Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

Erock said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you could manufacture those things in place on the Moon then it might be useful.
But that would require a huge base and vast amounts of equipment before it could be possible... maybe some time in the future.
 
sts60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

MM won't be defining or defending his claims here for at least the next 30 days. (This looks like a "body of work" thing to me)
 
Public space programs inevitably get politicized, and private space programs inevitably become profit-minded. There is no way I can see to have a "pure" space policy.

The notion that Apollo should have given rise to more extensive manned space exploration was not that uncommon. Von Braun hypothesized they could send missions to Mars in the 1980s. But for every person expecting a sustained long-term effort toward manned exploration of the solar system, there was another person asking why we were continuing to fund the Apollo missions after they'd succeeded in beating the Russians to the Moon. Some people lamented the loss of Apollos 18 through 20, but others lamented the expenditures for every Apollo after 11.

Nixon was not a fan of space. He looked at Apollo as a Kennedy-Johnson thing that Webb had railroaded through (and sometimes past) Congress. The original plan was a shuttle followed by an orbital station followed by manned exploration in the model used by Weir in The Martian. The Nixon administration gave them only a half-assed shuttle and took away all the Air Force's launchers. That bleak outlook is what compelled Von Braun and a lot of others to leave NASA.

In the mid 2000s the "war on terror" was costing the equivalent of a space shuttle orbiter every month, so when we say it's "a matter of money," what we really mean is that it's a matter of fiscal policy. There is the money to have a well-organized space program, but there isn't the political will to appropriate it and spend it wisely.

No fewer than three post-Nixon Presidents have suggested we should resume manned exploration of the Moon. But none of the proposals can maintain a toehold in Congress. So the public space program we had in the 1960s has devolved into a budgetary and political quagmire from which I doubt it will likely escape. So it's fair comment to say post-Apollo NASA disappointed a lot of people. But the clearer answer lies in fiscal politics, not in "...it must have been faked."

Apollo was never a blue-water navy. So the comment that we "lack the technology to leave the planet" is fair enough, for certain propositions. Apollo (and its predecessors) solved some of the problems of long-term manned space flight -- and for certain values of "long term." But Apollo merely avoided other problems, and for still others simply hoped for the best. 7 g cm-2 of command-module skin and structure will protect you from a quiescent sun for two weeks, and from a quick skirt around the peripheral Van Allen belts. But it won't keep you safe from a coronal mass ejection or some other really nasty things the solar system can throw at you if you're out in it for months at a time. Consumables is still a big issue. We have the rocketry and math to navigate the solar system, but the problem is keeping humans alive in the space environment for longer than a month. Apollo's limit was about 2 weeks. The shuttle stretched that to about a month. The ISS is there to teach us how to do it for months upon months.

If we put a base on the Moon it would likely be "earth"-sheltered. Three or four feet of regolith piled on top of an engineered structure would be effective and cheap shielding from solar hissy-fits and micrometeors. Whether it would be an effective jumping-off point remains to be seen. Lack of air is good for some things but bad for others. Earth and Mars let us use their air to slow down in when landing from orbital speeds. Landing on the Moon is fuel-intensive. A base on the Moon for long-term scientific study of the Moon is a no-brainer if that's something you want to do. And a radio observatory on the far side of the Moon has been talked about, so that the Moon shades it from Earth's radio noise.

But getting any of that into a public space program in the 2000s has proven exceptionally difficult. We simply have other priorities. Mars gets a nod because it's the Next Big Thing. The sentiment you frequently here is, "Why should we go back to the Moon? We've already been there. I'm for going to Mars, though." But a hoax theory based on what "logically" should have followed Apollo presupposes that public policy is logical. Even when it's good policy, it still has disagreement.
 
My personal belief on the Apollo missions was an Alien connection ! Our Apollo craft was transported to and from the moon via Alien mother ship !
 
Hi, Wallnut. Welcome to the board.
Wallnut said:
My personal belief on the Apollo missions was an Alien connection ! Our Apollo craft was transported to and from the moon via Alien mother ship !
Click to expand...
First, we have a very detailed record of all the design, fabrication, integration, and test that went into the Apollo spacecraft, and they were tracked to, from, around, and onto the Moon.

Second, we have no evidence of any alien spacecraft involved.

Third, we have no need to invoke any alien spacecraft to explain Apollo. We have a lot of experience operating in near-Earth, cislunar, and translunar space over decades of manned and unmanned exploration.
Wallnut said:
Van Allen Radiation Belt !!
Click to expand...
What about them (not "it")? The Van Allen Belt transits were deprecated as a major crew hazard for Apollo relatively early on through a variety of measurements and mitigations. We measured the astronauts' radiation exposures. And astronauts of multiple nations routinely and repeatedly transit a bit of the inner belt. Moreover, if the VABs were dramatically more hazardous than advertised, unmanned spacecaft operating in them would be failing spectacularly and prematurely.

What exactly do you claim was the insurmountable problem for Apollo with the VABs, and what exactly is your evidence for it, and exactly how do you account for the observed reality of Apollo?
 
sts60 said:
The Van Allen Belt transits were deprecated as a major crew hazard for Apollo relatively early on through a variety of measurements and mitigations. We measured the astronauts' radiation exposures.
Click to expand...

And as of at least 5 years ago continue to monitor all the surviving Apollo astronauts with 6 monthly check ups looking for any signs of radiation induced damage to their bodies.

It is easy to look back over time and think the whole venture was both too easy and smooth to be real, but facts like what the surface would be like for the first landing are largely lost to time
 
I think you're right, ApolloGnomon. Pardon me while I remove the hook, sinker, and monofilament...
 
JayUtah said:
According to James Van Allen himself, the Apollo spacecraft could handle them quite well enough by itself. So again, any reason to involve aliens?
Click to expand...

Van Allen first said it was impossible then CIA operatives met with him in Iowa City and he suddenly reversed himself ! But it's for national security !! :cool:
 
JayUtah said:
According to James Van Allen himself, the Apollo spacecraft could handle them quite well enough by itself. So again, any reason to involve aliens?
Click to expand...

Being new I cannot yet post links but look up Jeff Rense and Clark McMlelland and The Stargate Chronicles ! Clark a NASA whistle blower has witnessed 9 foot aliens in the space shuttle twice !! :eek:
 
Come on, you're not even trying! This is just common old stuff. Give us something original!
 
Wallnut said:
Being new I cannot yet post links but look up Jeff Rense and Clark McMlelland and The Stargate Chronicles ! Clark a NASA whistle blower has witnessed 9 foot aliens in the space shuttle twice !! :eek:
Click to expand...

It's cute that you actually believe that stuff. I corresponded directly with Van Allen on this point before he passed away. What kind of source does that make me in your book?
 
I know personally that Apollo is only a dog food and that aliens pilot the space shuttle because no human being could survive...

Excuse me, there are some people knocking at my door... Be right back.'


Oh, what I meant to say is that there are no conspiracies and no aliens. I really meant that Alans were piloting the space shuttle. I've always been bad in spelling, he he he. Just please, now that I said what you wanted, please don't shot me with your ray gun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom