Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Not sure I understand the question(s).

They did figure out where the LM was in relation to the CSM. They used the radar. Reed himself, in the very same book you cite, said so.

Why is it so very important to you that you "prove" we didn't land on the Moon, to the point where you cherry pick and distort the historical record and ignore self-consistent physical and photographic evidence, current photos of the landing sites, etc.? Do you resent the success? Are you afraid to admit you're wrong? Are you delusional? Have you convinced yourself that the people of my generation and the one just ahead of mine couldn't have been that smart? Or what?

Not sure I understand the question(s).

My general sense is that "hoaxing Apollo" for military reasons was a reasonable thing to do in the "Cold War" era. Now with the hoax obvious, it seems very counterproductive. Telling children one would not see stars in cislunar space, or from the surface of the moon, telling geologists that rocks were obtained in ways they were not, developing theories of lunar origins based on fairy tales, all counterproductive, not to mention pretending something that is/was so important, that obviously never occurred, a lunar landing, is flat out crazy. The thing served its purpose, best to come clean now before the embarassment moonballs on us.

The point about the coordinates is that people are obviously lying about them. If David Reed says the bird was lost, but the Mission Report shows something else, a perfectly good landing coordinate pair obtained in real time for the powered flight processor/MSFN, this means something SUSpilot. It means fraud. And people carry out frauds for reasons. And the reason here was very much not to pretend we were better than the Russians at something like launching rocket ships. And NO!, I obviously am NOT delusional because NASA's own, Apollo's own documents support my interpretation, my reading and very much NOT the official story interpretation/reading.

 

[drewid]

Where did Reed use the word "lost"?
Actual verifiable quote please, containing the word "lost", applied to the LM.

Not that you're lying or anything obviously.

 

[Patrick1000]

APOLLO, So very NOT John Kennedy's Vision.

Reading Thomas J. Kelly's MOON LANDER is lightyears beyond insanely fascinating. One learns that these guys were planning to "go to the moon" long befor J.F.K. even hinted at getting a close up whiff of cheese. And that having been the case, it does nothing less than push a guy like myself to wonder exactly how far back it was, how far back it was that this scheme was concocted, this "Cold War" scheme to instrument the moon for military purposes.

Consider this, John Kennedy did not begin campaigning for the presidency until January of 1960. He was sworn in as our 35th President January 20 1961. He delivered his famous "Let's go to the Moon Speech", May 25 1961. Now in early 1960, Thomas Kelly, the man who was to become the chief Apollo Lunar Module designer/engineer, began first meeting with another young Grumman engineer, Ton Sanial, who was also had enthusiasm for the all new art of designing spacecraft. All this was transpiring well before Kennedy had a clue about anything. Winning the election was the better part of a year off for the young senator, let alone his actually becoming the president and formulating "space policy". Get this, Thomas Kelly writes of his early 1960 experience at Grumman;

" "Tom Sanial, meet Tom Kelly," Munier said breezily, "He's here to work with you on Apollo." "

This is 1960 mind you, more than a year BEFORE Kennedy's famous May 25 1961 address to congress about going to the moon. It gets even better, Kelly goes on;

"Munier left us alone together as we sized eachother up. Were we to be partners or rivals? Sanial's innately generous nature took over. Soon he was showing me his files and describing what he had learned of the Apollo Project. He was persuasive and persistent as he related the steady growth of the program shown by NASA's statements, budgets, and planning documents. He had become convinced that NASA was seriopusly planning a manned exploration of the moon.

I moved into the desk next to his in the cinder block cubicle, which had six desks in all, and pored over the documents he had collected, along with his technical notes and trip reports. In the spring of 1960, we visted NASA Headquarters, and the Langley and Lewis Reasearch Centers, where I met DeMarquis "Dee" Wyatt at Headquarters and George Low at Lewis. They spoke in guarded terms, making clear that the manned lunar mission was in an early phase of internal review and was not part of NASA's firm plans. Their intense interest, however, indicated the program was a serious possibility. I concluded there was at least an even chance that Apollo might happen, and that Grumman had better get prepared."

Better still, later on in the book Kelly writes;

"On 15 May 1961 we submitted our summary report to NASA, maintaining that a manned lunar mission was feasible."

