Recently Russian UFO researcher Felix Zigel suggested that the explosion aboard Apollo 13 was caused by a UFO. In his story, he states that the UFOs used pulse magnetic beam directed at the small plutonium bomb Apollo 13 was carrying to set off the small explosion.

When I first read this I was at first amused at the absurdity of his suggestion. Couple of years ago, I did extensive research into UFOs, NASA and Apollo project for my article "What is on the Moon". The article is evidence gathered from NASA and other official documents to support the theory that there is an alien base on the Moon and we were "warned off" (quote from N. Armstrong) to stay off the Moon.

NASA scientist were surprised when the "moon rang like a bell for two hours" after lunar module of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 struck the surface and was recorded by the seismic instruments setup by the astronauts. This meant couple of things, either the moon is completely hallowed with only small top shell or the moon is made of very loose materials that extended deep into the moon surface. Like any scientist, NASA wanted to learn the truth. They needed to create bigger seismic explosion (crashing the lunar module wasn't big enough) into order to achieve large energy wave that could travel the entire diameter of the moon and back. This would allow them to learn if moon was infact hallow. So it is possible that NASA created a small plutonium bomb to achieve this. When I looked at the Apollo 13 mission objectives, the astronauts were to carry out extensive seismic experiments on the moon; more than in any other prior or later missions. So I wouldn't be surprise if Apollo 13 was actually carrying a plutonium bomb.

When the race to the moon started, NASA had always contemplated building a moon base for further space exploration and deployment of nuclear weapon to be used against USSR. This is one of the basic reasons the USA and USSR were on a race to the moon; to be the first to deploy these weapons on moon and win the arms race. So again, it would be logical for them to carry such a bomb on Apollo 13 for this purpose.

Then I heard of the interview with Donna Tietze inFormerly of NASA, female slide technician, the recipient of numerous space awards including 1969 Apollo Achievement award from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 1973 Skylab award, a medallion for success on the Skylab-Suez Test project, numerous other awards for her skill as a technical Artist, honors, awards and a 1994 reccomdation by Texas Governor Ann Richards to the Advisory Committee of Psychology Associates. According to her the Apollo 13 didn’t have enough fuel to get back to earth even after using the moon gravitational pull to sling shot the spacecraft. She indicated that she have information to prove that aliens were responsible in helping the crippled spacecraft back to earth. But this wasn’t enough for me. So I talked to couple of rocket engineers that design rockets for living at NASA. They are my friends that attended U of TX together. They verified (after calculation) that Apollo 13 just didn’t have enough fuel for earth re-entry stage.


Could this be true? Does Tietze has or seen information that could verify this? What was NASA covering up when the entire Apollo 13 was blackout from the public?


January 17th, 2006

Rohn

It happened exactly how they show it in the movie. The coil broke.


[attachmentid=22604]

interesting story id have to guess the coil broke too.

*Sigh*...wasn't Apollo 13 exciting enough without having to dream up all sorts of stuff? Maybe it's because a great many are too young to remember the reality? I was in college at the time, every TV on campus was turned on (people were into space exploration back then). Everyone was worried that the astronauts wouldn't be able to make it back. It was high drama, with very high stakes...there was sense of unity among Americans that you just don't see much anymore. It's a shame to feel the need to fabricate nonsense about something like this.

I agree,as if the Apollo missions wasn`t exciting enough.But then again, there is nothing like a couple of alien warships shooting at the poor astronauts.

Just gotta brag. I actually shook hands with Jim Lovell. He gave a speech at my college in the early 80s. He talked about Apollo 13 and about the famous picture (from another mission) of the Earth rising over the moon. Mostly, though, he talked about how you go to the bathroom in space.

I have never actually talked to either of the Apollo 13 crew but I wrote a letter to Glynn S. Lunney, Apollo 13 mission director. My main(and only) question in the letter was the lack of fuel in the lunar module to bring back the crew safely to earth. I included all the calculation and analysis done by my two friends. The letter doesn't mention any of the UFOs or the explosion. My letter was to the point. After six oth he wrote back saying that inquiries should be directed at NASA as since he is retired now. Lunney retired fron NASA in 1999. By my numerous letters to NASA concerning Apollo 13 have so far gone unanswered.


I wanted to keep this purely scientific but I just had to reply to this. In 1950s and 1960s, we had pride in ourselves as Americans. Scientists weren't afraid to explore the fringes of science and technology without fear of our big brother watching over you. Today lot of us (scientific community) sit back watch while the rest of the world (such as Twain and their DNA and gentic proram, Japan's adavncement in alternate fuel, Europe's space program) take the lead in new scientific achievements because of the political climate. We are no longer free to think independantly and express. That what made this country so great in that era (in sccience and techonology) yet today we are forced with technoloyg from rest of the world because we are no longer free to explore new scientific technology for the fear of violating some silly law or fear or retribution from the big corperation that have hold on a our economy.

The Apollo project was truely one of the greatest American achievement. But there are so many mysteries clouding the NASA and this project and it is our obligation (right) to get to the truth.

Rohn

I agree.



What mysteries would that be?

Over the years I have researched the UFOs, NASA, Apollo project and astronauts. From those I would like NASA to answer truthfully few question that have nagged everyone.

1. Apollo 13 mystery that I have discussed here

2. Why was Apollo 18, Apollo 19 and Apollo 20 scrapped? (I have discussed this in detais in another post "Astronauts "Truth about UFO's ")

3. UFOs involved with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo; and the lack of pohots available to us which the astronauts themselved freely agree took them.

