Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

a reply to: toocoolnc

This ...................

a reply to: jjkenobi

First of all, in the 9 years between JFK's mandate and Neil Armstrong's Giant Leap, NASA's spent about $120 Billion on the Apollo program (about $250 Billion total for all NASA projects), translated into today's money. Unlike today, getting to the Moon was a national priority back then, and a relatively large chunk of the U.S. budget was devoted to it.


Secondly, NASA's new program to go to the Moon (Artemis Program) is very different in scope than the Apollo Program.

The Apollo program had one goal of getting astronauts there and back. That was about it.
And all of that was done with a risk level that is unacceptable to NASA's risk levels today. That higher risk level meant hardware that was "just good enough" to do the job. And that job never lasted any more than 2 weeks.

Contrast that with the Artemis Program, which has the aim of sustaining a permanent presence on the Moon and in Lunar orbit, and to use that permanent presence as a stepping stone to going to Mars.

So, the scope of the Artemis Program far reaches the scope of Apollo. Consequently, the hardware needed for this permanent presence (such as the Planned Lunar Gateway, which is a space station that would be in lunar orbit and act as a hub for lunar surface exploration) will need to be very different and more robust than the Apollo hardware -- not to mention needs to have a higher level of safety and safety redundancies that Apollo didn't have.

All of that means a total redesign of most pieces of hardware, plus the development of new technologies far above the technologies used for Apollo.

One example is that NASA is considering having a reusable LM for shuttling astronauts back and forth from the Lunar Gateway to the lunar surface. This would be quite different than the Apollo LM, which was not reusable.

a reply to: jjkenobi

No, NASA doesn't say we can't. NASA says we need to check the latest technology can do the job. NASA is more than happy we went the first time, when the US government was actually prepared to stump up the cash instead of claiming it would provide it and then pull the plug.

Provide the resources and there will be human feet on the moon again. Meanwhile we have Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes confirming LRO evidence of human activity on the lunar surface.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: oldcarpy

www.cnn.com...

Um, NASA says we can't.

Citation please

a reply to: jjkenobi

The stumbling block is that manned missions to the Moon require a gigantic (and therefore very expensive) rocket.

"But wait," some say, "Technology has advanced so much since then. So much has been miniaturized..."

One thing that hasn't changed is the size and mass of a human being, nor the mass and volume of the food he eats, the water he drinks or the air he breaths, or the volume within the spacecraft for him to move around comfortably. Now multiply this by the number of people in the crew, and add the above consumables for the amount of time you want them to spend on the Moon. Thus the payload mass and volume will be at least as large or larger than the Apollo spacecraft.

Another thing that hasn't changed is chemical reactions. The highest rocket exhaust velocity from chemical fuels comes from burning liquid hydrogen with liquid oxygen. This was true 50 years ago and is still true today. Other fuels such as kerosene, hypergolic or solid propellants are useful for lifting things out of the atmosphere, but to get the best performance for orbital and interplanetary rockets, the best is still LH2/LOX. Although modern rocket designs have better efficiency, it's not enough to significantly reduce the size of the rocket needed to lift the above payload.

Of course, technologies other than chemical rockets, such as electromagnetic launch systems (Maglifter and StarTram to name two). and nuclear upper stages could make a huge difference, and the operating costs would be cheaper than expendable chemical rockets, but the front-end development costs would still be formidable. Until someone is willing to front the money for something that won't start paying for itself for more than a decade, we aren't going anywhere.

*sigh* Damn-it.

a reply to: jjkenobi

It's off topic, but you kind of touched on my biggest issue with the whole thing. It was 50 YEARS AGO. And look where we are now? We couldn't land on the moon and come back again today. Was it a combination of just the right people at the right time and a lot of luck? Our technology is 1000x stronger now. Trump wanted 19 billion for NASA to get back to the moon. What? We already did it with 50 year old technology. Something seems really off about it.

Today, if wanted to spend couple hundred million ( and take the risks) , SPACE X could fire a beefed up Crew Dragon
(heavier heat shield. long range communications) with 2 people for a Circumlunar (around the moon) - Basically
An Apollo 13 on purpose tomorrow on a Falcon Heavy / Ok maybe in a few months

Falcon Heavy could with some modifications - larger ( 5 m) payload adapter for NASA Orion spacecraft. 3rd stage
from Delta 4 Heavy could transport entire stack including small lander to moon

Probably need lot of engineering work to mate Orion to Falcon Heavy to check airflow characteristics around side booster
and check mating of 3rd stage . Would need a new lander, which is in works

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: jjkenobi
NASA is more than happy we went the first time, when the US government was actually prepared to stump up the cash instead of claiming it would provide it and then pull the plug.

Man, how many times in the recent past have presidents given speeches about beefing up the space program and going back to the Moon, or heading to Mars, and then when it was budget time they would just shine them on? A dozen? More?

Well, if Astr0 was right, then all of that would be a waste of money anyway, I suppose.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Interior of LEM was incredibly cramped

www.youtube.com...