So 10 days before Kennedy's famous address to congress in which he advocates for a focused national effort to go to the moon, the Grumman people submitted to NASA a summary that maintained a man lunar landing was feasible. In essense, these guys, Kelly, Sanial, and others, had been working on this Apollo feasibility plan for over a year. Practically speaking, they had begun their work on this plan long before Kennedy had managed to get himself elected. And the reason the Grumman guys had been working on their Apollo plan with such diligence and enthusiasm was because they had had contact with NASA people, contact with NASA people long before Kennedy was elected. AND, from Kelly's and Sanial's NASA contact, they came to view APOLLO, as something that was likely as not going to happen. So maybe Kennedy pushed it/pitched it, but he sure didn't start it.

"More will be revealed" as they say, but much is clear already. The boys at NASA, and the boys at Grumman for that matter, were working on "Apollo" long before John Kennedy graced the White House with his accent and charm. I'll explore this more as I move forward with my studies, but it is obvious already, Kennedy "pitched" an already formulated Apollo plan, an Apollo plan that had in a very real sense been formualted long before the Bostonian rested his fanny in front of that fancy Oval Office desk, an Apollo plan to insturment the moon for military reasons, but present itself to the word as one in which we were going there, to the big green cheese in the sky, simply out of pride. Fascinating!!!!!

 

[Patrick1000]

I use the word lost

Where did Reed use the word "lost"?
Actual verifiable quote please, containing the word "lost", applied to the LM.

Not that you're lying or anything obviously.

I use the word lost. Reed I've quoted plenty. My point of course is the coordinate solutions available to Reed are not acceptable because they are all at variance with respect to one another, and so are not useful. Reed as a consequence does not know where the Eagle is. I call this "lost", Reed not knowing where the Eagle is. My word, not his.

 

[Obviousman]

Another inaccuracy. I find it pointless to try and discuss the matter with someone who distorts, omits and ignores facts.

 

[drewid]

I use the word lost. Reed I've quoted plenty. My point of course is the coordinate solutions available to Reed are not acceptable because they are all at variance with respect to one another, and so are not useful. Reed as a consequence does not know where the Eagle is. I call this "lost", Reed not knowing where the Eagle is. My word, not his.

So Reed didn't call the LM lost.

Your word, for your agenda.

Don't try to mix that with the truth.

 

[drewid]

Reading Thomas J. Kelly's MOON LANDER is lightyears beyond insanely fascinating. One learns that these guys were planning to "go to the moon" long befor J.F.K. even hinted at getting a close up whiff of cheese. And that having been the case, it does nothing less than push a guy like myself to wonder exactly how far back it was, how far back it was that this scheme was concocted, this "Cold War" scheme to instrument the moon for military purposes.

Consider this, John Kennedy did not begin campaigning for the presidency until January of 1960. He was sworn in as our 35th President January 20 1961. He delivered his famous "Let's go to the Moon Speech", May 25 1961. Now in early 1960, Thomas Kelly, the man who was to become the chief Apollo Lunar Module designer/engineer, began first meeting with another young Grumman engineer, Ton Sanial, who was also had enthusiasm for the all new art of designing spacecraft. All this was transpiring well before Kennedy had a clue about anything. Winning the election was the better part of a year off for the young senator, let alone his actually becoming the president and formulating "space policy". Get this, Thomas Kelly writes of his early 1960 experience at Grumman;

" "Tom Sanial, meet Tom Kelly," Munier said breezily, "He's here to work with you on Apollo." "

This is 1960 mind you, more than a year BEFORE Kennedy's famous May 25 1961 address to congress about going to the moon. It gets even better, Kelly goes on;

"Munier left us alone together as we sized eachother up. Were we to be partners or rivals? Sanial's innately generous nature took over. Soon he was showing me his files and describing what he had learned of the Apollo Project. He was persuasive and persistent as he related the steady growth of the program shown by NASA's statements, budgets, and planning documents. He had become convinced that NASA was seriopusly planning a manned exploration of the moon.

I moved into the desk next to his in the cinder block cubicle, which had six desks in all, and pored over the documents he had collected, along with his technical notes and trip reports. In the spring of 1960, we visted NASA Headquarters, and the Langley and Lewis Reasearch Centers, where I met DeMarquis "Dee" Wyatt at Headquarters and George Low at Lewis. They spoke in guarded terms, making clear that the manned lunar mission was in an early phase of internal review and was not part of NASA's firm plans. Their intense interest, however, indicated the program was a serious possibility. I concluded there was at least an even chance that Apollo might happen, and that Grumman had better get prepared."

Better still, later on in the book Kelly writes;

"On 15 May 1961 we submitted our summary report to NASA, maintaining that a manned lunar mission was feasible."

So 10 days before Kennedy's famous address to congress in which he advocates for a focused national effort to go to the moon, the Grumman people submitted to NASA a summary that maintained a man lunar landing was feasible. In essense, these guys, Kelly, Sanial, and others, had been working on this Apollo feasibility plan for over a year. Practically speaking, they had begun their work on this plan long before Kennedy had managed to get himself elected. And the reason the Grumman guys had been working on their Apollo plan with such diligence and enthusiasm was because they had had contact with NASA people, contact with NASA people long before Kennedy was elected. AND, from Kelly's and Sanial's NASA contact, they came to view APOLLO, as something that was likely as not going to happen. So maybe Kennedy pushed it/pitched it, but he sure didn't start it.

"More will be revealed" as they say, but much is clear already. The boys at NASA, and the boys at Grumman for that matter, were working on "Apollo" long before John Kennedy graced the White House with his accent and charm. I'll explore this more as I move forward with my studies, but it is obvious already, Kennedy "pitched" an already formulated Apollo plan, an Apollo plan that had in a very real sense been formualted long before the Bostonian rested his fanny in front of that fancy Oval Office desk, an Apollo plan to insturment the moon for military reasons, but present itself to the word as one in which we were going there, to the big green cheese in the sky, simply out of pride. Fascinating!!!!!

Well that's a whole big wad of "So What"

Is anyone stupid enough to think that Kennedy decided we were going to the moon and kicked the programme off with that speech? Really?

 

[Southwind17]

Thomas Kelly is correct about the Eagle being lost. However, incorrect about the duration of its having been unaccounted for. We know for a fact that the the Eagle's location was never known to within any reasonable degree of accuracy until just before its simulated launch. This is because H. David Reed, the Fight Dynamics Officer responsible for the launch trajectory, and in need of landing site coordinates to "time" the launch, says this was the case. This was Reed's job. He is/was the highest authority. We have lots of references supporting this notion that the Eagle's position was unknown, and Reed tells us it wasn't known well enough to launch the thing until a bit before it did take off. This is coorborated by the Voice Transcript record where Collins doesn't get accurate coordinates, J .5/7.7, until right before the launch.

So, worst case, there's a discrepancy between the recollections/assumptions about when the location of the LM was identifed, right? What does that prove?

You don't have to know where the Eagle is necessarily, exact landing site coordinates wise, but if you do, if you do have accurate landing site coordinates, then the launch is a "piece of cake", at least so Reed says. If you do not have landing site coordinates, you still need to figure out the relationship, the dynamic relationship between the Eagle and the command module. If you do not have this, the ships cannot rendezvous. It is mission critical because without a successful rendezvous, you have two dead astronauts, either dead on the moon, or dead in lunar orbit.

So, having the coordinates makes the launch 'a piece of cake', hence not having the coordinates is not 'a piece of cake', i.e. more of a challenge, to some unspecified degree, right? Do you know exactly how much more of a challenge, per chance?

They had the ability to land stuff on the moon, but it was much harder and may well have been impossible to successfully land people on the moon with 1960s vintage technology.

But you're just postulating here, right? No hard evidence for that claim, right?

Apollo was military. There was no need to land people based on the goals of Apollo as a military mission, and so actually landing men, was simply not done for that reason alone. There was no reason to risk the lives of men on this stuff.

Again, just postulation, right? No hard evidence for that claim, right?

Additionally, it probably was the case that it couldn't be done, a manned lunar landing in 1969, or if it could, the risk was viewed as simply too great, insane.

It's probably the case that you're hedging your bets here P1K ... but if not, it's probably the case that you're just postulating ... but if not ... See how that works P1K?

The goal was to land equipment, probably a modified lunar lander and/or other stuff.

More postulation, right? No hard evidence for that claim, right?

 

[Patrick1000]

Most Americans believe Kennedy to have been instrunmental/visionary.

Well that's a whole big wad of "So What"

Is anyone stupid enough to think that Kennedy decided we were going to the moon and kicked the programme off with that speech? Really?