4. Why was proposed landing on the far side of moon canceled (relate to #2)

5. Why was the EVA time so short in these mission? (planned EVA for 19, 19, and 20 were 3 days)

6. Why was Gordon Cooper, the best docking pilot inthe programming, was never offered place in the Apollo mission. Could be that he didn't play by the NASA's rules?

These are just a few. I will update when I have the time

Rohn

I saw a short sitcom... Can't remember which one... Where a few former NASA astronauts admited to veiwing objects while on missions... You could find out where they live and bang on a few doors

You'd risk being arrested...or perhaps even punched!

didnt buzz aldrin punch a guy in l.a.?

Did you click the link I posted above? (video of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel in LA)

OK.
I've been asked to get involved here so ...here I go.

As to your questions regarding Apollo, Rohn:

APOLLO 13:

There is a rather common need to associate all of this UFO stuff to manned space missions. It is basically all fallacious. No aliens were ever sighted by any U.S. manned space crew (UFOs are another matter, and are common in aviation, but UFOs are not alien spacecraft, they are what the acronym means...Unidentified Flying Objects--there's a difference between that and alien spacecraft).

Apollo 13 is well understood.
What happened was this (as succinctly as I can put it)

One of the O2 tanks on AS-13 exploded at apporximately 55 hours GET (ground elapsed time). The explosion occurred because the heater element inside of the tank had been welded by a tank emptying process pre-flight. The tank was not set up to operate at the 65 volts of the Apollo spacecraft systems. It was a 25 volt device. The lengthy emptying process has fried the heating switch in the open position, a problem which was never detected in pre-flight tests. The heater simply ran continuously in that tank during the 55 hours of flight, which caused temperatures inside the tank to reach about 500 degrees C (about 1000 degrees F). This temperature inside the tank caused damage to the teflon protection of the circulator fan motor wiring.

Thus, when the crew turned on the fan to "stir the cryos" at 55 hours GET, an electrical arc occurred inside the tank, which caused a fire, fed by the dense oxygen atmosphere of the tank. Pressure inside the tank increased rapidly and the tank blew, damaging the other oxygen tank, and causing the "problem".

Apollo 13s incident was actually an accumulation of errors which could be traced back several years prior to the actual flight.

It was a series of mistakes which led to a near-disaster, and had nothing to do with UFOs or a small plutonium bomb that Apollo 13 was carrying.
The plutonium bomb idea is undoubtedly an un-educated extension of someone hearing a bit about the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermoelectric generator that powered the ALSEP experiments placed on the lunar surface (Apollo 12 and 13 both had the same generator on-board). This generator used plutonium 238 as fuel...but it was not a bomb. It was a nuclear generator for electrical power (about 63 watts, if memory serves me correctly) which produced a very nominal amount of radioactivity in operation.

APOLLOs 18, 19, and 20

Their cancellation was courtesy of the Nixon administration.
Apollo 18 was cancelled at the time of Apollo 11. By late 1970, the other two missions had been cancelled. Why?

Viet Nam for one. The war effort needed a bit of funding, and Nixon was definitely into to moving things along in Viet Nam.

Number two would be that American apathy for Apollo fueled Nixon's desire to see it all over with. After all, it was Kennedy's program, and as we know, Nixon wasn't a fan of Kennedy. Kennedy was ending American involvement in Viet Nam at the time of his death. Nixon was pushing the war effort. Nixon simply had a problem with having Apollo continue, as it was Kennedy's legacy. He wanted his own. His own wound up being Viet Nam and Watergate, of course, but as far as space was concerned, he wanted something that his name would be associated with. The Shuttle was that project, which of course (and due to budget cutting) didn't come to fruition for about 6 years after he had been drummed out of office.

That's the short explanation...

UFOS

No astronaut ever photographed or saw what could be indentified as an alien spacecraft. However, UFOs are somewhat commonplace in aviation and spaceflight, and pictures are certainly available of unidentified objects taken by several astronauts. None of these were ever associated with aliens. That came from the public perception of these things.

Indeed, Apollo 11 saw a UFO on its way to the moon in 1969. However, prudently, they did not utilize the phrase UFO (typically proounced "yoo-foe" in aviation parlance), or actually mentioned what they were seeing. They m,erely asked pointed questions of Mission Control regarding what they thought their sighting might be (such as, "Houston, where is the S4-B right now?"...because they knew, even in 1969, that saying the term UFO over the air would cause a bunch of folks to start an incessant speculation about alien spacecraft being sighted by astronauts).

Turns out what was being seen was a spinning LM covering panel from their S4-B stage many miles away, reflecting the sun as it turned...giving the appearance of a flashing light in the distance.

Proposed landing on the far side of the moon.

There was no such proposal. Landings took place and were planned in daylight for really good reasons...so we could see.

However, there was, in the post Apollo 18-20 cancellation days, a group of flight controllers and astronauts (headed by Jack Schmidt, LM pilot of Apollo 17) who actually got together on their own time and planned trajectories for a lunar far side landing mission. They were upset by the Apollo mission cancellations and thought that if they could come up with something compelling to spark public interest (like a far-side landing mission), that just maybe they could get the rest of the Apollo program back in the schedule.

It didn't work.

Short EVA times.

What's short about three days on the surface?
There wasn't any more room to modify the Apollo LM for anything more extended than an approximately 75 hour lunar stay (the J-Mission LMs (AS-15-17) were modified to stay longer than the previous versions). This was quite adequate to accomplish the program goals for the proposed mission schedule. We didn't have the spacecraft to allow us to stay any longer than that.


