No, Turb. People dispute Apollo because of the influence of a few people who are exploiting a lack of knowledge for financial gain. They capitalize on the CT mindset in order to effectively put forth their wares and influence people.

It is not merely volumes of documentation. There is also rationality involved, and a complete lack of "holes" in the story which makes rational people realize, without questioning it, that Apollo happened. Hundreds of thousands were involved in one way or another with Apollo, and they all maintain the same thing. The Kennedy case is completely different.

Unfortunately, that case was the essential catalyst for what has grown into a profound and irrational mindset that affects almost everything today. In that case, the "holes" were apparent in 1964. We've had several high profile investigations since the Warren Commission because of the inconsistencies present. None of them have done much but raise further questions, of course.


Apollo has no relation to that case.


Burden of proof does not go both ways. The accuser has to prove his or her contentions. The accused merely has to defend.



It most certainly can, and it most certainly has been. We have the dust. We tested the LM DPS engine countless times on Earth.




Turb, you have done the best job of trying of anyone.
Still, I've seen no one who can get anything by as evidence.
You are telling me that something which happened can be disproved. You are stating that everything we did back in those days is a lie.

If it can be disproven, then someone must know that it's a lie. No one does.
You may disagree with that statement, but still, it remains clear that no one has, and no one will.

And I guarantee you that no one, anywhere, will be able to get anything passed me as proof of some silly hoax. Some of the ideas presented do lead to some rather neat things to talk about...but there has never been an effective argument against Apollo, save in the minds of those who don't understand the program or how it was done. Their lack of knowledge is glaring, no matter who it is...be it Bill Kaysing (The Godfather of silliness), Ralph Rene (the self educated (I prefer self-medicated (he's a beer hound)) engineer, who's self-education appears to have come from copious amounts of liquor combined with brain damage, or Mr. Percy, the so-called photographic expert who doesn't know how his own shadow is cast upon the ground.

Sibrel doesn't count. He is a know nothing who capitalized on the implasuibility put forth by the aforementioned geniuses.




I know. This is why I have repeatedly said that I am expressing knowledge, not opinion, when I explain Apollo.
I have also stated that there is a decided difference between knowedge and belief (which is what all HB opinions are).
You even agreed with me:





Yet, you're stating that the idea of a hoaxed Apollo program is "increasingly plausible"? That idea is based on belief; not knowledge.




Pro-Apollo sites are not NASA funded.
$15,000 is not an exhorbitant fee for the amount of writing that would be necessary to explain every HB contention away.
The book was cancelled, as has been voluminously explained, for obvious, and reasonable causes.

Publishing it might give credence to the HB claims. That's a good enough reason not to publish it. NASA understood the HB mindset well, it seems.



It is another issue, and it is patently false.
They may kick an upstart charlatan , a liar and a moron like Sibrel in the pants...but otherwise, they laugh at most of it, and some of them are quite erudite and dignified in their responses to people who believe otherwise, like Neil Armstrong.

If you're going to make an issue about some of the astronaut's completely understandable conduct toward Sibrel, you're going to have a problem with me, much as Sibrel has had a problem with the law since he took his childish harrasment too far.


Don't go there.








Oh let's!

I do not think you're hearing me.
Hypergolics were not completely new. We already had them, and realized that such a system was much more cost-efficient. It was easier to build, and simpler, and lighter. Parallel development on something that was going to bee too costly and too heavy and too complex?




Your engineeering degree came from where, Turb?

A multiple engine system? For a vehicle that had to work simply and effectively? Developing a throttling system for a complex cryogenic engine...and installing a cluster on the LM? Really...do you understand what we're talking about here?

If you went into an engineering meeting back then, and proposed developing a throttling system for a multiple cryogenic RL10 system to power the LM...the stares would've been blank and incredulous, and not a word would've been spoken. If you weren't dismissed, you'd have been placed on furlough and ordered to take a psychological exam.




All engineering seeks to minimize mass and cost, and complexity wherever possible. But we're talking about a vehicle that will carry large amounts of cargo, and 4 men to the lunar surface, and requires ~ 50,000 pounds of thrust. This is a much larger thing than the LM was, and is being built for long term exploratory missions, and the ability to land un-manned if necessary. This is a big, complex thing which, despite it's peripheral design, is not a LM. It has a much bigger mission and the time is provided to adequately develop it for its intended purpose.





Turb, you don't see it as a logical progression because it is not a simple progression in terms of the LSAM. We are not simply extending Apollo here. We are developing an entirely new program, decades removed in scope and purpose from the Apollo LM. If we continued Apollo through its nominal conclusion, and proceeded with Apollo Appplications as originally designed, we'd have seen a gradual evolution in technologies for incrementally more advanced spacecraft. We'd have seen more advanced vehicles with hypergolic technology, without a doubt, and a gradual progression into cryogenic technology.

But it's been 35 years since Apollo ended prematurely. We have the means, and the necessity to develop much more sophisticated systems for a much more sophisticated purpose. The Apollo LM DPS was indeed perfect for the purpose it was intended to execute. If we simply said, "Well, we'll just re do the LM DPS again for this one," we'd be ignoring 35 years of rocket engine technological advancements in favor of something much more primitive. We have the time to develop more power, more redundancy, and something with alot more capability, and that's what we're doing.

It is utterly logical. We've spent the past 25 years refining the SSMEs, and the SRM technology of the Shuttle. We use what we've learned there. The proven RL10 family is a prime candidate for the development of high powered, redundant, and sophisticated cryogenic throttleable engines for use in lunar landings. They're the right size, and the most reliable models ever built. The Ares 1 and Ares V launch vehicles are logical progressions from Shuttle-derived technology. The LSAM is a leap which must also utilize what we've learned about engines and power and such.

