Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've told you to address the specific issue.... over and over again.

The issue is about the supposed blast zone, around the LM, claimed to be seen in images taken from lunar orbit, but cannot be seen in a single Apollo surface image.

Don't act the fool .... you absolutely know that this was/is the specific issue I've been asking you to address.

No more hiding away now, please...

how can i possibly address the blastzones properly when you have repeatedly shown that you DO NOT RECOGNISE WHAT THE BLASTZONES WILL LOOK LIKE!!!!

the whole purpose of making you understand the dark regolith and the bright regolith of and around the bootprint is to show you what dark loose regolith would look like and what compressed regolith looks like..

so far you have only able to admit what compressed regolith looks like, you have still failed to understand what loose regolith looks like even though i have repeatedly given you the answer you are still too dense and ignorant to admit it.

Do you want me to say that the uncompressed soil looks darker than the compressed soil?

I've already said the compressed soil is more reflective than the other soil around it....

Even though you can't see the obvious, I've spelled it out for you, nice and simple!

We all know this happens on Earth, all the time, right?

It's repeatable, and very easy for us to prove this phenomenon, here on Earth....true?


No s#%, Sherlock!


You claim that the 'blast zone' exists, and it's not a problem that we see nothing of the 'blast zone' in surface images, because I don't understand, nor recognize, what any 'blast zones' look like!!??!

You hold up images of footprints, which are surface images. Why you'd believe it supports your argument is baffling...

If you don't 'recognize' why seeing footprints in surface images would support my entire argument, it is not seeing a 'blast zone', in the same way...

You must realize this, by now, surely...


You argue these 'blast zones' are different...

I do not 'recognize' what 'blast zones' look like.

This is your whole argument, in a nutshell!!


As if...







understanding and recognizing how it looks like!

originally posted by: turbonium1

No s#%, Sherlock!

finally we have that established.. i justwanted to make sure that you dont try to weasle you way out of it, because you have a tendency to ignore the obvious.

You claim that the 'blast zone' exists, and it's not a problem that we see nothing of the 'blast zone' in surface images, because I don't understand, nor recognize, what any 'blast zones' look like!!??!

You hold up images of footprints, which are surface images. Why you'd believe it supports your argument is baffling...

now pay attention..

you have agreed the bootprints are compressed and are more reflective.
the darker regolith you have also agreed that it is loose regolith and therefore less regoltih..

now how is regular untouched regolith supposed to be??
if untouched regolith is supposed to be compressed what compressed it?? how much would lunar gravity compress this untouched regolith??
if it is not compressed what would it look like?? would it look about as dark as the loose regolith that is around the bootprints?

so why is the regolith around the dark patch brighter?? is it because it has been compressed?? if so by what??

If you don't 'recognize' why seeing footprints in surface images would support my entire argument, it is not seeing a 'blast zone', in the same way...

like i said its because you dont even recognise it..

the bright regolith around the dark soil IS PART OF THE BLAST ZONE, that is why the dark patch stand out so much.. the dark patch of regolith is how dark untouched regolith would be when viewed from that angle.

Even more suspicious is the fact that Werner Von Braun already stated in 1952 that it would be impossible to construct a moon rocket due to its enormous size and weights etc. See quote below:

"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth's gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three ... each rocket ship would be taller than New York's Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons." Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon, 1953.

Now people would think that Von Braun was an armchair scientist like many of us here. But he was a Master Engineer at a top position both for the Nazis and for NASA...... And he also stated many decades ago that the secret gvmt would concoct a terror threat, third world threat and alien threat to seize world power - all of them fake of course.....

Did he get it right or not?.....

a reply to: Gaussq

You do know that there was 17 years of R&D and many billions of dollars spent between 1952 and 1969 correct? Just because the technology doesn't exist at one point in history doesn't mean it will never exist, that's just now how reality works.

a reply to: Gaussq

Two years before they successfully flew at Kitty Hawk, Wilbur Wright told his brother that it would be 50 years before man flew.

I confess that in 1901, I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years… . Ever since, I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions.

— Wilbur Wright, in a speech to the Aero Club of France, 5 November 1908.

Technology changes, sometimes rapidly.

originally posted by: Gaussq
Even more suspicious is the fact that Werner Von Braun already stated in 1952 that it would be impossible to construct a moon rocket due to its enormous size and weights etc. See quote below:


"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth's gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three ... each rocket ship would be taller than New York's Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons." Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon, 1953.