Most Americans believe Kennedy to have been instrunmental/visionary. My point is, had Nixon won the election, he would have given the speech. We were "going to the moon" regardless of who was president. The plan was hatched outside of the oval office, and hatched presumably by military people.

It will become more evident as details are filled in, but it would seem they knew what they were going to do from the outset, unmanned instrumentation of the moon behind the scenes, public face of Apollo altogether different in that it would pretend to be a series of manned lunar landings.

 

[Southwind17]

Reading Thomas J. Kelly's MOON LANDER is lightyears beyond insanely fascinating. One learns that these guys were planning to "go to the moon" long befor J.F.K. even hinted at getting a close up whiff of cheese. And that having been the case, it does nothing less than push a guy like myself to wonder exactly how far back it was, how far back it was that this scheme was concocted, this "Cold War" scheme to instrument the moon for military purposes.

Excuse me P1K, but what's your evidence for the 'concoction' of a '"Cold War" scheme to instrument the moon for military purposes."?

This is 1960 mind you, more than a year BEFORE Kennedy's famous May 25 1961 address to congress about going to the moon. It gets even better, Kelly goes on;

"Munier left us alone together as we sized eachother up. Were we to be partners or rivals? Sanial's innately generous nature took over. Soon he was showing me his files and describing what he had learned of the Apollo Project. He was persuasive and persistent as he related the steady growth of the program shown by NASA's statements, budgets, and planning documents. He had become convinced that NASA was seriopusly planning a manned exploration of the moon.

Better still, later on in the book Kelly writes;

"On 15 May 1961 we submitted our summary report to NASA, maintaining that a manned lunar mission was feasible."

'Planning a manned exploration of the moon' and 'maintaining that a manned lunar mission was feasible eh! [emphasis mine]. So tell me P1K, how does that suddenly translate to a military endeavour:

I'll explore this more as I move forward with my studies, but it is obvious already, Kennedy "pitched" an already formulated Apollo plan, an Apollo plan that had in a very real sense been formualted long before the Bostonian rested his fanny in front of that fancy Oval Office desk, an Apollo plan to insturment the moon for military reasons, but present itself to the word as one in which we were going there, to the big green cheese in the sky, simply out of pride. Fascinating!!!!! [emphasis added]

 

[Patrick1000]

There is plenty of hard evidence.

So, worst case, there's a discrepancy between the recollections/assumptions about when the location of the LM was identifed, right? What does that prove?


So, having the coordinates makes the launch 'a piece of cake', hence not having the coordinates is not 'a piece of cake', i.e. more of a challenge, to some unspecified degree, right? Do you know exactly how much more of a challenge, per chance?


But you're just postulating here, right? No hard evidence for that claim, right?


Again, just postulation, right? No hard evidence for that claim, right?


It's probably the case that you're hedging your bets here P1K ... but if not, it's probably the case that you're just postulating ... but if not ... See how that works P1K?


More postulation, right? No hard evidence for that claim, right?

It is a FACT that the Flight Dynamics Officer, David Reed, was informed that the 5 different landing coordinate solutions available to him/given to him on the morning of 07/21/1969 were not even close to one another, and ultimately were found to be at least 4 and a half miles from the launch site, and 4.73 miles or more from his own rendezvous radar solution. That is a FACT. Reed atests to that and he is very clear and very sure.

That FACT is corroborated by the wild goose chase Michael Collins was allegedly lead on in his "search for the Eagle", as that wild goose chase is presented in NASA's own Apollo 11 Mission Report, figure 5-14.



And it is a a FACT that the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV at the same time shows the PGNS, MSFN, and AGS coordinate solutions to be very much other than what Reed states they were, than how they were presented to Reed on the morning of 07/21/1969.

These are FACTS. And as I have pointed out previously, even without Reed's testimony, which of course is devastating to NASA's bogus story, the internal incoherence between figure 5-14 and table 5-IV of the Apollo 11 Mission Report is enough in and of itself to prove Apollo fraudulent, pretending 2 things at the same time for obvious reasons.

So with all due respect Southwind17, the eveidence is very hard indeed. I do not speculate here. Just pointing out the BIG LIE by way of NASA's own FACTS.