It is not a complete and immediate ditching of something that fit the purpose 35 years ago. It is the logical development of new technologies using what we've learned since.





There is no such thing as "instant obsolescence" when the thing you're referring to has been out of service for 35 years, and so much rocket engine technology has been accomplished since then...





I am assuming that since you contiunually bring this radiation issue up, that you haven't read what has been voluminously published about the matter.
When we're talking about longer term missions in space and on the Moon, we're talking about areas that we did not need to have information about in the 1960s. We aren't ignoring the Apollo data. We know all about it. It is inapplicable to long term lunar stays. We already know what 3 days on the lunar surface entails. We already know what van Allen transit entails. When we're talking a week, or two weeks on the surface, or many months in space headed for Mars...we don't know about that yet. That's what the studies are about. How simple does it have to get?





How many times will this tired argument get brought up (Bush's announcement of the program occurred in January of 2004, by the way)?

We are planning a long term, permanent space presence with Constellation, after a 35 year gap! In Apollo, we were executing a challenge wherein we had a mere 9 years to make it happen! There is no space race today with the Soviets. We are finally proposing and designing a permanent manned exploratory presence in space.


This is not Apollo. We will do what we must do, on a pay-as-you-go basis. An accomplishment, followed by more funding, and another acomplishment, etc., etc.. (we're also expecting failures along the way). We're talking about a permanent, manned presence in space, not a race to the Moon to be accomplished within 9 years. The paradigm, and the purpose is utterly and completely different. It's been 35 years coming, but it's coming finally.

Apollo taught us that we could do it. It also showed us exceeding reliable spacecraft designs, which are being used as a basis for future development. But that's where the similarities end. Constellation is totally different in its purpose and its scope from Apollo.


...I will concede this, however:

NASA has published in several source documents the idea that cryogenic systems are much more environmentally friendly than hypergolic systems are...when discussing the development of cryogenic and throttleable systems for the LSAM.

It seems that no matter where one looks today, we can seem to escape the environmental wacko aspect of political correctness that infects almost everything we do today.


I laugh heartily at these statements. As if in the vacuum of space, where these engines will be used, environmental consciuousness has any relevance at all!

Another point that is worth repeating (although I expect turbonium to totally ignore it again) is that NASA's entire manned effort was dedicated to Apollo almost from the start. This is not the case with the Constellation programme.

Constellation is running parallel to the ISS and until 2010 will be running parallel to the shuttle programme. This reduces the financial and other the resources which can be dedicated to it. Add to this the fact that Apollo used brand new facilities and infrastructure whilst Constellation will use the launch facilities currently in use for the shuttle (including both pads at complex 39 and the Vehicle Assembly Building). These facilities will need to be extensively modified and tested before the Ares launch vehicles can even start being assembled. Most of this work can not even start until 2010 when the shuttles will finish flying.

When conceived Apollo had one single aim, to put men on the Moon. Constellation has no such single aim, indeed it's initial role will be to replace the shuttle as a the ferry vehicle to the ISS. Only then will the programme be ready for a return to the Moon.

When we stop ignoring those inconvenient little facts that it in the way of the hoax myth it seems quite clear that there are valid reasons for the chosen return date.

The whole argument about both the return date and the choice of RL10 engine (and in a previous post about the choice to use both the Ares I and the Ares V launch vehicles for lunar missions rather than just a single launcher as in Apollo) is based on a faulty piece of logic. The argument turbonium is putting forward is basically, "if a choice is made not to do something it is evidence that it can't be done". This is blatantly wrong.

An example to show the fallacy of this argument:
I say that I went to shops last week. I then chose not to go to the shops today but instead go next week. Is this evidence that I can't go to the shops today? Does it any way constitute evidence that I lied and in fact I never went to the shops? Of course not it, but this is what turboniums argument basically boils down to.

Red flag, eh?

And your engineering degree in aerospace came from where?

It was actually 8 years and two months from the mandate until the execution of Apollo's purpose. This is possible because of American know how and drive and passion.

We are taking years longer to develop a program that is only related to Apollo by virtue of the fact that we are again going to the Moon...this time, permanently. Do you have any idea what that entails from an engineering and technological standpoint? Do you have any idea how far we've come technologically since Apollo was pre-maturely scrapped in the early 1970s? We are using no theories. We are using principals that are proven, and which have been used countless times since 1972. We are not "re-manufacturing devices" that were used once before, for a totally different purpose. We are manufacturing totally new devices designed with a completely different mission in mind.




And who in hell is again quoting obselete statements by Brian O'Leary again (he's obviously though about his earlier alleged idiocies alot...).

Good lord, how many times must I hear about Brian O'Leary, former "NASA Apollo astronaut" who worked side by 'side with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin,' etc...


He did no such thing, and he was no such thing.

He was a member of Group 6, a scientist astronaut candidate selected in 1967.
He had nothing to do with any active astronaut or program. A candidate for training in 1967, who washed out and quit the program after 9 months because he balked at the requirement for all astronauts to take T-38 flight training. He thought it was unnecasseary and overtly dangerous...yet this guy was an astronaut candidate, considering being fired off in a rocket to ther Moon, perhaps????

Just a little off the beaten path was this one. He was one of 4 of that astronaut class that left the program. 7 of them flew on the Shuttle.

Brian O'Leary may well have thought deeply about some of the alleged things that have been attributed to him...well, I hope so.

Think about this:

He applied to become an astronaut. He was selected out of many...to train for a possible Apollo flight. He wanted to go to the Moon, and yet, he thought T-38 flight training was too dangerous?????

Think about that, and weigh whatever he said in the future based upon this utter lunacy.

Brian O'Leary washed out. He was never a qualified astronaut, and had nothing to do with Neil Armstrong or Apollo, or spaceflight in any way, shape or form....

Ah, there you have it Waspie...well put!



...p.s., less than 23 hours and counting. All still looks GO with Endeavour (at least I can spell it right!!!). Let's go flying again!!!! You won't have to stay up until the wee hours to see this one, me hopes!!!!

Who in hell ever claimed we gathered "lunar meteorites" and claimed they were from Apollo?
And who in hell ever claimed such a thing might be easy?

Especially, given the fact that the 800+ pounds of lunar material of varying types that we actually have from Apollo have no relation whatsoever to meteorites? They are pristine, un-affected, and completely documented lunar surface samples which exhibit nothing related to meteoric fragments we've obtained, the latter of which are different in character by virtue of their rather nasty passage into the Earth's atmosphere.


...how does one obtain surface soil samples from a meteoritte???


Anyone who claims that a meteorite fragment is from Apollo is bereft. It wouldn't be easy to do at any rate. It would be impossible. To claim such a thing would be to have any real scientist wonder about how many brain cells were disturbed in your head!

P.S., the Apollo lunar surface samples were not in any way "easy to collect". It was much easier to collect meteoric fragments on Earth.

We can only hope so!
That he ever had a question about it speaks volumes.....

Oh, good Lord...what Sawnny said above!!!!


Flawlessly tested?

Without a single casualty?

(Do the names Grissom, White, and Chaffee ring a bell?). Does Apollo 13 tell someone a story about "flawless"?

How is it that the idea that Apollo was a flawless progression get started? How can anyone not understand that when you're developing things to do what has never been done before, that mistakes are something that teaches you...they are part of the process, and that effective people utilize those unexpected, not-considered occurances to learn from and refine processes and technologies in order to succeed?

You know, we need more people studying engineering and science in school these days. We honestly do, and have needed it for decades.


That's a part of what the President's program is about...stimulating education in these fields. In fact, it's a primary purpose of Constellation!

Hi, turb. There have been a bunch of really excellent posts made by several people recently that cover your concerns in great detail. There's not a lot more I can add, but MID and flyingswan did mention a few things which got me thinking:

QUOTE(flyingswan @ Aug 7 2007, 08:41 AM)

what features of the RL-10 make you think it was a suitable engine for the LM?

QUOTE(MID @ Aug 7 2007, 05:46 PM)

Turb, you don't see it as a logical progression because it is not a simple progression in terms of the LSAM. We are not simply extending Apollo here. We are developing an entirely new program, decades removed in scope and purpose from the Apollo LM. If we continued Apollo through its nominal conclusion, and proceeded with Apollo Appplications as originally designed, we'd have seen a gradual evolution in technologies for incrementally more advanced spacecraft. We'd have seen more advanced vehicles with hypergolic technology, without a doubt, and a gradual progression into cryogenic technology.

Your concerns about the engine choices made for Apollo and Constellation, along with flyingswan's and MID's comments here, really relate to one of the key challenges of engineering: in the real world there isn't necessarily just one solution to a problem. The heart of engineering is the process of working out the best solution from a bunch of options. If requirements change or if the available technology changes, the optimum solution to a given problem may very well change, too. That's what you see happening here.

The Apollo engineering teams at NASA and its contractors didn't just decide one day that it would be fun to go off and build a new engine for the lunar module. They did just what all good engineers do: they laid out the program requirements, researched the available technologies, and ran trade studies to pick the best solution. To meet the Apollo program requirements, the best solution for the LM descent stage was a new hypergolic engine. For the Constellation requirements, a cryogenic engine is best.

The thing that constantly amazes me about the Apollo project is the vast amount of detailed engineering documentation that has been archived for posterity. Let's go back to 1964 and see what the Rocketdyne engineers were thinking about lunar module propulsion. Take at look at this report:

High Performance Apollo Propulsion System Study. Volume 2 - Propellant Survey Final Report, NASA-CR-117535, March 1964.

This is a final report published in early 1964 summarizing work done in 1963 -- relatively early in the design phase of the lunar module. It's a 236 page report made by Rocketdyne under contract to NASA. It shows the detailed results of a propellant trade study made for the Apollo spacecraft (service module propulsion and LM descent/ascent propulsion). At this point in the Apollo program, the baseline hypergolic propulsion system concepts were already in place and the spacecraft designs were beginning to take shape. The purpose of the contract was to study potentially better propulsion solutions which might be available in time to meet the 1970 program goal and to also look at longer-term (1975) propulsion options for future improvements.

To give you some idea of the level of detail involved in a real engineering trade study, here's the list of comparison factors used to rank the various candidates:

QUOTE(NASA-CR-117535, Page 50)

Table 11
PROPELLANT COMPARISON FACTORS

1. Relative Payload Capability
2. Relative Propellant Volume
3. Propulsion System Experience
4. Propellant Physical State
5. Propellant System Simplicity
6. Propellant System Sensitivity
7. Propellant Thermal Storage in Space
8. Propellant Toxicity
9. Propellant Logistics
10. Thrust Chamber Cooling
11. Propellant Storage at Launch

Here are a few key excerpts from the report:

QUOTE(NASA-CR-117535, Page 1)

Results of the Propellant Survey Task of NASA Contract, NAS 9-1729, "High Performance Apollo Propulsion System Study" are presented in this report. The purpose of this contract was to evaluate the use of high-energy propellants and advanced propulsion-system concepts to increase the landed-payload capability of the Apollo vehicle. The program was divided into two phases. In Phase I of this program, propellants and propulsion systems that will be operational by 1970 were considered, while in Phase II, systems were considered for a 1975 operational date.

