Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[frenat]

I think Sir Walter Scott said it best;

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"

Yes, jarrah was very deceptive by deleting his posts, posting obscenities to get himself banned and lying about it later.

 

[LSSBB]

I think Sir Walter Scott said it best;

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"

What kind of tangle did you get yourself in this time? Did it involve denying moon landings?

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, jarrah was very deceptive by deleting his posts, posting obscenities to get himself banned and lying about it later.

I don't think he was banned. The single post in question was deleted by a moderator. As I recall, he attempted a fringe reset some short time later, then left for good. But as far as I remember, he left voluntarily both times.

 

[frenat]

I don't think he was banned. The single post in question was deleted by a moderator. As I recall, he attempted a fringe reset some short time later, then left for good. But as far as I remember, he left voluntarily both times.

I stand corrected. He has lied about it though.

 

[sts60]

I think Sir Walter Scott said it best;

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"

Since this thread is about Apollo hoax claims, MirageMemories - do you claim that the Apollo program was a hoax of some sort? Because JayUtah's identity is neither a secret nor the topic of this thread.

 

[sts60]

I stand corrected. He has lied about it though.

Wasn't he the kid (I guess he's older now) who claimed the Apollo CSM stack hid in a polar orbit - which he thought was a circle of constant latitude centered over the North Pole? And then claimed he was just testing people when called on that particular howler?

Anyway, Miragememories, do you claim that Apollo was hoaxed? I'm not really interested in the melodramatic buildup. And I read the IMDB thread a long time ago, and I've been a practicing space systems engineer for more than two decades, so please don't tell me to "do my homework". If you have something to say about Apollo, just say it.

 

[Miragememories]

Since this thread is about Apollo hoax claims, MirageMemories - do you claim that the Apollo program was a hoax of some sort?

Because JayUtah's identity is neither a secret nor the topic of this thread.

I will speak directly to the topic of this thread.

I have issues with the Apollo program, most notably the 'extended' manned missions that followed it.

None.

It perplexes me that so much investment has been directed to the exploration and supposed manned missions to Mars when our Moon would seem to be a more rational and economical place to start.

If, we have landed and returned astronauts safely from the Moon, why has there been no followup?

Would it not make far more sense to develop a Moon base first, possibly below the surface?

Were NASA cutbacks so severe that a Mars mission makes more sense?

Having 1/6 the Earth's gravity and a much shorter travel time, a base utilizing solar or nuclear power generation should be much more viable and economical than a sending a manned mission to Mars.

Once established on the Moon, IMHO, with the low gravity and zero atmosphere, we should be in a much better position for significant interplanetary exploration.

Politically and economically it seems like a win/win thing to do.

The fact that costly and limited resources are being used on such a premature and questionable goal of supposedly occupying Mars makes me question if this is a delaying tactic because the technology for humans to safely depart our planet does not, and has never existed.

As a big fan of space travel, I sure hope I am wrong, but I certainly can't make sense out of what I see happening, and it does give one pause when considering it has been 46 years with Earthlings travelling no further than an Earth orbit space station.

 

[Vermonter]

We didn't go back because we lost interest. Apollo 18 was canceled because most people didn't really care anymore, among budgetary reasons. Since then, it's been cheaper to send robotic probes to the Moon to gather samples and take measurements. Going from Earth to the Moon is one thing, but punting anything from Earth to Mars is something else entirely.

 

[sts60]

Money.

The political interest is not there for a properly-funded, long-term lunar or Mars program. So various Administrations build up grandiose schemes which are too costly too sustain.

As for technology to "safely depart" our planet, given the documented evidence of having done just that, what exactly do you think is lacking, and why?

 

[threadworm]

I will speak directly to the topic of this thread.

I have issues with the Apollo program, most notably the 'extended' manned missions that followed it.

None.

It perplexes me that so much investment has been directed to the exploration and supposed manned missions to Mars when our Moon would seem to be a more rational and economical place to start.

Your puzzlement is not proof of anything.

If, we have landed and returned astronauts safely from the Moon, why has there been no followup?

Because political priorities changed.

Would it not make far more sense to develop a Moon base first, possibly below the surface?

No. It makes a different sort of sense, not better. It is one thing that could have been done. They didn't, because it would cost billions and billions to do.

Were NASA cutbacks so severe that a Mars mission makes more sense?

Yes, they were severe, so a Mars mission is not on the cards. It is a long dream, but no government programme has ever said "we are going".

Having 1/6 the Earth's gravity and a much shorter travel time, a base utilizing solar or nuclear power generation should be much more viable and economical than a sending a manned mission to Mars.

It would. Which hospitals and schools would you like to close in order to pay for it?

Once established on the Moon, IMHO, with the low gravity and zero atmosphere, we should be in a much better position for significant interplanetary exploration.