...Did he get it right or not?.....

Well, yes. He got it right that they would not be able to launch a craft from Earth, land that craft on the Moon, then return to Earth with the technology he could foresee. However, that's the main reason why they did NOT do it that way -- i.e., they didn't do it the way Von Braun originally envisioned back in the 1950s.

Rather than landing on the Moon in the same vehicle in which they launched from Earth, they instead used a "shuttle pod"-type approach, and used a separate craft (the Lunar Module) that was only designed to land and take off from the Moon, shuttling the astronauts back and forth from the "Mothership" (the Command Module), which remained in lunar orbit.

This meant they did not need to expend the vast amounts of fuel necessary to land the large/heavy main spacecraft on the Moon and re-launch that large/heavy craft from the Moon again. Instead, a much lighter lunar Module would be used for that, and the Command Module/Mothership could remain in orbit, conserving that orbital momentum that would be useful for the return trip back to Earth.

Von Braun was originally a proponent of the "one big vehicle does everything" approach, because he was a big thinker who liked to dream big, and the idea of one huge spacecraft launching from Earth, landing on the moon, then returning back to Earth (all in that one same craft) appealed to his dreams of building BIG spacecraft. To Von Braun, the idea of one huge spaceship was an elegant one.

...However, many people now think that the solution they ultimately came up with (using a Lunar Module "shuttle", which was an idea pushed by NASA engineer John Houbolt) was even more elegant -- mostly because it was an intelligent "outside the box" solution.

An excerpt from the documentary series "Moon Machines" describes the evolution of this idea of a lunar module "shuttling" the astronauts to the Moon rather than landing the heavy cruise vehicle on the Moon , and how Von Braun eventually came around to John Houbolt's idea.

See between the 1:50 mark to the 7:30 mark in the video below:

a reply to: captainpudding

Well, I dont want to be rude but it was still the same conventional rocket fuel in 1953 and 1969 as today. Its still the same piston engine in cars albeit the car is a bit more effective now than before perhaps 2-3 times in 100 years.

But we are talking about 800 000 tons in his calculations....

Do you think the shuttle could shrink to 500 tons from 800 000 tons without revolutionary technology that is nothing like rocket fuel?.. Excuse me but I am an engineer and I dont believe he said anything untrue in 1953 and I dont believe in rocket fuel becoming 200 times more powerful "just like that".. The maths dont make sense and Von Braun knew exactly what he was talking about. It was a fairy tale and we will all know it soon. Von Braun also said that our whole society is made up by fake news and fake threats to keep the masses under control and thinking that things go in the right direction.

a reply to: Gaussq

It didn't have to become more powerful. They found a way around a single step to the moon by using multiple vehicles, as Soylent Green Is People pointed out above your post.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It doesnt matter, it is still the same payload that is lifted to the moon and back, there is no way to get around that. When the tank is empty the weight is almost zero of the shell.

a reply to: Gaussq

Yes, it does matter. Apollo used a Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, which allowed for smaller vehicles, requiring less fuel.

The main advantage of LOR is the spacecraft payload saving, due to the fact that the propellant necessary to return from lunar orbit back to Earth need not be carried as dead weight down to the Moon and back into lunar orbit. This has a multiplicative effect, because each pound of "dead weight" propellant used later has to be propelled by more propellant sooner, and also because increased propellant requires increased tankage weight. The resultant weight increase would also require more thrust for landing, which means larger and heavier engines.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

Direct ascent was basically the method that had been pictured in science fiction novels and Hollywood movies. A massive rocket the size of a battleship would be fired directly to the moon, land and then blast off for home directly from the lunar surface. The trip would be like that of a chartered bus, moving from point A to point B and back to A again in one brute of a vehicle.

Strong feelings existed within NASA in favor of direct ascent, largely because it meant the development of a proposed giant booster named the Nova. After the engineers made their calculations, however, NASA realized that any single big rocket that had to carry and lift all the fuel necessary for leaving the Earth's gravity, braking against the moon's gravity as well as leaving it, and braking back down into the Earth's gravity again, was clearly not a realistic option-especially if the mission was to be accomplished anywhere close to President Kennedy's timetable. The development of a rocket that mammoth would just take too long, and the expense would be enormous.

In retrospect, we know that LOR enjoyed several advantages over the other two options. It required less fuel, only half the payload, and less brand new technology than the other methods; it did not require the monstrous Nova rocket; and it called for only one launch from Earth whereas EOR required two. Only the small, lightweight lunar module, not the entire spacecraft, would have to land on the moon. This was perhaps LOR's major advantage. Because the lander was to be discarded after use and would not need return to Earth, NASA could tailor the design of the LEM for maneuvering flight in the lunar environment and for a soft lunar landing. In fact, the beauty of LOR was that it meant that NASA could tailor all of the modules of the Apollo spacecraft independently.

www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Gaussq
a reply to: Zaphod58

It doesnt matter, it is still the same payload that is lifted to the moon and back, there is no way to get around that. When the tank is empty the weight is almost zero of the shell.

No -- that's not true. The heaviest part of payload does not need to stop on the Moon and restart again from the Moon. Instead the heavy part remains in orbit, and still retains a certain amount of velocity while in orbit.

I'm not sure how you can say that landing a heavy rocket in the Moon, coming to a complete stop, then restarting that heavy rocket for a trip back to Earth is the same as doing what they did instead, which was the Lunar orbit-rendezvous using the Mothership/Lunar-shuttlepod-lander approach.

Using the method they used, the heaviest part of the original payload never comes to a complete stop. Plus the Lunar Lander could be discarded after use, meaning less mass (and less fuel required) for the trip home.

To get the mothership (the Command Module) back to Earth from Lunar orbit required not a huge amount of fuel because it already had some velocity as it was orbiting. To get back to Earth, they needed to (for the most part) de-orbit and allow Earth to grab on to it, essentially "falling" back to Earth for the trip home. They would not be able to "fall back to earth" so easily if they were trying to do so starting from a dead stop on the Moon and in a huge/heavy spacecraft.

Surely you can see the difference in the amount of fuel required for these two methods.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yes its a difference although it all sounds like some kind of imaginary stuff created by film producers and not engineers. Assuming that that wasnt yet another fictional idea yes there is a difference of course if they could realize it.

But it can never be 200 times better than the original calculation. Finger in the air tells me maximum 10 times better, never 200 times better. Probably more like 3-4 times better. I think anyone who has a sense of maths will agree.

If anyone shows me the maths of Von Braun and then the maths of the actual voyage, then we could see if there really is some magic trick we couldn´t imagine. But these calculations never seem to show up so until they do I reserve my judgment. I trust Von Braun 100 times more than NASA especially since he said they created all kinds of hoaxes. The truth is that there was(is) only one global and evil power and it controlled(s) the whole world including Soviet Russia. My two cents.

a reply to: Gaussq

If you have a rocket that's a fraction of the size, carrying a fraction of the payload, then it's going to be orders of magnitude more efficient. The rocket they would have to use for a direct ascent would have been several times bigger than the Saturn V to carry the fuel required to get there and back. That was one of the big things about the Lunar Rendezvous. They needed a much smaller rocket.

The Saturn V first stage weighed in at 4.4 million pounds fully fueled, compared to the Nova C-8 which weighed 8 million pounds for the first stage. That means it needs less fuel to launch. You're hauling significantly less mass, so you need significantly less fuel.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Still - the payload and the fuel to carry is similar for the single trip there no matter if you dont carry any return fuel and release some payload for a return trip. I mean the fuel to go there on a single trip alone would be approx. 100 times the weight of the supposed rocket according to Braun. Even if you release some empty tanks and the fuel to go back along the way, how much difference would that make?.. Not 200 times I reckon. It smells scam over the whole thing.

a reply to: Gaussq

He was talking about a direct ascent rocket. For that type of mission, it WOULD be 100 times the size of the rocket. It would require massive amounts of fuel to launch from earth, then land on the moon, then take off again and return to earth and land. By taking a service module, and a LEM to land and launch from, they were using a fraction of the fuel required by a direct ascent rocket.

a reply to: Gaussq
There's an app for that.
www.quantumg.net...
It describes the relationship between weight, fuel, and delta V.

You'll want to refer to the escape velocities for both the Moon and Earth. For your purposes you can ignore things like rendezvous maneuvering.

originally posted by: Gaussq
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



Yes its a difference although it all sounds like some kind of imaginary stuff created by film producers and not engineers. Assuming that that wasnt yet another fictional idea yes there is a difference of course if they could realize it.