QUOTE(NASA-CR-117535, Page 3)

To ensure that the 1970 systems will be operational by that date, a minimum design-change approach was adopted for these systems. The actual propulsion system changed as new propellants were used, but the basic Service Module and LEM vehicle structures were maintained. As a consequence of this minimum vehicle-change approach, only liquid propellants were considered for the 1970 operational date.

The systems to be operational in 1975 have no design restrictions. Only the life support capsules and the booster vehicle were maintained as currently designed. The lack of design restriction resulted from the long development period available. Solid, hybrid, slurry, and powder-type propellants were considered.

QUOTE(NASA-CR-117535, Page 64)

Figure 6 was established based on a study of Apollo vehicle propellant volume limits (Appendix B ). For 1970, the lowest propellant volume received the highest rating. A relative volume of 1.0 (equal to present volume) degraded the volume-rating factor by the value of 1.0. Additional degradation occurred as volume increased, depending upon the amount of redesign necessary. If an individual propellant relative volume was greater than 1.9, the propellant combination was eliminated from 1970 consideration since based on Appendix D extensive structural redesign would be required. The hydrogen-fueled propellant combinations were the only ones to exceed the propulsion redesign volume limit. These propellants were considered in the 1975 category. The 1975 category has no structural redesign restrictions.

QUOTE(NASA-CR-117535, Page 137)

1970 PROPELLANT-COMBINATION COMPARISON
Based upon the method described for 1970 in Table 34 , the five evaluation- area factors and the overall comparison factor were determined. These factors are listed for various propellant combinations in Tables 37 through 42 . No hydrogen-fueled propellant combinations appear in the tables. They were excluded from the 1970 listings because of their low density, and the restriction that major (tank) modification be considered only for the 1975 systems. Also, only propellant combinations offering a performance improvement over N204/ 50-50 are listed.

QUOTE(NASA-CR-117535, Page 146)

1975 PROPELLANT-COMBINATION COMPARISON
The bipropellant combinations for 1975 were rated within the five evaluation areas of Table 35 . In Table 45 are presented the performance ratings of the bipropellant combinations considered for 1975. Unlike the similar ratings for 1970, these ratings do not include the effect of relative volume. The 1975 performance rating is a function of only the payload. For this reason, propellant combinations with hydrogen as a fuel rank among the top candidates. The payloads for the hydrogen-fueled combinations were calculated using a light tank-weight factor as described previously.

So, there you have it. Rocketdyne concluded back in 1963-1964 that hydrogen fuel was a "top candidate" for future lunar missions, but that the systems could not be put in place in time to meet the 1970 program goal. Funny, but that seems to be just the way that history has worked out. Apollo used hypergolics; Constellation will use cryogenic hydrogen/oxygen. Of course, with a different set of program requirements, a non-cryogenic hypergolic or monopropellant engine might still be best (e.g. the Cassini orbiter or the Mars Phoenix Lander).

Oh by the way, the RL-10 engine is mentioned in this report. It shows up here:



I guess they didn't ignore it after all.




There is no "jump" here. You keep ignoring the fact that the RL-10 is NOT a resurrected 1950's engine. It's a state-of-the-art rocket engine which is currently in production. Nothing has to be resurrected. The production line tooling is in place and the line is running, the supplier chain is in place, and an experienced engineering and production staff is on-hand. None of those exist any more for the LM descent engine. Yes, the initial versions of the RL-10 engine date back to the late '50s, but it has been constantly evolved over the years and is still a very high-tech engine. The most recent version, the RL-10A-4-2, first flew in 2002. It's only a five-year-old design. The other current-production model, the RL-10B-2, first flew just a few years earlier in 1998.




I'm afraid your research has once again missed some important facts. You may want to investigate the TRW TR-201 engine:

QUOTE(SpaceAholic.com TRW TR-201 Liquid Rocket Engine)

TRW TR-201 Bipropellant Rocket Engine. The thrust chamber was initially developed for the Apollo Lunar Module and was subsequently adopted for the Delta Expendable Launch Vehicle 2nd stage. The engine made 10 flights during the Apollo program and 77 during its Delta career between 1974-1988. This TR-201 has been configured as a fixed thrust version of the Lunar Module Descent Engine (LMDE) for Delta's stage 2.

With 77 post-Apollo flights up through 1988, I'd hardly call this engine a "white elephant."

That's quite possible in some cases, but certainly not for all. As for a lack of expertise, I'll give an example which opposes that view, with my reply about Percy and Kaysing below..



Of course the two events were different. I was just pointing out that volumes of "documentation" do not directly constitute "proof" - as is obvious to see with the Warren Report.



I know what you mean, but let me explain my point more clearly...

The first claim was made by NASA - ie: Apollo was a real event, which we saw and heard on TV and radio. The Apollo material - videos, photos, moon rocks, etc. - is help up as proof of its authenticity. And from this, you (meaning NASA, the pro-Apollo camp, etc.) firmly believe that you have met your burden of proof (for Apollo being genuine.)

But that burden of proof has not been met, according to those of us within the pro-hoax camp. And therein arises another burden of proof - for those claiming it's a hoax.

Two opposing claims, each with a burden of proof. Or, if you prefer, one claim with a burden of proof, and one accusation with a burden of proof. The semantics don't matter.