The "telemetry", if we can call it that, is fraudulent because it(translated into readable form) appears in the Mission Report not as it had appeared to H. David Reed. It was doctored. It was changed. That is a FACT.

 

[Southwind17]

Most Americans believe Kennedy to have been instrunmental/visionary. My point is, had Nixon won the election, he would have given the speech. We were "going to the moon" regardless of who was president. The plan was hatched outside of the oval office, and hatched presumably by military people.

Of course, military people indeed. No other possible explanation, presumably!

It will become more evident as details are filled in ...

'More' evident? For there to be 'more' of anything there has to be some to start with, you do realise?!

... but it would seem they knew what they were going to do from the outset ...

'Seem', indeed!

... unmanned instrumentation of the moon behind the scenes, public face of Apollo altogether different in that it would pretend to be a series of manned lunar landings.

 

[Southwind17]

And as I have pointed out previously, even without Reed's testimony, which of course is devastating to NASA's bogus story, the internal incoherence between figure 5-14 and table 5-IV of the Apollo 11 Mission Report is enough in and of itself to prove Apollo fraudulent ...

So now a solitary instance (if even correct!) of 'internal incoherence' = proof of falsification. Again, P1K, your powers of deduction know no bounds! Round of applause that man ...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why is it so very important to you that you "prove" we didn't land on the Moon...

Have you convinced yourself that the people of my generation and the one just ahead of mine couldn't have been that smart?

I think that's part of it. Patrick doesn't think they could do it with '60[s technology:

...[it] may well have been impossible to successfully land people on the moon with 1960s vintage technology.

Additionally, it probably was the case that it couldn't be done, a manned lunar landing in 1969, or if it could, the risk was viewed as simply too great, insane.

It might be fun to ask which particular technologies he thinks were too primitive in the 1960s to do the job. Since the way Apollo worked is not actually a secret, he might be able to pinpoint some particular system and declare that it couldn't work as described. Or, then again, maybe he can't. I'm pretty certain he won't.

I also sense he's projecting an incongruous contemporary sense of risk-aversion onto people with a cold war mindset. It's hard to grasp for someone as young as Patrick appears to be. He grew up in a generation which has never so much as travelled unrestrained in a car.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... That is a FACT. Reed atests to that and he is very clear and very sure.

That FACT is corroborated...

And it is a a FACT that the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV at the same time shows the PGNS, MSFN, and AGS coordinate solutions to be very much other than what Reed states they were...

These are FACTS.

Have you asked Reed if he sees a contradiction between his story and the mission report?

I presume the answer is "no".

 

[Patrick1000]

I asked an Apollo historian and he confirmed there was a contradiction.

Have you asked Reed if he sees a contradiction between his story and the mission report?

I presume the answer is "no".

I asked a NASA/Apollo historian and he confirmed there was a contradiction, and was "at a loss to explain the discrepancy".

 

[Patrick1000]

There are others, the landing site one is a big one though.

So now a solitary instance (if even correct!) of 'internal incoherence' = proof of falsification. Again, P1K, your powers of deduction know no bounds! Round of applause that man ...

There are others, the landing site one is a big one though.

 

[drewid]

I asked a NASA/Apollo historian and he confirmed there was a contradiction, and was "at a loss to explain the discrepancy".

[citation needed]

 

[Patrick1000]

"Lost" is my word, it is used metaphorically here, that should be obvious.

So Reed didn't call the LM lost.

Your word, for your agenda.

Don't try to mix that with the truth.

"Lost" is my word, and is used metaphorically here, that should be obvious.

Remember when abaddon wrote that I had spelled the word "supersillyous" wrong when it was obvious that it had been purposely misspelled to affect a pun?

"Lost" works here for me, works for me as metaphor, and works quite well. I like it for obvious reasons. It says so so so much.

I like puns and metaphors. They are in the air I breath. NO!, better said, they are the air I breath.

 

[nomuse]

Reading Thomas J. Kelly's MOON LANDER is lightyears beyond insanely fascinating. One learns that these guys were planning to "go to the moon" long befor J.F.K. even hinted at getting a close up whiff of cheese. And that having been the case, it does nothing less than push a guy like myself to wonder exactly how far back it was, how far back it was that this scheme was concocted, this "Cold War" scheme to instrument the moon for military purposes.

