Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by turbonium1


You were given a source from NASA itself that clearly said they wanted longer duration missions and an eventual L2 presence.

reply to post by Zaphod58


There are many 'plans', like going to Mars.

The only firm goal was - to land men on the moon and back. Period.

It must be done this way. You cannot make several distinctive steps in one leap. They didn't even get one to lift off yet, and you expect everything else would work out?? Sheesh.

reply to post by turbonium1


Exactly. The first goal was to land on the moon, with an extended presence. You can't move past the moon until you can stay there longer than three days. So what again is the point of simply recreating Apollo? It's pointless to simply redo a mission that you did 50 years ago.

Again, amazing how when you use it, it's hard fact that NASA wants to simply recreate Apollo, but when someone else does it's "just a plan".

reply to post by turbonium1


You two are arguing over budgets when the answer is in your face. NASA officially made the statement they will not return to the moon. And are looking for cheaper options to get to mars. The one there currently considering is the space station at L2 since it indeed saves on fuel costs. Nasa is trying to get other space agencies on board much like the ISS. If NASA had all the money do you really think they would share the glory?Because i know i dont this tells you how bad off they are if you think about it.

choos
so you are comparing the budget NASA had during 2005+ with the budget NASA had in the 60's?? is that what you are trying to get at??

No. I would have done it, not "trying to get at" it.

But, since you mentioned it, let's compare them anyway.

NASA's annual budget (in 2007 constant million dollars)..

1961 - 6,360 2001 - 15,427
1962 - 12,221 2002 - 15,831
1963 - 24,342 2003 - 16,021
1964 - 33,241 2004 - 15,559
1965 - 33,514 2005 - 16,016
1966 - 32,106 2006 - 16,085
1967 - 29,696 2007 - 15,861
1968 - 26,139 2008 - 17,138
1969 - 21,376 2009 - 17,186
2010 - 17,804
2011 - 17,005
2012 - 16,014

en.wikipedia.org...

The largest annual budgets were from 1964-68. These 5 years had roughly twice the average annual budget in 2001-12.

The budgets of 1961-63 and 1969? They average out to 16,075/yr. Like the 2001-12 annual budgets, in other words.

Five years with twice the average budget, that's it.

choos

are you trying to say that with the small grant a fraction of what NASA received in the 60's and they are supposed to design build and test a rocket on the scale of saturn V if not larger, build orion a multi-purpose craft which can trasport 4 to the moon or upto 6 to the ISS. and yet since they were not able to that it proves apollo was faked?

I'm not "trying to say", or "trying to get at".

If I want to make a point, I will explain it.

The failure of Constellation can't be regarded as proof that Apollo was faked. But we can certainly compare Constellation to Apollo, and point out any discrepancies between them. It speaks to the veracity of Apollo, or I should say, the lack of it.

My point is that money cannot be the reason Constellation failed. It's just an excuse for the Apollo story.

Suppose you had fooled everyone for years, with a fake moon landing. You didn't have the technology to do it then. But now, doing a real moon landing seems within your reach.

But, how can you attempt a real landing without exposing the fake landing in the process?

You know it can't realistically be done within 7-8 years, like your fake landing was. A more realistic goal is 17-18 years.

It should take less time now, not twice as long. So how do you explain that? All sorts of reasons, like needing to develop new technology, a smaller budget, etc. With that, you're good to go.

Now the real challenge - developing the technologies required to do it. You know the technology you used in the fake landing is not going to work - that's the reason you had to fake it in the first place. You have to try and develop the technology virtually from scratch, for the most part. At least you didn't lie when you said you needed so much time to develop the technology!

You also know a single rocket won't work for a real landing. You pretended it could, in the fake one. But you really need at least two separate rockets, dock up to the ISS in Earth orbit, get all the fuel you'll need to get to the moon and back.

That's your next problem. Why do you need two rockets, and get more fuel in Earth prbit to 'return' to the moon?
You need another excuse - it's entirely different than Apollo! It will have at least one more astronaut aboard, with room for more! We plan to stay on the moon for much longer, and build a moon base.

I could go on, but the point should be clear now...

choos

burj khalifa cost about 1.5 billion.. and your argument is basically saying that they should be able to build burj khalifa for maybe 500 million, with newer and better material and manufacturing processes that need to be developed.

No, my argument would be that ultra-luxurious highrises are irrelevant to the issue.

choos

you obviously have no idea the lengths companies go to in developing new technology, ive said it before and ill say it again.. look up what research and developement is and look up the % companies spend in R&D..