No. I mean, the behavior of the dust and the engine on the Moon are going to be different than their behavior on Earth. But we can't verify their behavior on the Moon as we can on Earth.



No, I don't believe everything we did was a lie. I'm quite certain that there were genuine developments and accomplishments - within the Apollo project. That is, I think many sub-projects, etc., were genuine. It's the final product(s) that was a lie. The Apollo rocket, LM, etc. did not - because they could not - perform as claimed.



Well, I have to disagree with your sweeping put-downs of these people, in particular with regard to Percy.

David Percy, ARPS - whom you disparagingly describe as a "so-called photographic expert" - is indeed a well-respected professional photographer. He is an Associate of the Royal Photographic Society (hence the ARPS title). (The RPS website describes this level of Distinction....The Associateship (ARPS) is awarded for a high standard of technical competence and individual creative ability.) In 1986, he was nominated "Film Cameraman of the Year", by the British Industrial and Scientific Film Association. His experience, peer recognition, and qualifications clearly establish him as a photographic expert.

As for Bill Kaysing, a few notes from wikipedia's bio page....

Bill Kaysing's employment record at Rocketdyne shows:

* February 13, 1956 - hired as a Senior Technical Writer
* September 24, 1956 - classification changed to Service Analyst
* September 15, 1958 - classification changed to Service Engineer
* October 10, 1962 - classification changed to Publications Analyst
* May 31, 1963 - resigned for personal reasons.

Kaysing..claims that, according to that a Rocketdyne company report from the late 1950s, the chance of a successful landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.0017 (1 in 600). Kaysing claimed in particular that the F-1 rocket engine used in the first stage of the Saturn V was too unreliable:

... the Air Force had 13 consecutive failures with the Atlas D, E, and F in the summer and fall of 1963. This was at the time when the F-1, a much larger engine, was under intensive development. My point is this: if the Atlas couldn't achieve reliability after almost a decade of development, how could a far larger and more powerful rocket engine be successful?

Kaysing also said that if five F-1 engines had actually been used, "it would have been a most spectacular fire bomb.", instead claiming that seventy-two hours before the launch of a Saturn V, B-1 rocket engines (more reliable but lower thrust) were put within the large F-1 engines.

However, while F-1 development was problematic, particularly due to combustion instability, the problems were solved in the early 1960s, and by June 1965 it had been test-fired 1,000 times. No 'B-1' engine was ever built, unless a NASA conspiracy managed to build it in secret after failing to make the F-1 work in the open. The development of the Atlas booster was similarly troubled, but records do not show the thirteen consecutive failures of the Atlas that Kaysing claims.

You describe Kaysing simply as "The Godfather of silliness". Rocketdyne considered him silly enough to author, review, and revise their documentation for 8 years (1956 to 1963) before he quit, of his own volition (not Rocketdyne's).

He was clearly in a position which qualified his claims about...

- the 1950's report that the chance of a successful landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.0017 (1 in 600)

- 13 consecutive failures with the Atlas D, E, and F in 1963.

I will say, however, that some of the other claims he made - about the LM descent engine, etc. - were not from first-hand personal experience, as some pro-hoax people have argued. But the first two claims I've cited cannot be dismissed away with a smirk and a slur.

As for Ralph Rene being a "brain damaged..beer hound"? Isn't that rather hypocritical, considering the well-known depression and alcoholism of Buzz Aldrin, after Apollo? Not to mention the recent reports about astronauts being so drunk before their flights that they posed a serious risk? It's entirely fair to comment on the claims made by Rene. But just making cheap shots like this is something I thought you were above, MID.

Sibrel is not my favourite person, I do admit. His tactics and attitude can grate on me as much as they can for anyone pro-Apollo, such as yourself. But even an ass can make valid points, which I consider to be the case with Sibrel - with some of his material.



But if the main reason for answering hoax claims is to "educate" the public - as you contend - then why wouldn't that be a better reason to publish it? Wouldn't it educate and inform people about the authenticity of Apollo, much more than it would ever give credence to hoax claims? You must think so, since you post replies to hoax claims all the time right in this forum.....



I do apologize for generalizing the behavior as a sweeping characteristic of all the astronauts. And as I said, I do have problems with Sibrel's approach, mannerisms, etc. But, imo, that doesn't explain away everything the astronauts say and do in response. For example, when Alan Bean said that they didn't go out far enough to go through the Van Allen Belts. I personally find just that comment alone to be incredibly damning to the pro-Apollo argument. I've read various arguments in defense of that comment, but I find them very unconvincing.

If he's that good, why does he make a lot of claims about Apollo shadows and perspective that are not only easily refutable by anyone with a camera, but are in some cases refuted in Percy's very own pictures? He may be good at taking pictures, but he is either hopeless or dishonest in analysing them.

I'd just like to thank Turbs for getting back to his usual high quality of post. Your recent few posts have had me scratching my head, and disappointed that you'd fallen into the usual HB mindset. THIS post shows that despite you thinking Apollo was faked, you are still capable of presenting a reasonable case to defend that position. That doesn't happen very often.

If I had the time tonight I'd address the contents of the post itself, but don't have the time to answer in the manner this intelligent post deserves.

Here, a discussion is taking place on the possible environmental effects of hypergolics on the moon:

Article on new lunar descent engine


Apparently the concern is the effect of toxic byproducts of hypergolics and their exhaust on lunar samples and the possible contamination of spacesuits and gear.

Turb,
Just a couple comments:




That was not a "claim". It was merely showing events as they happened. We weren't claiming it was real. We were merely showing what we did, as it happened, so as to share it all with the people opf America, and the world. There was never a thought of proving that what was happening was real, nor was there any thought that one day, some people would think it wasn't.