Gordon Cooper.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Gordo (rest his soul) was "the best docking pilot in the program". He never executed any docking at all. He indeed flew a virtually flawless final Mercury mission in 1963, and in 1965 commanded the GT-5 mission, which set an endurance record...( soon to be be broken by GT-7).

But the first rendevous in space was done by the joint GT-6A / GT-7 mission, after Cooper's GT-5 flight, and the first actual docking was accomplished by Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott on GT-8.

Cooper was in fact assigned as Backup Command Pilot for the final Gemini flight (GT-12), and as backup Commander for the Apollo 10 mission of 1969 (legitimate and busy assignments, mind you, but not prime flight crew positions). He likely would've been the Commander of a later Apollo mission ( probably Apollo 13), but he retired in 1970. It's hard to say why he never got a flight assignment, and he says it was internal politics. Many say that he never got a flight crew assignment because NASA felt that he had screwed up by undershooting what was to have been a demonstration of precision landing (by about 90 miles) on GT-5. Despite the fact that it was subsequently found that bad data was transmitted from the ground to his on-board computer, NASA still felt he should've done better. Bottom line is, he hadn't got a command slot on an Apollo mission by the time he retired in 1970. I don't know exactly what was up with this, as I wasn't in NASA HQ to overhear what was going on back then.

But he was not the best docking pilot in the program. There was no such thing, least of all Cooper, who had never done one. In fact, no one had docked anything in space when Cooper finished his last space flight, and wouldn't until Neil Armstrong did it three flights later.

The only 4 men who had actually made a docking at the time Apollo began were Neil Armstrong, John Young, Pete Conrad, and Jim Lovell. Funny thing is, in Apollo , CM pilots did the docking, and only John Young served as a CM pilot on an Apollo mission (AS-10), none of the other fellows (all of whom served as Apollo Commanders..including Young (AS-16) ever docked anything again on their flights...so, being one experienced in docking had little bearing on flight assignment for the future.

At any rate, I hope this answers your preliminary round of questions. I'll be happy to elaborate on anythjing if you'd like.

Regards.

An exellent acount of what actually (as stated by NASA). But that this does explain the amount of fule needed to retunr to earth and re-entry into using the amount of fuel in he lunar module. Since explosion crippled the command module and any access to it. Another word, we are to believe that the amount of fuel need for lunar landing and take off sufficient for trip to moon and return to earth, and re-entry (which require huge amount) This is even taking into account the "sling shot" maneuver around moon using it gravitational force.


Apollo 18, 19 and 20: We are to believe this was canceled due to budgest constraits. Funny since all the h/w for these missions were already built and in place. Read my by post in "Astronauts "Truth about UFO's".

As to the photos taken by astronauts. Read any book or interview with astronauts. You should know that S-IVB (finaly stage) in Apollo 11 was jettinsoned 2 days earlier when they spotted this UFO. Throughout Mercury, Gemini and Apollo photos were taken and many have never being made public. This coming frommany that worked with these project alone with the astronauts.

The NASA website admits that J-mission were to be 3 days of EVA. This is coming from NASA not me.

As to the expertise of Gordon Cooper. Many of the fellow astronauts in their interviews regraded him as the best pilot in the project. I find it hard to believe that (and can again be verfied in NASA documents) that as a back command pilot to Apollo mission didn't have any docking experience. This like assigning a co-pilot to a plane with no flying experience.

No as to the lading on the far side of the moon. NASA documents also indicate that Apollo 21 was also planed (along with many other mission to the moon) with lading on the far side of the moon. Now I believe that this may have being canceled due to budgest (Viet Nam???).


Rohn

Pretty nice sentiments, and essentially true.

I think Mr. Lunney simply hasn't got the time, nor perhaps the energy to answer questions any more.

Besides, every piece of the thousands of pages of Apollo 13 technical analysis and reports are available for public reading.

I should like to point out a couple of simple facts for you, based upon what I've read above and in a previous post:

1) There was never any plan to deploy nuclear weapons on the surface of the Moon, or anywhere in space by either the Soviets or the Americans.

Since 1963, nuclear weapons devices were banned from testing on the earth, and from any use in "outer space". That still holds true...in fact, it has subsequently been expanded to a ridiculous level. We cannot even develop nuclear rocket engine for use in space travel.


2). Neil Armstrong has never uttered a word regarding aliens of any kind. No one ever warned him to stay off of the moon, or to never return, or anything like that. His authorized biography was recently released. I'd suggest it as recommended reading to all who would like to finally hear what Mr. Armstroing has to say about all of these things.

3) Donna Tietze has absolutely no knowledge of astronautics, orbital mechanics, or anything having to do with the mechanics of space flight, save what spacecraft look like..she was a photo technician. Indeed, no one takes her seriously enough to even investigate whether she actually ever worked for NASA.

Whatever the real case with her is, Apollo 13's completely unused LM had more than enough fuel to return the Apollo package to earth. In its descent stage alone it was able to accomplish this.

Apollo 13 did not need a great deal of fuel to do what it did. A 34 second burn of the LM DPS positioned the spacecraft in a "free return trajectory", which means that it would've come back to earth with that 34 second burn even if no further engine firings occurred (previous lunar flights could've returned in that fashion without any LM fuel being used). TEI was done using the same engine for 4:24, which accellerated the trajectory and made the landing point more favorable for rescue of the crew than the free return trajectory, and an additional mid course correction was performed with the same engine for 13 seconds during the trans earth flight.

These maneuvers used about 44% of the LMs descent fuel, and none of its ascent fuel! The procedures for this sort of maneuver were developed before Apollo 11 ever flew. The "lifeboat procedures" had been in place for quite some time prior to Apollo 13's incident.