They need to develop the required technology. But even with all the money in the world we can't develop a real 'Time Machine', either.

Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Exactly. The first goal was to land on the moon, with an extended presence. You can't move past the moon until you can stay there longer than three days. So what again is the point of simply recreating Apollo? It's pointless to simply redo a mission that you did 50 years ago.

Again, amazing how when you use it, it's hard fact that NASA wants to simply recreate Apollo, but when someone else does it's "just a plan".

edit on 9/14/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

They aren't "recreating" Apollo, they are attempting a real moon landing now! This is the one true goal.

Why do they have probes in the VA Belts right now? Why would they spend tons of money on a problem you dealt with so superbly over 40 years ago? Well, because they wouldn't, that's why. The probes are there because they DO NOT understand them. It is a hazardous environment, and one of the primary reasons we can't fly humans to the moon yet.

You can believe the probes are only in the Belts for educational purposes, or such crap. I prefer reality.

reply to post by turbonium1


The probes are there for research purposes.

www.nasa.gov...

That is reality.

Apollo used the level of knowledge and understanding about the VAB available to it to minimise astronaut's time in them. That is reality. If they knew nothing about the belts, why were Apollo trajectories designed that way?. The level of knowledge and understanding they had was obtained by both Soviet and US research at the time (the Soviets actually knew more, but politics kept them out of the journals).

It is one thing to know where a dangerous area is, and how to avoid it. Knowing exactly why it is dangerous and what processes are occurring in that area is something different. That is what the current research is about.

turbonium1

No. I would have done it, not "trying to get at" it.

But, since you mentioned it, let's compare them anyway.

NASA's annual budget (in 2007 constant million dollars)..

1961 - 6,360 2001 - 15,427
1962 - 12,221 2002 - 15,831
1963 - 24,342 2003 - 16,021
1964 - 33,241 2004 - 15,559
1965 - 33,514 2005 - 16,016
1966 - 32,106 2006 - 16,085
1967 - 29,696 2007 - 15,861
1968 - 26,139 2008 - 17,138
1969 - 21,376 2009 - 17,186
2010 - 17,804
2011 - 17,005
2012 - 16,014

en.wikipedia.org...

The largest annual budgets were from 1964-68. These 5 years had roughly twice the average annual budget in 2001-12.

The budgets of 1961-63 and 1969? They average out to 16,075/yr. Like the 2001-12 annual budgets, in other words.

Five years with twice the average budget, that's it.

wow.. just wow.. so you pick the years you wish even if they are non sequential add them up and get the average to try to justify you your point about NASA's budget??? completely ignoring the peak which would completely skew your conclusions..

i wonder if economists do that?? you know to show how financially secure the nation is, they will get the average GDP of every year, just not the years that were bad.. because that will skew their results.

but if i play your game but properly with no bias, if you get their total budget from 61-69 on average its about 24333 per year.. thats how you get averages.. you dont just average the numbers you feel like.. but i suppose sinc you somehow believe GCR's will make someone sick or kill them within a week with maths skills like that im not really surprised.

I'm not "trying to say", or "trying to get at".

If I want to make a point, I will explain it.

The failure of Constellation can't be regarded as proof that Apollo was faked. But we can certainly compare Constellation to Apollo, and point out any discrepancies between them. It speaks to the veracity of Apollo, or I should say, the lack of it.

say what??? you are using the failure of constellation as proof apollo was faked.. you are saying that constellations issues with returning to the moon ie failure, proves apollo was faked.. or are you changing your story again?? shifting the goal posts?

My point is that money cannot be the reason Constellation failed. It's just an excuse for the Apollo story.

just look at the peak of NASA's spending.. in the mid 60's when they were developing the rockets and crafts to fly man on the moon, that is the level of costs involved to get man on the moon..

and look at the budget of NASA now, while developing new rockets and crafts to get man on the moon for a longer period of time..

Suppose you had fooled everyone for years, with a fake moon landing. You didn't have the technology to do it then. But now, doing a real moon landing seems within your reach.

But, how can you attempt a real landing without exposing the fake landing in the process?

You know it can't realistically be done within 7-8 years, like your fake landing was. A more realistic goal is 17-18 years.