What we showed, and what we gathered, was for the purposes of sharing the missions with the people of the Earth, and for the collection of research materials.

We never had a burden of proof. We had the burden of executing the task, and the obligation to share it with all the people who paid for it. We were showing people what we were doing, out in the open, on live television.

The accusations of fakery were years down the road. That's the only claim. Thus, it is the sole burden of the accuser to prove the accusation. Your reasoning is HB reasoning. It makes no sense in the real world. A person accused of murder has a claim made against him. The burden is on the accuser to prove the contention. The accused is in a position only to defend, and the accused never made a claim one way or another. He may have committed an act, or he may have not...but he isn't accused for a claim he made one way or another. He's accused of an act someone else is charging him with. If the accuser proves it, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is had. If the accuser fails, the case is dismissed.

To date, no hoax believer has come close to meeting the burden of proof.




No, Turb, it is not. And Buzz Aldrin's alcoholism, which he fully described himself, has no relation to the Rene issue. Buzz is completely understood. Mr. Rene is unintelligible in many respects.


Mr. Rene, if you've ever seen him talk, as I have, is unintelligible most of the time. I have seen him interviewed in his home, slurring his speech and drinking from a bottle of booze while spewing inannities. Mr. Aldrin does not do this, is intelligent, knowledgable, recovered, and understood.

Further, The claims of astronauts being drunk prior to flights on the Shuttle are, even now, completely unsubstantiated and from unidentified sources. The claims are, in my opinion, utterly ludicrous and totally impossible. Nonetheless, Dr. Griffin is indeed investigating the matter thoroughly, as is his job. As of today, ten years of detailed records and reports from Shuttle and Soyuz missions have been examined, hundreds of people have been interviewed, and there is of course not one instance where anything of this sort was reported, or even claimed.


If you'd like, I will be happy to tell you how silly the claim actually is.

My shot at Mr. Rene is not cheap. It's an observation. I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't seen the man myself.




It might, and NASA thought that as well, at first.
However, they re-thought the matter, logically, thinking that their efforts would lend a sense of offical concern, and credence to the claims, and place them in the position of defending themselves against ridiculous notions. I think that's fine. There's plenty of folks who have been taking care of that for them...who have a little time to do so. You see, they really don't. They're kind of busy.




I know you do...

You must realize something. 70+ year old folks can vary alot in their attentiveness, their memories, and their demeanor. Some have somewhat deteriorated memories, some are still very alert and sharp. Al sometimes seems a little confused. He's a generally soft-spoken artist-type who is living a peaceful life. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, on the other hand, are pretty active, pretty sharp cookies in their mid to late 70s. Gordon Cooper, bless his heart, was in the throes of Parkinsons in his 70's, and had been for some time when his comments were used to substantiate astronaut claims of Aliens...


We're talking about older men, being pursued by a guy who tried to trap them. You're bound to find somebody who can't remember something...but to use that as some sort of argument in support of a hoax is really rather shallow and silly.

Thanks for the link, Atomic!
That makes alot more sense that the idea of environmental effects (the hypergolics are nasty materials)!

Funniest thing I've seen all day : http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Moon_hoax

WARNING! Contains strong language!

That's awesome Trinitrotoluene made me lmao "Schlaffenhoeffer's theorem states that extremely cold objects, such as the moon, or a polar bear, are so anti-hot that they actually anti-glow" my fav part hahaha

Could you please cite a few specific examples? I'd like to know what you're referring to exactly, so I can make my comments relevant to your point(s). Thanks.

Aw shucks, postie.

I'm just as much a "work in progress" as any other human being. I would hope that others here are able to recognize it in themselves as well.

Thanks for the nice words.

I respect your take on the issue, MID. But I still firmly consider it is a claim..

Why? Mainly because the entire Apollo "event" was conducted, witnessed, and reported on exclusively by

1. NASA. Or...

2. By the mainstream media, but only after it had been first been filtered through NASA, and had NASA's complete approval and consent.

The fact is - there were absolutely no independent source(s) for true confirmation of the authenticity of Apollo. Now, I certainly do realize that CBS/NBC news couldn't exactly send reporters off to cover the event(s) first-hand! Although, I must admit it would be funny to see someone like Dan Rather don a spacesuit and act more self-important than ever before (if that's even possible!)

But while it's true that media coverage of such an event is inherently limited, there are still many key areas that could have been independent, and out of NASA's full control. The most important one, imo, was the so-called "live" coverage showing the first man to walk on the Moon, etc....none of which was ever really shown "live" at all. Sure, the caption on the TV said it was...



But we all know it wasn't.

But, it was possible. The technology was already being used by the TV networks, such as CBS, years before the Apollo 11 event took place in 1969 - such as during the 1964 Olympic Games in Japan - broadcast live on American TV via satellite.

The problem was, satellite communications during the Apollo years was controlled by government...

Although today we take for granted the offering of satellite services by private companies, in the beginning, all satellite communications were coordinated between countries through government authorized entities and agencies and were international by design. This changed in 1972, when Telesat (although a government monopoly), Canada, began operation of the world's first domestic communications satellite, Anik 1 (launched by NASA), to provide the vast Canadian continental area with voice and data services and the idea to provide television programming; by default of its footprint 'spread', it was also the first geo satellite to provide service to the U.S. domestic market - RCA immediately leased circuits on Anik until they could launch their own satellite. The first United States domestic communications satellite, and the world's first offered by a private company, was Western Union's WESTAR 1, launched on April 13, 1974, followed by Westar 2 then the RCA satellite, Satcom F-1 which set the standard of using twenty-four channels, however it was the 1975 Intelsat 4A series which first used dual polarization per transponder, i.e. twelve transponders for twenty-four channels. These first satellites were initially designed for voice and data useage, but very quickly television became a major user and commercial supportor.

http://www.geo-orbit.org/sizepgs/geodef.html

In 1965, ABC applied to the FCC to operate their own domestic satellite system to distribute television signals, but they refused - in years of excuses. I find it quite interesting that in the very same year Apollo ended - 1972 - independent parties were first finally allowed to establish their own private satellite communications services, without full government control and authorization...