Do you honestly think that the engineers who planned this mission hadn't planned for almost everything? They indeed did. Anyone who says there wasn't enough fuel to get home using the LM DPS is playing a game with you. A 34 second burn insured their return to earth.

It is not true that they didn't have enough fuel. They had plenty, with enough reserve to do it all over again and then some. The LM was designed to be able to boost the whole Apollo spacecraft home in just such a scenario.

And...Apollo 13 was not ever blacked out from the public. Everything in Apollo happened in public view. The Soviets were the ones who blacked out their space flights from public view, only airing reports of their sucesses, and covering their failures by not speaking of them.

I think someone has mixed up countries here.

Regards.

But a point that you purposely avoided is the re-entry into earth's atmosphere which require more fuel than going to the moon and back (in vacuum). This again using the fuel in the lunar module and not the command module. The amount of fuel in the command module was enough to land on the moon and while the rest of the payload was maxed with scientific instruments needed for the mission. To suggest that this was enough for re-entry into earth atmosphere (deacceleration) is rather absurd.

If they had enough reserve of fuel to do it over and over again, why was NASA so worried that Apollo 13 would miss re-entry trajectory ... sending Apollo 13 forever into space. If they had enough fuel to "do it over and over", Apollo 13 mission should have being a routine; and NASA shouldn't have worried about the fate of the astronauts. Again this point is cleverly avoided by skeptic.

Second, no where in the NASA documents indicate that they plan to put a nuclear weapon on the moon, that was an edicated guess on my part provided the nature our military establishment. To say that either USA or USSR would abide by a treaty if they can gain the upper hand is even more abdsurd.

Apollo 11 was broadcasted live, while Apollo 12 was broadcasted with a delay (exact time depend on who you talk to). Apollo 13 was also broadcasted live till the explosion. Then rest was all filtered via Houston.

As to the sighting reported by astronauts, you need to read the books and articles written by Otto Binder, Dr. Garry Henderson and Maurice Chatelain, Gordon Cooper and may more. Gordon Cooper when testified to this fact to the UN.

Rohn

Rhonds, you never said exactly where you got all this information. It wouldn't have been Pravda by any chance, would it?

Slightly OT here, but has anyone else ever read the Mike Mars books? They were a series of boys' adventure books written in the mid-sixties about a clandestine space program, carried out in secret parallel to Mercury and Apollo, intended to beat the Russians to the moon. (Just in case anyone's confused here, these books were FICTION! ) The interesting thing is that NASA gave the author a lot of help and there was a lot of contemporary technical detail included. Nothing classified, of course, and aimed at boys about ten, but interesting still.

OK, very quickly...

No comment on the part about the U.S and U.S.S.R. abiding by a nuclear test ban treaty being absurd, save to say the two nations did abide, and still do.

I don't need to read the books on sightings reported by astronauts. I know about them. I also know about Gordon Cooper...who, bless his soul, was a strong advocate for the search for extraterrestrial intelligenge, and a strong believer in the existence of intelligent life off of the earth. I am too. It only makes sense.
However, Gordon never said he saw any such evidence. He merely stated that he had sighted UFOs. So have I, but there was, in his case, as there was in mine, no evidence that the UFOs were anything other than UFOs. UFOs are commonly sighted by pilots, of aircraft and spacecraft. The term has nothing to do with extraterrestrial intelligence or alien beings.

It means..."something up there that we can't identify by lookin' at it". That's all. Could it perhaps be an alien craft? Sure. But there's never been any other evidence save the sightings of something unrecognizable to back anything up. And in fact most of them are artifacts of spacecraft. The case regarding alien life and UFO sightings is moot without substantive proof of what they are. And, there isn't any. I am finished talking about the topic for now.
___________________________________________________________________________
But...a little less quickly...in getting back to Apollo 13, and the real meat of this situation:

I have said previously that the vast majority of the comments moon hoax believers adhere to are based on a lack of understanding about spaceflight and how it all actually works.

One word that you used in your opening paragraph clarified for me what the heck you were talking about regarding fuel requirements for re-entry into the earth's atmosphere.

"...deacceleration." Which I take to mean "deceleration".

OK: what you are saying is that there wasn't enough fuel on board the LM descent stage to decelerate the Apollo spacecraft in order to allow it to re-enter the earth's atmosphere.

And that points to my contention. You don't understand how this stuff works.

Apollo spacecraft returning from the moon used NO FUEL TO DECELERATE SO THEY COULD RE-ENTER THE ATMOSPHERE.

That's right...no fuel whatsoever.

The spacecraft was placed on a return trajectory by firing the SPS engine, or, in the case of Apollo 13, the LM DPS as it swung around the back side of the moon. This trajectory was calculated to allow the Apollo spacecraft to return to a precise point in the earth's atmosphere a few days later. Once the spacecraft arrived at that point, the SM, or in the case of AS-13, the LM and the SM, were jettisoned, the spacecraft turned around to its precise entry attitude, and entered the atmosphere at a very high rate of speed (somewhere around 25,000 SMPH). Deceleration was accomplished by aero-braking, and of course heat shield ablation. No fuel was required, simply the exchange of speed for a great deal of energy (i.e., heat, a fire ball,and alot of gs).

All Apollo lunar missions returned in this fashion. There was never any fuel burn done to slow them down...that would've been disastrous, as it would've steepened their entry angle and destroyed the spacecraft and its crew. And besides, the SM fuel supply was essentially used up by the time the spacecraft got back in the vicinity of the earth. That fuel supply was designed to decelerate the Apollo package into lunar orbit capture, and accelerate them out of lunar orbit on the return trajectory to earth. It was also utilized for some mid-course corrections along the way out and back in some cases...but entering the earth's atmosphere required no fuel for a returning lunar vehicle.

You are confusing this with ORBITING vehicles, which, by virtue of being essentially locked in orbit at a certain speed around a body by the laws of celestial mechanics, must decelerate in order to re-enter the atmosphere of the body they are orbiting. Apollo 7 and 9 did this, because they were earth orbital missions, and of course all the Mercury and Gemini earth orbital flights did this, as does the shuttle. However, this maneuver requires a relatively small quantity of fuel. The LM supply could've de-orbited an orbiting Apollo space craft a several times.

That, however, might be confusing the issue for you.

The bottom line is, no fuel was required for Apollo 13 to re-enter the earth's atmosphere[b], and of course it used none to do so. Thus, your arguement is renedered null an void.


You also mentioned a question about why NASA was so worried about Apollo 13 missing the entry trajectory.

They were not "worried" about that. They were prudently concerned, I would say, most asuredly, with the accuracy of the TEI burn, and that was for good reason.

They wanted to be as accurate as possible in what would necessarily be a manually fired and timed burn, controlled entirely by one astronaut at the controls of the LM---a manueuver that had never been done, which had to be pretty accurate, and used the LM DPS, and the LM thrusters (for directional control--which were in a very different place in relation to the Apollo spacecraft's center of mass than the normal SM thruster package was), all timed by a wrist watch while Jim Lovell looked out a window above his head and basically aimed. It was difficult. That was the concern. We didn't want to have to make large scale adjustments to trajectory because it was difficult, and we needed to reserve electrical power in a big way for the trip home. The crew was strained, and tired...and this was a critical manuever. This was not something for the faint of heart...thus, a bit of nervousness ensued.

Fortunately, these people that went to the moon, as well as the men who controlled these flights in Houston, had what is now called "the right stuff". The burn went off very well, and if memory serves me correctly, only one small tweak was necessary to precisely aim the package at the re-entry corridor.

How you can say that a lunar mission that had lost its primary oxygen supply, and its command module power some 200,000 miles from the earth on the way to the moon should've been routine...because they had enough LM fuel to do TEI over and over again is just ludicrous.

They did have enough fuel...however, they only had ONE CHANCE. Celestial mechanics again, something you obviously have little background in. The concern about the fate of the Apollo 13 crew began about 20 minutes after the explosion, when it became rather clear what had happened and what was continuing to happen in that spacecraft.

___________________________________________________________________________
Additional note: missing the re-entry corridor would result in one of TWO things...the one you mentioned: skipping off of the atmosphere and going back out into space in a fatally large orbit, or--entering too steeply and burning up in the atmosphere.

Before you make comments about the "skeptic cleverly avoiding points", you need to realize two things.

1) I didn't avoid anything. I answered your questions completely. The fact is, you do not understand much about the nature of space flight. Hopefully, you have a little more background now.

2) You've been reading "Cosmic Conspiracies" too much. They use that phrase "skeptic" improperly just as you have. YOU are the skeptic, not I. I know this happened. I was there. You are skeptical because you simply lack understanding.


Additional note #2: All Apollo broadcasts were live. All of them, Apollo 7 through 17. All of them additionally had a couple seconds of delay due to signal processing from tracking-receiving stations in MSFN to Houston and then to the network feeds. Every transmission came through Houston to the TV networks...every single piece of video ever seen.
After the Apollo 13 explosion, there was no more TV from the spacecraft.

Nothing was "filtered". Many conversations between Apollo crews and Houston were on the private channel, which was not broadcast to the network feeds, but this was SOP on every manned spaceflight. There was nothing hidden about Apollo 13. Indeed, there were more press conferences and briefings on that flight than on any other Apollo mission. I'm not really sure what your point was in making that comment...

Hopefully you have a better understanding of this stuff now. So let's can the tone. Can the "absurd" references, and stop using that inaplicable term, "skeptic" when referring to people like me. You are the skeptic, and the only absurdity is attempting to state facts and make points based on a lack of knowledge.

Just ask your questions, sans the attitude, and I'll be more than happy to provide answers...concerning Apollo 13, or anything else regarding Apollo.

Regards.

Listen to MID, he really knows his 'Apollo'!

Looking for a conspiracy in literally everything isn't the way to go. You won't really learn anything useful, and you'll drive yourself to distraction in the process.

MID is without a doubt the undisputed expert of the Apollo missions,listen and learn everyone.

To paraphase Mr wolf from pulp fiction "Let's not go and suck each others...just yet"
Nah I better not say it.
Although I personally don't believe this conspirasy is true concerning apollo 13.
The fact remains that NASA for a number of years now, has stopped broadcasting live transmission on any public channel (The one's they do broadcast are encrypted and are on a sercure channel only).Which must be frustrating to all the armchair scientists out there, who I'm sure would love to watch live footage of the space missions etc. Nothing to hind I'm sure.
And if you believe that USA and Russia actually kept the treaty to stop Nuclear weapons
being used in space. Fine, I'm not going to argue with you.

Any evidence to the opposite?

Many thanks to Lilly and haz for the kind comments.

And rapid7: nah...I think it would be best that you didn't say it.

You obviously believe some other conspiracy is true concerning Apollo 13.
What other conspiracy is there concerning this mission?
Why is it that what was probably the greatest accomplishment of the Apollo program is now littered with conspiracies.

Is it that impossible today to conceive that people could actually have done such a thing as apply themselves, their knowledge, and their abilities fully to resolving a critical situation with consumate professionalism and skill ? I realize that such things don't happen today much, but is it really that remote and detached from mainstream consciousness today that silly conspiracy "theories" have to be attached to it because it's just too far removed from the common paradigm at present?