It should take less time now, not twice as long. So how do you explain that? All sorts of reasons, like needing to develop new technology, a smaller budget, etc. With that, you're good to go.

why would it take less time??? tell us why?? apollo technology is obsolete and is not designed for what orion is planned.

the major problem you have is that you believe getting man to the moon is like building a time machine.. thats wrong.. getting man to the moon is physically/theoretically possible.. building a time machine is not theoretically possible.. therefore money can solve the issue of getting man to the moon.. the more money you put into it the faster it can be done.. and now you want you want NASA to get to the moon faster than the apollo era on less than half the budget they had??

Now the real challenge - developing the technologies required to do it. You know the technology you used in the fake landing is not going to work - that's the reason you had to fake it in the first place. You have to try and develop the technology virtually from scratch, for the most part. At least you didn't lie when you said you needed so much time to develop the technology!

You also know a single rocket won't work for a real landing. You pretended it could, in the fake one. But you really need at least two separate rockets, dock up to the ISS in Earth orbit, get all the fuel you'll need to get to the moon and back.

That's your next problem. Why do you need two rockets, and get more fuel in Earth prbit to 'return' to the moon?
You need another excuse - it's entirely different than Apollo! It will have at least one more astronaut aboard, with room for more! We plan to stay on the moon for much longer, and build a moon base.

I could go on, but the point should be clear now...

you are not clear on how research and development works.. you are not clear on the issues NASA has with the ares and orion..

one of the issues with orion is the heatshield, whereas apollo done it by hand, the contractor for orion wants to automate the process.. this process does not exist.. and you think this proves your point???

No, my argument would be that ultra-luxurious highrises are irrelevant to the issue.

yea but you seem to think once something is done, a newer better object with more technology and newer designs and designing new manufacturing processes should be able to do the same thing faster and at or less than half the price.. but obviously you missed my point or chose to ignore it.

They need to develop the required technology. But even with all the money in the world we can't develop a real 'Time Machine', either.

again.. a time machine is not reality, it is not physically or theoretically possible.. getting man to the moon IS physically and theoretically possible.. therefore money can solve the tech issue..

turbonium1
Why do they have probes in the VA Belts right now? Why would they spend tons of money on a problem you dealt with so superbly over 40 years ago? Well, because they wouldn't, that's why. The probes are there because they DO NOT understand them. It is a hazardous environment, and one of the primary reasons we can't fly humans to the moon yet.

Because the more understanding you have of radiation in space the better your understanding of the required technology to shield against it. If you were going to be the first to build a plane, wouldn't you want to have the best understanding you could about what you were going to be up against? Wouldn't you create hundreds of models, and test test test and try to understand it? I sure would.

turbonium1
Why do they have probes in the VA Belts right now? Why would they spend tons of money on a problem you dealt with so superbly over 40 years ago? Well, because they wouldn't, that's why. The probes are there because they DO NOT understand them. It is a hazardous environment, and one of the primary reasons we can't fly humans to the moon yet.

The way the dealt with the problem was more of a "band aid" than a solution to the problem -- i.e., they "dealt" with it by finding a thin spot and flying through it quickly. Even then, there was still a higher-than-normal exposure to radiation for those astronauts. That exposure may not necessarily have been life- threatening, but it still causes a statistically increased risk for health issues. Basically, their "band aid" approach minimized the risk enough to make it manageable -- and the Apollo program was about managing risk.

That increased risk may have been kept to a minimum; HOWEVER, if that slight increase could be additionally diminished by a better understanding of the problem, then why not do so?

Double post.
Mods can delete if they want.

turbonium1

1961 - 6,360 2001 - 15,427
1962 - 12,221 2002 - 15,831
1963 - 24,342 2003 - 16,021
1964 - 33,241 2004 - 15,559
1965 - 33,514 2005 - 16,016
1966 - 32,106 2006 - 16,085
1967 - 29,696 2007 - 15,861
1968 - 26,139 2008 - 17,138
1969 - 21,376 2009 - 17,186
2010 - 17,804
2011 - 17,005
2012 - 16,014



en.wikipedia.org...

The largest annual budgets were from 1964-68. These 5 years had roughly twice the average annual budget in 2001-12.

Yeah. The mid-1960s were the most intensive R&D years for the Apollo program, so it makes sense that the budgets would have been huge then (5% of the U.S. budget then compared to being 0.5% of the U.S. budget today. PLUS, most of NASA's 1960s budget went toward Apollo, while today it is spread among many expensive programs [Mars rovers, JUNO Jupiter probe, James Webb Space Telescope, just to name a few] )

By 1969, the most expensive R&D was complete, and the infrastructure (launch pads, assembly buildings, office buildings. test facilities) had been built, that NASA's Apollo budget could be reduced. That's because building the hardware is much cheaper than building the required infrastructure, and also designing and testing the hardware. You should watch the documentary series "Moon Machines" if you want to see the manpower, infrastructure, and testing it took to just GET TO the launch of Apollo 11.