Mere coincidence? Perhaps, but I find it very "convenient", if controlling all aspects of Apollo was of upmost importance to NASA.....

But even if you believe it was just a coincidence, that doesn't excuse the complete, exclusive control which the government (NASA) chose to exercise, for each and every Apollo mission broadcast on TV. The slow scan TV signals (purportedly) sent from the Moon to Earth, could have been relayed and converted by/to private TV networks for true "live" TV broadcasts, much like other events such as the Olympics were, in 1964 and - to a greater degree - in 1968.

That NASA (government) prevented any independent coverage of Apollo to any degree - despite the fact that they could have allowed it - makes the Apollo event(s) an exclusive claim of the government (NASA), that denied independent coverage and thus, had no independent verification. A claim that has a burden of proof.



Accusations of fakery became much more widespread and well-known years after Apollo. But they've existed since the first TV broadcast of Apollo 11 in 1969. Many viewers were skeptical at the time they first saw it on TV. As for the 'claim' issue, that's now been covered.



So what? Aldrin and Rene are both alcoholics - one of them is on the wagon, and one of them is not. Period. All that matters in regard to this issue is whether or not what they say has any merit. Not if it's being slurred out in-between swigs of Jack Daniels, or if it's being spoken eloquently in the Queen's English.



You may be right, that the charges are invalid. But the point I was making was that being a boozer doesn't mean everything they should ever say again is to be considered incorrect, nonsensical babbling.



No, it's still a cheap shot, MID. If you had included some actual points he has made, examples which you consider to be some of his "inanities", then it wouldn't have been just a personal character attack. I hope you can see what I mean.

I said...

But if the main reason for answering hoax claims is to "educate" the public - as you contend - then why wouldn't that be a better reason to publish it? Wouldn't it educate and inform people about the authenticity of Apollo, much more than it would ever give credence to hoax claims? You must think so, since you post replies to hoax claims all the time right in this forum.....



Perhaps, but if the most important point is to "educate" the public, then it's NASA who should assume that responsibility. You seem to be saying that NASA are quite content with letting every Joe Shmuck with his own website inform the public about the real "facts" of Apollo, for them - because they're much too busy with more 'important' matters. Of course, that means the public might read 5 to 20 completely different explanations that "answer" the same hoax accusation. Hardly the best way to educate the public, is it?



Yes, that's the most common reply to that question. Not that it's impossible to consider the comments as nothing more than the incoherent ramblings of a feeble-minded old man - a la Grampa SImpson. But I don't find that argument at all convincing. Bean answered all the questions very coherently throughout the interview. He discussed various aspects about Apollo in at least some degree of detail. Nothing would suggest his memory was faulty or that he was rambling nonsense.



I disagree. As I said, it's entirely possible that it means nothing more than how old people can often forget things.

Or, it's entirely possible that he said that they didn't go through the Van Allen Belts.... because in fact, they never really did.

Here's a good site that examines Percy's claims and shows counterexamples:
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

For an example of a Percy photo refuting a Percy "Rule of Photography" click "Anomalies explained" then "Part 1" of the second one.

Priceless, Gav!
I love that sort of stuff. I've been tempted to write something like that here...but I have (probably wisely) controlled myself!!!

..."Moonular Erosion" sounds like one of my ideas ripped off!!

Well, you'll have to establish some corroboration for "NASA'S complete approval and consent". You're stating that as a fact.







I'm glad you realize that, Turb.
And personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Dan Rather stuffed in a compartment in the Lower Equipment Bay of an Apollo CM, taken along for the ride, suited up, and tossed onto the lunar surface....

I don't think he'd be gushing self-importance there....he'd probably have puked in his suit, which would've made a priceless piece of journalistic history!







The problem is, the communications during Apollo were for Apollo...technicians, flight controllers, engineeers and support people. TV was for them. It came from the Moon via S-Band to several different receiving stations, in a form that could be transmitted to MSC, but not to the networks, because it needed to be converted to nominal TV standards.

Realizing that the public had to see this stuff, they figured out a way to convert it, and NASA managed the conversion and the feed to the networks for broadcast on regular network TV.

It was indeed possible, and it was done.


There was no such thing as live TV from the Moon, and there won't ever be. It' s 1.3 seconds away at light speed. Always has been. Always will be. Add a few seconds for rather normal signal conversion and there's a bit of a delay. That's as "live" as it gets.



Turb, honestly...

Someone who is recovered from a period that occurred 35 years ago, and who is a bonified space scientist is quite a bit different from someone who drinks on camera, slurs his speech, and claims to be a self-educated engineer. Dr. Aldrin was a Doctor of Science before he became an alcoholic. Mr. Rene was never an engineer, may have always been an alcoholic, and is still not an engineer. He drinks while spewing innanities, and all of his work has clearly pointed to his lack of credentials. Dr. Aldrins work has always spoken to his clearly established credentials and accomplishments. He is largely responsible for the methodology that we still employ to this day in order to effectively engage rendezvous and docking in space, and is also largely responsible for the techniques we still use today to execute EVAs.