What NASA missions are you referring to with encrypted broadcasts?

I am pleased you're not going to argue about the nuclear test ban treaty and the non-use of weapons in space provisions. There's no belief involved in my position. You believe that nations wouldn't abide by such a thing (and perhaps, by extension that Apollo had something to do with establishing a nuclear arms presence in space??)
I know that there's been no substantial evidence that the treaty has ever been violated. Believe what you wish, but facts are generally more substantial in support of a wild claim...or a conspiracy.

Do you have anything to present that you'd like explained regarding "other" Apollo 13 conspiracies?

Regards.

This was informative, with gracious replies.

I waited to reply, and our guest of distinction has added further acumen.

Since the end of the cold war, the U.S and Russia agreed to burn large stores of dismantled weapons materials as mixed-oxide fuel. (plutonium and uranium oxides). However, improved missiles are being deployed in Russia, par for the course.
That is an important program, with further implications.

You don't need nukes in space. You need infrared optics to quickly identify boosters, as a deterent; and if you are a hawk, speculative defense strategies. I would say x-ray lasers, but such systems are not yet possible.

If nothing else, the space program has certainly made The West and Russia closer, in certain regards.

I personally don't believe this conspiracy concerning Apollo 13 and I don't know any other cospiracies concerning apollo 13. However I was talking in general; I'm skeptical of 'official versions' and I think that is a healthly viewpoint to have.
I mean, do you always accept official versions of events? or only the one's you're personally involved in and therefore know to be true.

rapid...

To answer your question, I will say that I agree with you that it is healthy to question the status quo. "Official versions" of several things have been shown to be wrong, or even deliberately deceiving. A healthy society seeks to understand truth and insure that power does not corrupt.

Because we have seen some things that have fallen under that category of deceit, a trend seems to have developed which seeks to assign a conspiracy to virtually everything anymore, even the most documented scientific and engineering accomplishment in human history, Apollo.

That is where inquiry and questioining the official versions becomes excessive, and somewhat ridiculous. There's not a heck of alot of intelligent inquiry in such a polarized scenario. It seems that either everything's a conspiracy, or not, when in fact, like most everything in human endeavor, the truth lies somewhere between the two poles.

My answer to you is no, I absolutely am not content to accept official versions of things, without the appropriate inquiry so as to fully understand that version. I accept Apollo because I have experience in such areas (aviation and astronautics), I know what was done, how it was done, and understand it. Thus, I can explain most all of the questions that arise regarding the hoax business. But I tend not to get involved in other areas where I have no background.

The vast majority of positions on the moon hoax are based upon people's interpretations of plausible sounding, yet un-founded comments of others; comments and positions taken without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.

Simply put, lack of knowledge regarding a highly technical process (i.e., orbiting the earth, rendezvous with another vehicle in space, landing on the moon, etc.) tends to produce some fantastic ideas, most all of which are fallacious because they do not represent an in-depth inquiry by the holder of the ideas.

...for instance, we have all heard about the photographic anomalies present in Apollo lunar surface photos which cause some people to state uncategorically that they're faked. The most intense discussion result from these so-called phenomena. Yet, these things result simply from a decided desire to prove the whole thing a fake, and from a decided lack of knowledge about photography and what two dimensional representations of three dimensional objects produces for the viewer. The fact is that Apollo lunar surface photographs all show nothing more than normal representations of photographic results. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them, and all of the effects observable on them can be observed on terrestrial photos, and frequently are. The difference is that people never notice them on earth-bound photos because they're not looking for them. The fact is, the human eye sees much of what the film shows normally.


This is further compounded by the fact that investigating the tens of thousands of pages of Apollo-based technical reports and documentation renders the person who is not educated in that idiom to quickly fall into a trance and forget about the whole thing, because they can't understand what's going on.

A certain intellectually lazy segment of humnanity uses their limited knowledge to formulate fantastic, yet simplistically daft theories regarding faked lunar landings and such. These things I address, for the benefit of those who were not around for these accomplishments, who have little or no background in space flight, and who are influenced by a very different societal paradigm than was present in the 1960s, when these things were acomplished.

So I say that you are exhibiting a healthy attitude in questioning the status-quo, and I encourage you, or anyone with questions about Apollo to post them here. I am not the be-all and end-all of Apollo, but I do have experience in the area and can address them--hopefully in a simple enough fashion to make the answers clear.

Regards.

Hey, Respect given!
A very intelligent observation. I understand your frustations about a project you were personally involved with, being labelled a hoax or conspiracy. I've always believed we went to the moon and I accept it as a scientific fact. Although not as a 'personal fact' because I personally haven't been to the moon, but listening to a genuine insider convinces me more. Besides, I think it's pretty obvious that If there was a moon hoax, Russia at the time would of used everything within her power to convince/prove to the world that the USA had fabricated a hoax.

I never thought Id say this ,but I agree with you 100% on this one.

I think you're absolutely correct on that one as well. It seems rather obvious.
The Soviets knew exactly what we were doing. We didn't exactly know what was up with them, but they knew what was up with us, and they shared data with us when they had a probe heading toward the moon at the same time that Apollo 11 was heading out, and congratulated us when we succeeded.

I think they'd have pulled the plug on us in a heartbeat if the slightest hint of a fake became obvious. They were not stupid people...they were the other space faring nation on this planet at the time. They just didn't have von Braun to effectively cluster engines on large boosters, and their government pressed them beyond the limits of safety more than once (especially troublesome in a business where the unexpected can cause a bad day rather quickly), which we did not do...and which is why they were ahead of us for a time in the early days. It is called "getting away with it".

