?


Because the Surveyor landers did not use RL10 engines as descent engines - they used three hypergolic vernier engines of 130 N to 460 N of thrust, which were perfectly suited for the task.


All of this you could have found with a little research, and the proper reading of the article.


From you:

The Surveyor landers were genuine. The technology behind them was, and still is, authentic. And that's why the engineers of today have been able to use the Surveyor engine for the development of advanced variants.

But the Apollo landers?

This only ends up making them look evermore like movie props.



This passage is ironic considering that the Surveyor vernier engine actually has more in common with the LM DPS engine than it does with the new Lunar Lander engine.

The Author of the article has just emailed me back, and he is going to register an account and come and post in this thread. Can't get better resolution than that!

Excellent news.

It has been my experience of late having recently contacted two authors that HBs have misrepresented in order to try and perpetuate the hoax myth, that such authors have very little time for these tactics. I suspect it will be no different here.

I think Pericyntrhion addressed this adequately.



I am not harping and cuffing about the ludicrous nature of your position. I am merely stating it as an opinion...an opinion based upon the facts of the matter at hand.




You're right. It should've been written that way. In fact, I'd suggest this:

"A throttleable engine, similar in kind to that which allowed the Apollo Lunar Module to be pilo