Indeed. Which hospitals and schools would you like to close in order to pay for it?

Politically and economically it seems like a win/win thing to do.

Nope, it would be economically unviable and politically suicidal. Which hospitals and schools would you like to close in order to pay for it?

The fact that costly and limited resources are being used on such a premature and questionable goal of supposedly occupying Mars makes me question if this is a delaying tactic because the technology for humans to safely depart our planet does not, and has never existed.

Firstly, who is going to Mars? The US? The USSR? China? I don't see an active publicly funded Mars mission anywhere.

Secondly, the technology does exist and has existed for many ears. It is just very expensive and clumsy technology, would take a long time to assemble a mission and would take a long time to get to Mars. Which hospitals and schools would you like to close in order to pay for it?

As a big fan of space travel, I sure hope I am wrong, but I certainly can't make sense out of what I see happening, and it does give one pause when considering it has been 46 years with Earthlings travelling no further than an Earth orbit space station.

Space exploration costs money. There isn't any being made available - except in China, and no-one really knows what they're up to.

 

[turingtest]

I will speak directly to the topic of this thread.

I have issues with the Apollo program, most notably the 'extended' manned missions that followed it.

None.

It perplexes me that so much investment has been directed to the exploration and supposed manned missions to Mars when our Moon would seem to be a more rational and economical place to start.

If, we have landed and returned astronauts safely from the Moon, why has there been no followup?

Would it not make far more sense to develop a Moon base first, possibly below the surface?

Were NASA cutbacks so severe that a Mars mission makes more sense?

Having 1/6 the Earth's gravity and a much shorter travel time, a base utilizing solar or nuclear power generation should be much more viable and economical than a sending a manned mission to Mars.

Once established on the Moon, IMHO, with the low gravity and zero atmosphere, we should be in a much better position for significant interplanetary exploration.

Politically and economically it seems like a win/win thing to do.

The fact that costly and limited resources are being used on such a premature and questionable goal of supposedly occupying Mars makes me question if this is a delaying tactic because the technology for humans to safely depart our planet does not, and has never existed.

As a big fan of space travel, I sure hope I am wrong, but I certainly can't make sense out of what I see happening, and it does give one pause when considering it has been 46 years with Earthlings travelling no further than an Earth orbit space station.

Argument by an A/V editor (or whatever*) via cliche ("why haven't we gone back? Huh? Huh??!?!") and "I would have done things differently." That's convincing (I think it's the cutesy blue that does it).

*MM has said somewhere here in this forum more exactly what his credentials are; I honestly can't be bothered to go look, because I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with the actual subject he's questioning (as with 9/11, no surprise there- CTists are Dunning-Kruger fisherman who cast their nets more widely than their arms can reach or their boats can hold).

 

[sts60]

Were NASA cutbacks so severe that a Mars mission makes more sense?

Sure, if you're a politician trying to please aerospace districts with promises you only have to sustain until you're reelected. But I have direct experience with the budget (and resulting schedule) pressures that NASA is laboring under even with the current ill-defined and leisurely "Mars" effort currently sort of underway.

because the technology for humans to safely depart our planet does not, and has never existed.

Personal incredulity is not much of an argument. Exactly what technology was inadequate for the job of short lunar-landing missions, and why?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, I'm convinced!

 

[theprestige]

And it should be noted that in relation to Mars missions, talk is cheap. There's a lot of talk about Mars missions right now, but nothing like an Apollo-scale investment of resources in actually doing them. Don't mistake the current talk about Mars missions for a serious change of focus that NASA needs to explain.

 

[LSSBB]

The Outer Space Treaty is blamed for some on why manned space exploration has essentially stopped.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/960/1

 

[GlennB]

The fact that costly and limited resources are being used on such a premature and questionable goal of supposedly occupying Mars makes me question if this is a delaying tactic because the technology for humans to safely depart our planet does not, and has never existed.

You appear to be contradicting yourself, as humans have safely departed our planet. Did you mean escape its gravitational influence? If so then we can point to countless missions to other parts of the solar system that have done just that and ask why such a mission somehow "cannot" be tailored to include people.

Meanwhile we have no use - and never did - for a Lunar colony. The expense would be staggering with no significant benefit to be gained. Ditto Mars.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The reason we stopped manned missions (or mouse ions, as my phone insists) to the moon is because Nixon ended the Apollo program and shoved a Nerfed and stationless version of the original Space Transportstion System down NASA's throat, a system so unwieldy and expensive it used all the air in the room for 4 decades preventing anyone at NASA from even discussing other manned hardware.

Meanwhile, NASA spent comparatively meager amounts of money to send unmanned missions to fly past and photograph every planet in the solar system and drop probes on several of them. Keeping meat fresh in space adds weight and cost to missions while severely limiting mission duration.