Of course, once disaster hit them, it cascaded, ultimately resulting in the destuction of their large booster hardware and their lunar landing program's hopes.

Regards.

Wasn't the Galileo spacecraft propelled by a nuclear engine?

Also, I'm fairly certain that the new ship on its way to Pluto is at least partially being propelled or at least being fueled by Plutonium.

That would be nuclear electrical power. Propulsion on Galileo and on the New Horizons vehicle are bipropellant and monopropellant engines respectively, which are only designed for minimal delta V capabilities (changes in velocity).

Electrical power is provided by very safe (as if safe were really a concern in deep solar space???) Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator which provides a very long term 200 or so watts of power for instrumentation.

What I was referring to is the use of nuclear power for actual propulsion systems to be used in interplanetary travel. We're still not allowed to do that yet, although being allowed would provide us with the effective, and relatively cheap capability of sending man to the planets, were we so inclined.

Regards.

Sorry I have being inactive for a while due to my workload and extremely busy schedule.

But I have to address one issue brought here. MID stated that it requires no (zero, zilch, none) fuel for the re-entry process. Here is a simple physics lesson every H.S student knows. According the Einstein's law of motion, an object (whether it is a spacecraft or rock) requires fuel only for exiting or re-entering our atmosphere due to earth's gravitational. Any object entering our atmosphere must overcome its gravitational force. Going to the moon and back require no fuel since the craft is traveling in vacuum (3rd law). If you were to drop a stone from the top of the empire state building, the stone will continue to accelerate at 1g (9.8m/s2) until it hit the ground regardless of it weight or shape. (imagine accelerating your car from NY to CA; and velocity at the end of journey is beyond imagination). This is the reason, any vehicle that enters the earth’s atmosphere must slow down and enter at a very acute (precise) re-entry angle or the craft will burn up like a meteor. If you were to read the NASA report, during re-entry LM thrusters were fired for course correction (de-acceleration and angle of entry). LM thrusters were also fired once earlier as they maneuvered around the moon to give the spacecraft additional acceleration towards earth. Please read the NASA report to verify this. Either the NASA is lying in their report or my learned friend in mistaken. I believe this misunderstanding maybe due to a term called free return trajectory. Unlike space shuttle Apollo13 was unable to glide half around the earth for a splash down due to lack of wings. So it must use thrusters to slow down to prevent the craft of being accelerated at 1g continuosly from the moment it is within earth gravitational pull till it splash down.

Six months ago, I was researching Apollo 13 on the net when I came across a article written by Jerry Woodfill NASA's Apollo 13 Alarm System Engineer. Majority of the article is simple reiteration of what happened to Apollo 13 according to NASA. The article goes on to point our how his life change because of this incident. He attribute the miraculous rescue mission to faith and religion. He goes on to state that and I qoute,

“despite considerable odds against Apollo 13 landing safely and accurately , the reentry and splashdown were among the most precise of the entire Apollo program!”. T

his despite landing on the edge of hurricane brewing the pacific ocean at this time.

Rohn

If I could be of any help. I live in Houston, and 30 min from Houston Space Center / Houston Control Center. The Apollo 11 is resting on the grounds in front of the space center open for the public. The Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong were the first on the moon.

I have plenty of friends working for NASA, as my uncle was one of their engineers and he was not allowed to leave the country. He now works for:

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
MSIL EO/IR Stimulator
F-35 Mission Systems Integration Lab

Anywho, thought I could be of some help maybe with confirmation on anything or snap some photos of stuff.

Rohn:

You have made this very complicated...there are some mis-statements in your reply, and some confusions that will need to be clarified. I'm not sure this will bear fruit, given the obvious mis-interpretations you've presented here.

Firstly, you have confused Einstein with Newton (a reasonable miscue, but nonetheless, incorrect). Newton is responsible for the three laws of motion you seem to be referring to. These laws, of course, apply to Apollo spacecraft in flight, or any other craft or body in motion, but your interpretations of these laws are somewhat skewed by lack of in-depth knowledge.

None of Newton's laws say anything about about a spacecraft requiring fuel to exit or enter our atmosphere. It is well known that spacecraft require fuel...to produce acceleration, in order to enter space, orbit, or to escape the gravitational pull of the earth. That is why we had a Saturn V rocket assembly for the Apollo spacecraft.

But you make a very confusing statement when you say , "Any object entering our atmosphere must overcome its gravitational force." I'm not sure from the context of this quote what exactly you're talking about (i.e., overcome what's gravitational force?). And, the following statements are each somewhat confusing, as well as inapplicable to the arguement.

1) An object dropped from the top of the Empire State Building will not continue to accelerate indefinitely until it hits the ground. It's shape makes a difference as to when it will stop accelerating. This is because of air resistance (i.e., drag). All objects falling in the earth's atmosphere accelerate at the value you indicate until they reach "terminal velocity", when their aerodynamic drag balances the force of gravitational acceleration. Things fall at an increasing rate until terminal velocity is attained, and then they stabilize at a certain velocity which is based upon the amount of drag their shape creates in the airstream. The shape of an object definitely makes a difference in the terminal velocity of an object falling in the atmosphere.

...additionally, you could not accelerate your car indefinitely from NY to CA. If your engine was powerful enough to do so, you would burn up due to atmospheric friction at some point in your attempt. This is a confusing and irrelevant thing to mention.


2) Newtons third law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It does not state that vehicles going to the moon require no fuel because they're traveling in a vacuum. However, vehicles going to the moon require fuel to do so because they need something to provide that equal an opposite reaction, and attain the appropriate velocity to escape earth's atmosphere and coast to the moon, or, back toward the earth.