But it can never be 200 times better than the original calculation. Finger in the air tells me maximum 10 times better, never 200 times better. Probably more like 3-4 times better. I think anyone who has a sense of maths will agree.



If anyone shows me the maths of Von Braun and then the maths of the actual voyage, then we could see if there really is some magic trick we couldn´t imagine. But these calculations never seem to show up so until they do I reserve my judgment. I trust Von Braun 100 times more than NASA especially since he said they created all kinds of hoaxes. The truth is that there was(is) only one global and evil power and it controlled(s) the whole world including Soviet Russia. My two cents.

But they don't need to develop a launch vehicle that was 200 times better. They need to use the launch available (or at least one that they could realistically develop) -- which did improve between the 1950s and the late 1960s, even if they did not improve 200 times -- and use a different approach that works with that rocket that could develop.

You keep saying that they could not engineer a rocket that was 200 times better, but I agree with you. The point is that they didn't have to, because they changed the whole "all one rocket does everything" approach -- which would have required the extraordinarily large rocket that Von Braun talked about in the 1950s -- in lieu of the Lunar-orbit-Rendezvous (LOR) approach that did not require such an extraordinarily large launch vehicle....

...That's not to say that the Saturn V was not an very large launch vehicle, because it was. However, even for how big and powerful the Saturn V was, it was not as large as a launch vehicle as what would have been required if they took the approach Von Braun originally wanted and used one large spacecraft for the entire mission to get to the Moon, land on the Moon, and get back to Earth -- all in the same spacecraft.

The Saturn V launch vehicle had a Trans-Lunar Insertion (TLI) payload capacity of about 105,000 lbs. The Command Module's operational mass was about 65,000 pounds and the Lunar Module's was about 36,000 pounds, totaling about 101,000 pounds, which was within the capabilities of the Saturn V.

While entire Lunar Module (descent stage and ascent stage put together) had a descent-to-surface mass of about 36,000 earth-pounds (1/6 that when descending to the moon), to get back off the moon, the Lunar Module's ascent stage was much smaller, and had an operational weight of only 10,300 earth-pounds -- had a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 2.1 in lunar gravity.

Getting off the Moon takes some fuel, and Von Braun's original plan for a single craft to get to the Moon, land, take off again, and get back to Earth would have required a craft that weighed FAR more than the 10,300 pounds that the Lunar Module weighed...

...And that was the problem with Von Braun's original plan as he envisioned it back in the 1950s. And that's why they didn't do it that way.

By the way, the launch vehicle that carried Sputnik into low Earth orbit (LEO) in 1957 could put a payload of 1100 pounds into LEO. The Saturn V launch vehicle that sent the Apollo equipment plus astronauts to the Moon in 1969 could put a payload of 310,000 pounds into LEO. That's a little less than 300 times more payload.

Of course that's to LEO, not TLI (translunar insertion), nor does it take into account the mass of the fuel sent to the Moon with the craft so they could make a return trip after launching all of that weight from the moon...

...but you can see that there was quite an improvement from 1957 to 1969 in the amount of payload a rocket could launch.

Was it the "200 times better" that you anecdotally said that Von Braun claimed would be required? I don't know, because I'm not exactly sure how much mass Von Braun envisioned would be required for his "one single large spacecraft for the entire journey" -- but I'm guessing that it might NOT have increased 200 fold. However, it would not surprise me if the ability (or technology of the time) to launch payload to TLI increased 100-fold between the 1950s and 1960s.

originally posted by: choos

the bright regolith around the dark soil IS PART OF THE BLAST ZONE, that is why the dark patch stand out so much.. the dark patch of regolith is how dark untouched regolith would be when viewed from that angle.

Again, the problem is that there is no blast zone, no bright regolith, which you claim is around the dark soil, in ANY of the Apollo surface images.

That's why you cannot outline the blast zone, in any of the surface images - because there is absolutely nothing to outline!

originally posted by: turbonium1

Again, the problem is that there is no blast zone, no bright regolith, which you claim is around the dark soil, in ANY of the Apollo surface images.

That's why you cannot outline the blast zone, in any of the surface images - because there is absolutely nothing to outline!

thats because the blast zone extends out beyond the image..

why can you make out the dark area around the bootprints so well??

is it because the surrounding regolith is brighter than the dark patch??

like i said YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THE BLASTZONE LOOKS LIKE.. the more you argue that it isnt seen in this image the more it proves my point.