The launch of Apollo 11 was the result of all of that money spent during the previous 6 or so years, not just the money spent in 1969.

Here is part 1 of "Moon machines" (Part 1 is the Saturn V Rocket). This will show how much manpower, infrastructure, and testing (all of which costs money) it took over many years to DESIGN (not just build) the Apollo hardware:


YouTube video links to the rest of the documentary series:

Part 2: Command Module
Part 3: Navigation Computer
Part 4: Lunar Module
Part 5: Space Suit
Part 6: Lunar Rover

My opinion on this is that we did indeed land on the Moon, but I can also fully believe that the televised moon landing could have been faked.

Bear in mind that I do not think that the televised moon landing was faked, but I could easily believe that it was. Such is my lack of faith in the honesty of the U.S. government.

I once heard and read about a theory that the moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick.
This was done using techniques and props from 2001: A space odyssey.
Or rather, it wasn't faked. They had a "fake version" pre-recorded in case things would go wrong.

I can't quite remember if it was eventually the fake version or the real version that they showed us.

IraLevant
I once heard and read about a theory that the moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick.
This was done using techniques and props from 2001: A space odyssey.
Or rather, it wasn't faked. They had a "fake version" pre-recorded in case things would go wrong.

I can't quite remember if it was eventually the fake version or the real version that they showed us.

There's a series of videos that explore his film style and the "hidden" messages that he supposedly put in each of his movies in order to tell his tale without just coming out and saying it plainly.

They're interesting to watch, but whether there's any truth to them is anyone's guess since the man is dead now.

Even clavius.org admits that 850 lb of moon rocks is beyond technology, current tech or 1960's tech.

As already noted, the Apollo program returned more than 800 pounds (350 kilograms) of material. That's beyond our current sample-return technology, not to mention that available in the 1960s. Source www.clavius.org...

SayonaraJupiter
Even clavius.org admits that 850 lb of moon rocks is beyond technology, current tech or 1960's tech.

As already noted, the Apollo program returned more than 800 pounds (350 kilograms) of material. That's beyond our current sample-return technology, not to mention that available in the 1960s. Source www.clavius.org...

More cherry picking.

The quote is specifically referring to unmanned probe sample return missions.

NASA could have obtained genuine lunar surface material just the way the Soviet Union did: by using unmanned space probes.

In many ways that's even harder to accomplish than a manned landing. The Soviets tried several times and succeeded with only a few such missions and recovered a total of about ten ounces of material. This effort occupied a major portion of the Soviet space program's capacity. It would have required a similarly large portion of the U.S. aerospace capacity to produce secret unmanned probes. And there is also the question of where those spacecraft were launched and upon what kind of rocket. Those things are hard to hide.

As already noted, the Apollo program returned more than 800 pounds (350 kilograms) of material. That's beyond our current sample-return technology, not to mention that available in the 1960s.

Zaphod58

turbonium1
Why do they have probes in the VA Belts right now? Why would they spend tons of money on a problem you dealt with so superbly over 40 years ago? Well, because they wouldn't, that's why. The probes are there because they DO NOT understand them. It is a hazardous environment, and one of the primary reasons we can't fly humans to the moon yet.

Because the more understanding you have of radiation in space the better your understanding of the required technology to shield against it. If you were going to be the first to build a plane, wouldn't you want to have the best understanding you could about what you were going to be up against? Wouldn't you create hundreds of models, and test test test and try to understand it? I sure would.

Wright brothers didnt they just went for it. Apollo astronauts knew there were risks as well but it was a different time not run by lawyers. Now we have warning labels on hair dryers telling us not to use it in the shower. NASA couldn't knowingly send someone into space without covering there butt. If they didnt do all this testing guranteed they would have million dollar law suits. In the 60s this was not even a concern.

reply to post by dragonridr


The Wright Brothers tested gliders with different wing shapes for years. They tested the hell out of everything that was known at the time.

reply to post by dragonridr


no they didn't. the wright brothers researched, developed and tested theory, developed testing equipment designed hundreds of wing designs control systems and models, made and tested full scale gliders from 1899 which culminated in the first powered flight in 1903.