3) These things you bring up have nothing to do with your conclusion, which says that

ANY VEHICLE THAT ENTERS THE EARTHS ATMOSPHERE MUST SLOW DOWN AND ENTER AT A VERY ACUTE (PRECISE) RE-ENTRY ANGLE, OR THE CRAFT WILL BURN UP LIKE A METEOR.

This is erroneous in that only certain vehicles must "slow down", and for a specific reason.

Orbiting vehicles must slow down so that they can drop into the atmosphere, as I previously indicated. Otherwise, they will be locked into orbit due to the inexorable laws of physics (newtons second law might be the applicable statute here). They are in orbit because their velocity, based on their altitude, matches the gravitational force of the earth...so, they go whizzing about in a balanced condition (that is, free-falling around the earth). A force (and engine burn) must be applied to slow them down so they can drop into the atmosphere.

An Apollo spacecraft inbound is in fact acellerating toward the earth, and will come into the atmosphere with increasing speed by virtue of the same laws of motion. It does not slow down, it is in fact increasing its speed by greater and greater intervals as it approaches the earth. No retrofire was required, and none was ever done, on any Apollo mission, in order to affect earth atmospheric re-entry. Their complex trajectories were precisely calculated to have the craft enter the atmopsphere at a precise place and at a precise angle.

Now, I already told you that thrusters were used in cis-lunar flight to adjust the trajectory (fine-tune it, as-it-were). There is nothing in the AS-13 mission reports that indicate anything about LM thrusters being fired during re-entry. The LM was discarded long before re-entry took place. These thrusters were fired to adjust and fine tune the trajectory, as a mid-course correction. This has nothing to do with slowing the vehicle down (mid-courses slowed, or sped up the vehicle, depending on what was required). This was done to precisely adjust the trajectory to allow it to enter the atmosphere at a precise point...which was common on all Apollo missions (save the fact that SM thrusters were used for this on a nominal basis. On AS-13, the LM thrusters were used because the SM was disabled and the CM was powered down).

I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of what you read. There reports are rather technical in nature, and require a certain amount of technical background to fully understand.

Free-return trajectory has little to do with what you are talking about. This term refers to a trajectory that would allow an Apollo spacecraft to swing around behind the moon upon encounter, and be swung outbound by lunar gravity in a trajectory that would return the vehicle to earth if its SPS engine failed to fire to allow capture of the Apollo spacecraft into lunar orbit. Apollo 13 was not on a free return trajectory until a LM engine burn was executed prior to lunar encounter. This burn put AS-13 on a free-return trajectory. The LM engine injection burn cut down the time required in the free-return trajectory to get back to earth, and made for a more favorable landing target for the spacecraft. There is no confusion about this term.


Finally, The space shuttle decellerates to allow re-entry because it is an orbiting vehicle. Apollo required no decelleration as it was headed for entry corridor at an accellerating speed, and was planned to do this. You make a very confusing and erroneous statement when you say that thrusters are required to slow down a spacecraft because otherwise it will continue to accelrate at 1G continuously from the moment it is within earth's gravitational field until splashdown.

A space craft will decellerate continuously because of aerobraking (atmospheric resistance). This decelleration varies, but for Apollo it was at a level of 6-7 Gs at some points in the entry flight path. This is basic physics. The air is what causes the spacecraft to slow down. It does not, and cannot accelerate at 1G. An Apollo spacecraft, due to atmospheric resistance against its heat shield, bled off veloctiy and dropped, due to Newton's laws of motion, and aerodynamics, until it was finally slow enough to inflate its main parachutes at about 10,000 feet above the ocean. It spashed down at about 20 MPH +/-, under three large main chutes.


Your understanding of physics and spaceflight is a little off.

Apollo 13 used no thruster fire to decellerate itself so as to enter the atmosphere. Nor did any other lunar Apollo mission. They were all accelerating at a rather frantic pace when they hit the earth's atmosphere at a velocity of approximately 6.5 statute miles per second...alot faster than any orbital vehicle would enter...
___________________________________________________________________________

Yes, Jerry and several other folks placed a religious slant upon the success of the Apollo 13 rescue effort. I can certainly understand that. The major concerns regarding landing safely and accurately were:

1) We didn't know if the heat shield had been damaged by the O2 tank explosion.
2) We didn't know if the circuits which fired the parachutes may have been compromised by water condensation or freezing.
3) The trans-earth maneuver had never been done with the LM engine before, so there was some concern about that as well.

As it turned out, the heat shield wasn't damaged, the parachute circuits worked just fine, and the crew had done a great job executing the LM DPS burns.

And, the people in Mission Control, as well as the crew, proved that they had "the right stuff" by managing this crisis professionally and adequately, under extreme pressure. A triumph, perhaps the greatest illustration of what these people were all about, and what the Apollo program produced.

Apollo 13 was a triumph of mankind's ability to do something! If Jerry Woodfill elects to think that Divine intervention played a role in this accomplishment, I for one shall not argue with him!

I'd be inclined to suggest a little more study of aerodynamics and the method of re-entry used by Apollo lunar missions. This material is all available on-line nowadays. It would make for much less convoluted and confusing menageries of pseudo-scientific ideas...

Regards.

Really?

Apollo 11's command module, Columbia, has been on display at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Milestones of Flight Gallery in Washington, DC, for decades. When did it move to the Manned Spacecraft Center?

Perhaps you are confusing this with Apollo 17's command module, America, which is at the Johnson Space Center?

I shall assume, Rohn, that this thread is now closed?