The moon, while close, has absolutely nothing to offer space travelers in the way of bivouac stop or preparation site for deeper missions while adding unbelievable complexity to missions in order to use it as such. The moon is a dead, dry rock that wants to kill you, personally, today, in a dozen different ways.

How actual space missions happen is a scientist proposeses it and NASA spends congressionally-managed and politically sensitive annual budget on projects that seem viable. After Apollo no unmanned missions were sent to the moon because nobody proposed one that NASA wanted to buy. But NASA built and sent a lander to Venus, two landers to Mars and pair of deep space probes that have since left what we think of as the solar system.

Not one piece of the hardware used to send a dozen Boy Scouts on the most expensive camp outs ever is impossible for even an average carpenter like myself to comprehend and most of the Apollo engineering led directly to hardware still in use today - communications, life support, rocket engines ranging from the size of a bus to the size of a can of soup. The US suits used to spacewalk ISS are mostly identical to the suits used to walk on the moon.

To claim "the technology for humans to safely depart our planet does not, and has never existed" is patently absurd. Mission specific hardware does not equal "the technogy."

The only lack of technology preventing manned missions beyond LEO is a shoehorn big enough to move congress off it's collective fat ass

 

[abaddon]

The reason we stopped manned missions (or mouse ions, as my phone insists) to the moon is because Nixon ended the Apollo program and shoved a Nerfed and stationless version of the original Space Transportstion System down NASA's throat, a system so unwieldy and expensive it used all the air in the room for 4 decades preventing anyone at NASA from even discussing other manned hardware.

Yup. The STS was always a compromise between the NASA desire for manned exploration and the military desire for effective launch of spy satellites. As is the norm, such compromises never result in an ideal solution, and this one didn't exceed expectations.

Meanwhile, NASA spent comparatively meager amounts of money to send unmanned missions to fly past and photograph every planet in the solar system and drop probes on several of them. Keeping meat fresh in space adds weight and cost to missions while severely limiting mission duration.

Heaven forfend that NASA would use it's meager budget to actually achieve some scientific results. /irony

The moon, while close, has absolutely nothing to offer space travelers in the way of bivouac stop or preparation site for deeper missions while adding unbelievable complexity to missions in order to use it as such.

Disagree. Luna could well be used as a launch platform for further exploration and possible colonisation of other planets/moons.

The moon is a dead, dry rock that wants to kill you, personally, today, in a dozen different ways.

Amusing. The creationists will tell you that the entire universe is designed for humans, yet most of it is inimical to humans. Seems to be piss poor design to me.

How actual space missions happen is a scientist proposeses it and NASA spends congressionally-managed and politically sensitive annual budget on projects that seem viable. After Apollo no unmanned missions were sent to the moon because nobody proposed one that NASA wanted to buy. But NASA built and sent a lander to Venus, two landers to Mars and pair of deep space probes that have since left what we think of as the solar system.

You understand that. I understand that. CTists do not.

Not one piece of the hardware used to send a dozen Boy Scouts on the most expensive camp outs ever is impossible for even an average carpenter like myself to comprehend and most of the Apollo engineering led directly to hardware still in use today - communications, life support, rocket engines ranging from the size of a bus to the size of a can of soup. The US suits used to spacewalk ISS are mostly identical to the suits used to walk on the moon.

And so CTists find themselves denying LEO spacewalks, and attempting to deny events which have self evidently true. Denying one thing results in denying the next consequence, and the next consequence and on and on until the CTist finds him or her self proposing that Santa is real.

To claim "the technology for humans to safely depart our planet does not, and has never existed" is patently absurd. Mission specific hardware does not equal "the technology."

Yup. But when did that ever affect CT proponents? In the CT universe, evidence does not matter.

The only lack of technology preventing manned missions beyond LEO is a shoehorn big enough to move congress off it's collective fat ass

You well may be correct, but since I am not a murrican, there is little I can do about it no matter how much I might disagree.

 

[sts60]

the technology for humans to safely depart our planet does not, and has never existed
Of course, as the above discussion shows, we need for Miragememories to define his claim more precisely. Does this mean he thinks lunar-and-greater missions are out, or does he thinks all manned space flight is impossible? 'Cuz there are people who actually think that.

 

[Erock]

Disagree. Luna could well be used as a launch platform for further exploration and possible colonisation of other planets/moons.

Disagree right back. There's less gravity, but that is the only plus.The problem is actually getting the kit up there and safely landed in the first place. We all saw the size of the rocket to get that little old Lunar Module safely down(using close to 15 tons of fuel a second), imagine what would be involved in getting a measly 200 tons of fuel down for a teeny rocket to use from the Moon. Not to mention the actual rocket itself being safely landed.

The cost effectiveness of using the Moon compared to even LEO is way too high.