Try imaging maneuvering around that space in bulky spacesuits and backpacks

On Apollo 11 Aldrin bumped into instrument panel and broke off switch . It happened to be the switch which armed
the Ascent engine to get off the moons . OOPS

Being test pilots with the right stuff were able to solve the problem b inserting mechanical pencil into switch and flip it


That's said image conditions on Apollo 13 where 3 man crew crowded into LEM after explosion crippled the Command
module ………...

When NASA realized how fake these videos and props all look - and are - now so much later, when humans still cannot even maintain consciousness beyond halfway to the supposed moon structure, they disappeared the tapes altogether and hid behind the brands like Playtex - CrossYourHeart to rub it in for the remaining few earthlings on earth who could still take a clue.

50+ years later, SpaceX's Musk is setting the new 'lowered expectations' standard:

"You can tell it's real because it looks so fake, honestly.

when humans still cannot even maintain consciousness beyond halfway to the supposed moon structure,

a reply to: letni

So you are saying the moon is Fake ,,,,??

That's a new low in FE idiocy ……..

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: jjkenobi

Today, if wanted to spend couple hundred million ( and take the risks) , SPACE X could fire a beefed up Crew Dragon (heavier heat shield. long range communications) with 2 people for a Circumlunar (around the moon) - Basically An Apollo 13 on purpose tomorrow on a Falcon Heavy / Ok maybe in a few months

NASA's Artemis 1 test mission is about 1 year away (at least that the planned date). That test mission will be unmanned, but will be using the Orion Capsule on NASA's SLS Block 1 launch vehicle. The mission will test both the SLS and the crew readiness of the Orion. Orion will spend 6 days in lunar orbit before returning home.

This was originally planned for December of this year, but delays in the production of the SLS pushed it 6 months to June or July of next year. It seems the SLS is back on track to be ready for next year. Hopefully.

If this test goes well, the next test (Artemis 2) would be a manned mission to orbit the Moon in 2023. The next mission would be a year after that (Artemis 3) and would land humans on the Moon. At least that's the plan.

Artemis 1 test info:
Wikipedia - Artemis 1

Around the Moon with NASA’s First Launch of SLS with Orion

Artemis 2 and Artemis 3 info:
Wikipedia - Artemis 2

NASA may fly crew into deep space sooner, but there’s a price

Wikipedia - Artemis 3

I find it more difficult to get thousands of airliners in the air, keeping track of them all, ferrying hundreds of passengers each, providing in flight movies, wi fi, meals, and bathrooms. Oh yeah, all their luggage and remain airborne in high gravity for up to 14 hours.

Getting 3 guys with minimal equipment to the moon seems very easy compared to the former.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Here is a mission for you

LUNAR FECES RECOVERY

While there are no specifics, scientists want to retrieve and study 96 bags of human waste left on the Moon by the six Apollo missions. These items as well as cameras, tools, and parts had to remain on the Moon because the amount of weight carried by the spacecraft had to be calculated precisely. Studying the waste, especially if microbes were able to survive for 50 or more years, would help in preparation for long space missions and add to knowledge of the origins of life. If the microbes did not survive, their evolution and adaptation to their environment could also be studied.[9]

a reply to: letni

when humans still cannot even maintain consciousness beyond halfway to the supposed moon structure

What, they pass out halfway to the Moon? Where do you get that idea from (and I'm guessing it's Youtube)?

Erm.... "supposed moon structure"? Care to expand on that?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Well considering the trip takes about 3 days each way, I'd have trouble maintaining consciousness all the way myself. Fortunately there's a proven therapy for that sort of fatigue - sleep. Those suits would keep them cosy in the command module.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Good call. Then the astronauts will be refreshed when they get there and ready to deal with those pesky Moon Bats.

a reply to: letni

Do tell us what you think was on those back up Apollo 11 telemetry tapes you think was so important.

And enlighten us as to why you think a specialist clothing manufacturer was an inappropriate choice for manufacturing specialist clothing.

If all you have is a lack of knowledge about when sleep was scheduled into the mission you need to get a clue yourself.

a reply to: letni

That's quite the interesting story you've got there . . .and what about the other six missions who didn't have their telemetry tapes recorded over? Let me guess, you're one of those people that aren't aware that Apollo continued after 11?

a reply to: toocoolnc

From the skin out, the Apollo A7LB spacesuit began with an astronaut-worn liquid-cooling garment, similar to a pair of "long-johns" with a network of spaghetti-like tubing sewn onto the fabric. Cool water, circulating through the tubing, transferred metabolic heat from the Moon explorer's body to the backpack and thence to space.

Hello dear community.

My name is Ron from Berlin/ Germany. I do research since 1 year after taking some strange impressions that made me wonder.
All started with studying the clementine pictures. Then i started watching hundreds of pictures from the apollo missions.
Hobby astronomers like "Bill Bryson" or "Bruce Swartz" gave me the final trigger to realize that nasa sells us a different "truth" about the moon.
I made own discoveries of anomalies on the moon that showed me that there is something going on.
It took a while to internalize that we have/ had neighboors close to earth.

Thats why i think there was no moon landing. The landing coordinates lead into infrastructure and no dead moon desert.
Thats why i think the moon landing was more a hoax than a masterpiece.

However, nasa lies independently if they landed or not. Thats deflating enough.