Consider this, John Kennedy did not begin campaigning for the presidency until January of 1960. He was sworn in as our 35th President January 20 1961. He delivered his famous "Let's go to the Moon Speech", May 25 1961. Now in early 1960, Thomas Kelly, the man who was to become the chief Apollo Lunar Module designer/engineer, began first meeting with another young Grumman engineer, Ton Sanial, who was also had enthusiasm for the all new art of designing spacecraft. All this was transpiring well before Kennedy had a clue about anything. Winning the election was the better part of a year off for the young senator, let alone his actually becoming the president and formulating "space policy". Get this, Thomas Kelly writes of his early 1960 experience at Grumman;

" "Tom Sanial, meet Tom Kelly," Munier said breezily, "He's here to work with you on Apollo." "

This is 1960 mind you, more than a year BEFORE Kennedy's famous May 25 1961 address to congress about going to the moon. It gets even better, Kelly goes on;

"Munier left us alone together as we sized eachother up. Were we to be partners or rivals? Sanial's innately generous nature took over. Soon he was showing me his files and describing what he had learned of the Apollo Project. He was persuasive and persistent as he related the steady growth of the program shown by NASA's statements, budgets, and planning documents. He had become convinced that NASA was seriopusly planning a manned exploration of the moon.

I moved into the desk next to his in the cinder block cubicle, which had six desks in all, and pored over the documents he had collected, along with his technical notes and trip reports. In the spring of 1960, we visted NASA Headquarters, and the Langley and Lewis Reasearch Centers, where I met DeMarquis "Dee" Wyatt at Headquarters and George Low at Lewis. They spoke in guarded terms, making clear that the manned lunar mission was in an early phase of internal review and was not part of NASA's firm plans. Their intense interest, however, indicated the program was a serious possibility. I concluded there was at least an even chance that Apollo might happen, and that Grumman had better get prepared."

Better still, later on in the book Kelly writes;

"On 15 May 1961 we submitted our summary report to NASA, maintaining that a manned lunar mission was feasible."

So 10 days before Kennedy's famous address to congress in which he advocates for a focused national effort to go to the moon, the Grumman people submitted to NASA a summary that maintained a man lunar landing was feasible. In essense, these guys, Kelly, Sanial, and others, had been working on this Apollo feasibility plan for over a year. Practically speaking, they had begun their work on this plan long before Kennedy had managed to get himself elected. And the reason the Grumman guys had been working on their Apollo plan with such diligence and enthusiasm was because they had had contact with NASA people, contact with NASA people long before Kennedy was elected. AND, from Kelly's and Sanial's NASA contact, they came to view APOLLO, as something that was likely as not going to happen. So maybe Kennedy pushed it/pitched it, but he sure didn't start it.

"More will be revealed" as they say, but much is clear already. The boys at NASA, and the boys at Grumman for that matter, were working on "Apollo" long before John Kennedy graced the White House with his accent and charm. I'll explore this more as I move forward with my studies, but it is obvious already, Kennedy "pitched" an already formulated Apollo plan, an Apollo plan that had in a very real sense been formualted long before the Bostonian rested his fanny in front of that fancy Oval Office desk, an Apollo plan to insturment the moon for military reasons, but present itself to the word as one in which we were going there, to the big green cheese in the sky, simply out of pride. Fascinating!!!!!

Once again you demonstrate how much you have yet to learn about the space program. It is the hoax believer stance that Apollo leaped full-grown from the mind of Kennedy, and was dumped in NASA's laps the day of the "We chose to do this and the other thing..." speech. Those who have some knowledge of the program understand that this characterization is far from the truth.

Yes; people have thought about going to the Moon for quite some time. And they have speculated about military purposes for it as well. About the time of Von Braun and the growing maturity of liquid fueled rocket engines it became possible to draw up technically feasible plans (giant cannon, Cavorite, and sun-dew in bottles being not quite real-world capable).

However, as the practicalities of space flight became clearer and clearer, it also became clear that orbit was a better place for observing Earth -- or dropping missiles on it. By the time of Apollo, it was clear to all that the Moon was not in and of itself a worthwhile military goal.


Shorter version: No kidding? One would think there'd never been a Gemini Program, or the Ranger program, or for that matter a Goddard or a Tsiolkovsky. .... Seriously -- you think ANYONE thinks the technologies to get to the Moon started with Apollo?