Let's see, Dr. Aldrin...Mr. Rene...on a balance.

Who do you think outweighs the other?




And what I'm saying that being a former boozer for a short period...with a doctorate in astronautical science, and recovering from that problem, is alot different that being an apparent boozer with no qualifications...


I consider Rene's musings nonsensical babblings because of their content. The fact that I've watch Rene sucking vodka from the bottle while talking his nonsense only enhances the perception.







Mr. Rene's contentions have been posted and voluminously adressed in prior threads, and on many forums. I am not overtly concerned with him or what he says, and I have no desire to post any of his stuff again. What I say about him I stand by, and if anyone would like to reference anything he's said, I will be more than happy to run circles around his positions.






Have you ever seen NASA's educational programs? My God, they do more work in that area than can be listed in a very large post.
They don't adress the hoax claims because they feel they'll give those claims credence. Maybe they should address those hoax claims....I don't know. It's not that important to me, and I know full well that NASA is far to busy than to address claims about silliness, and it is silliness.






I didn't say Al was executing feeble minded ramblings. I said he's in his mid-70's, under the scrutiny of an upstart moron named Sibrel, and simply doesn't remember everything he once knew.





I'm rather certain that he certainly know they did, in 1969, and perhaps he might remember precisely where, and how long they were exposed. Quite frankly, I never considered it in 1969. I know what the trajectories were, and why they were planned the way they were.

Quite honestly, I'd be willing to bet that the van Allen belts had absolutely no relation to the thoughts of the crew of Apollo 12. Especially after they had that scare on ascent when they got struck by lightning...which rather diverted their minds to the immediate problem at hand, and since the Apollo 8, 10, and 11 crews had passed through the same regions of the van Allen belts en route to the Moon, and had experienced no adverse effects or overt dosages of radiation during their missions.


It was not a concern to them, as it was not to any other mission. I venture a guess that van Allen transit was not something on any Apollo lunar astronauts's mind, probably ever.

Re: the Apollo 11 television...

I don't know if this has been presented before, but a good primer on the Apollo 11 broadcast:

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html

Yes, the temptation can become quite strong at times (the 'dark side', tempting it is!)

My favorite part in the uncyclopedia moon hoax entry was this:




Just marvelous!

The title of this thread saddens me.

If you take the time, you can see a documented history of the technology which led to the moon walk. It's incredibly detailed and it goes back for decades. There are all sorts of secondary inventions that sprung from NASA's research. We use them in our daily lives (certain types of mattresses, certain foods, exercise equipment, etc.)

Unless you're going to claim that none of this technology exists either, the moon walk is a logical result of our state of knowledge at the time. It's not like someone saying, "Kennedy was killed by aliens". It makes sense. Our civilization produced the technology that made it possible and then we did it.

To me this type of question falls into the "I think, therefore I am" category. (BTW- "I think therefore I am" comes from a Rene Descartes discourse. I'm not saying it's stupid.) You can go on and on questioning your perception of reality and wondering whether it's all a conspiracy or an illusion. But this is sort of like spinning your tires in the mud. You never get anywhere.
If you have tons of evidence from a wide variety of sources telling you that something is logical and real, I think it's better to assume that it IS real and then move on to examine something else.

I guess that's just my personality type.

Siara,
I can certainly understand why the title of the thread would sadden you.
Such titles initially filled me with a sort of wonderment...but after a fashion, and subsequently seeing how so many people seemed to actually adhere to these rather untenable ideas, I can confess to at least some melancholy.

However, It's also rather easy to view these sorts of things as a clear sign of a societal lack, and thus, an opportunity to educate. That's always fun.



That, I think, is a rather consise summary of what happened.




Perhaps, but I think the substance to Descartes formulations on the nature of existence, the system of knowledge, and the nature of perception is alot more concrete than declarations that a completely substantiated and logical reflection of human thought, drive, and ability was fake.

Descartes himself would have complete accepted Apollo.
...and, would likely have been impressed and honored that Apollo 16 actually landed in the region of lunar highlands named after him!

I will agree that arguing the Moon hoax is rather somewhat like spinning one's wheels in the mud, though! It never does get anywhere.
It's alot better when someone poses an issue concerning it, and then takes the explanations, offered by people knowledgable in the areas, and actually uses them to investigate for themselves. Doing that almost always provides knowledge of the fallacies of the arguments, teaches something unknown to them before, and provides understanding.

All of the Moon hoax arguments can ultimately be traced back to a simple fundamental: lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Often, this lack is amplified by a peculiar mindset which has evolved in people over the past several decades. That of course makes it more difficult to cut through the CT mindset din and actually impart something real...but it's possible nonetheless.

This lack of knowledge is clearly illustrated as we speak, right now, today, aloft on orbit.
At this time, an exceedingly complex mission is taking place at the ISS with the Shuttle Endeavour. 10 people, working multiple co-ordinated tasks, utilizing incrdibly complex machinery and systems--a process for which they've trained for years to execute--is happening now.

This mission, it's requirements, and its complexity, rivals that of any Apollo mission, believe it or not. Yet, we never hear about this stuff being faked.

It's just reason and logic involved to understand that we could, and that we did do this...and, we will most assuredly do it again.

It saddens me because it is very similar to the thought processes of people who claim the holocaust didn't exist.

Yes, it's very much the same thought process...historical revision to suit their own needs and beliefs. This isn't a good thing at all.

In some cases it's the same people denying both events - check Eric Hufschmid.

Agreed...the very same thought process exactly...an historical revision.