Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

from your own link:

"The initial sortie missions will last up to seven
days, performing science investigations,
resource utilization experiments and technology
demonstrations on the surface, before safely
returning the crew to Earth."

upto 7 days on the lunar surface..

NASA has never put 3 men on the lunar surface at a time and never more than 75 hours.. if constellation was planning to put 3/4 astronauts on the lunar surface at a time for upto 7 days.. straight away they dont have that capability... from 2 men to 4, its not just an extra 75kg/150kg of mass of the astronaut its not that simple..

you have all the mass of the consumables to support the two extra astronauts (food, air, water etc), the extra mass from the added living space, the extra fuel required to support the extra mass to return everyone to lunar orbit, proper waste management for 4 astronauts (not adult diapers for two astronauts)..

but anyway your article is more or less talking about lunar surface operations and you are using that as explaination of the missing technology..

so im guessing that you are trying to tell everyone that the missing technology is the lunar module or capability to soft land on the moon??

The primary goal was?....

This goal, originally set for 2018, later revised to 2020...

Have you figured out what the goal might have been, yet?


The goal was to land man on the moon, first set for 2018, and later revised to 2020.

That's their primary objective, the main goal.


I don't recall a minimum of 4 astronauts being a requirement, to reach that goal, however. You have any sources for that claim?


The crew of 4+ was planned, so you think that's why they needed to develop all new technologies, right?

What is the primary goal?

To land a man on the moon....right?

If Apollo technology is genuine, then they would be able to achieve their primary goal, right?


It isn't about a minimum crew of 4, clearly.

a reply to: turbonium1

Do you ever check anything? Ever?

www.nasa.gov...

You might also want to look at how Orion planned to get to the moon, and see if it's the same as how Apollo got there.

Any time you want to tell us which technology didn't exist in the 1960's would be just fine.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

and what of it??? your hand-waving doesnt deny the facts..

do you know of any lunar module that is capable of landing more than 2 people on the lunar surface and launching back to lunar orbit???

you take engineers for granted.. thats your problem.. you have no understanding of the complexities of designing and building

a cessna 152 carries 2 people.. to design it to carry 4 people will be to nearly completely re-engineer/design the entire craft..

Yes, a Cessna cannot carry 4 people.

How might they go about developing a new plane, to carry 4 people?


Would they need to develop all-new technology from scratch, or use the Cessna technology as a base point?

Wright Brothers plane led to better planes. New planes were not being developed from scratch, with all-new technologies. Each was based on the previous planes.

Same as computers, etc. are not developed from scratch.


Now, the Apollo LM would be like the Wright Brothers plane as a pioneer technology.

The LM should be used as a base point, for developing an advanced lunar lander.

So they ignore the LM, and have 'lunar lander contests'?

Now, do you get the problem?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Do you ever check anything? Ever?

www.nasa.gov...

You might also want to look at how Orion planned to get to the moon, and see if it's the same as how Apollo got there.

Any time you want to tell us which technology didn't exist in the 1960's would be just fine.

You need to ask WHY it is not being done the same way as Apollo.

You say we have the technology to land man on the moon. The LM technology would be THE FOUNDATION in our development of advanced lunar landers.

Grumman built the LM. Forty years later, Grumman holds lunar lander contests?!?

Come on, man!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Do you ever check anything? Ever?

www.nasa.gov...

You might also want to look at how Orion planned to get to the moon, and see if it's the same as how Apollo got there.

Any time you want to tell us which technology didn't exist in the 1960's would be just fine.

You need to ask WHY it is not being done the same way as Apollo.

This is why you fail consistently at this discussion: you do not have any understanding of what is involved.

Because they need to deliver larger payloads. They need larger payloads because of the different mission objectives.. The Saturn V rocket is still the biggest rocket ever made to get the Apollo equipment to the moon. The practicalities of this makes it very difficult to do in the same way the Apollo missions were done. Orion is also intended to provide a launch platform for different types of mission, not just lunar landings. Th Saturn V was much more a single purpose rocket intended to get the CSM & LM out of Earth orbit to the moon. If you'd like to prove that isn't what it was designed for, or wasn't capable of doing it, then you just go right ahead and prove it to us all. That would be just super.

You say we have the technology to land man on the moon. The LM technology would be THE FOUNDATION in our development of advanced lunar landers.

Who says it isnn't the foundation? The Model T is the foundation of my car, but my car still needed a separate development programme to build it. Furthermore, not do I not only say we both have and had the technology, I can prove it. How about your contention that the technology wasn't up to it? Can you prove that? I can wait for you to do that or I can go ahead and raise a family in the hope that you'll have the answer ready in time for my great-grandkids.

Grumman built the LM. Forty years later, Grumman holds lunar lander contests?!?

Yes, they did. Do you have any evidence that the equipment wasn't capable of the job? As usual, you miss the point of the competition, which was to design equipment that did different things to the Apollo LM.

See if you can figure out what the difference is, it's all here:

lunarlander.xprize.org...

Come on, man!

Come on, man! Which technology didn't they have? Soon as you like.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Yes, a Cessna cannot carry 4 people.

How might they go about developing a new plane, to carry 4 people?

design a completely new aircraft called the cessna 172....... you obviously completely missed my point...

my point was that its no longer a cessna 152 that carries 4 people anymore is it?? the design rules for the 152 were NOT used to design the 172.. the loads are completely different and so would the centre of gravity, this would happen to affect the entire craft.. its pretty much an entirely NEW aircraft..

likewise with the lunar module.. the LM was designed specifically for ONLY ONE task.. what you are doing is changing the mission profile completely and expecting them to just cram in more people because thats what you would do so everyone should do the same..

only you would assume its a simple task because you dont understand the level of work engineers do..

Would they need to develop all-new technology from scratch, or use the Cessna technology as a base point?

because adding extra people adds weight.. material used for 2 people might have been strong enough to hold all the weight related to two people, but it wont support 4 people..

the lunar module was designed with very specific intentions.. something you dont understand.

Wright Brothers plane led to better planes. New planes were not being developed from scratch, with all-new technologies. Each was based on the previous planes.

Same as computers, etc. are not developed from scratch.

and?? orion is based off the apollo command module..

whats your point??

or are you trying to suggest that R&D doesnt cost a penny??

The LM should be used as a base point, for developing an advanced lunar lander.

i agree however it is funny you should say they should use the LM as a base point for a more advanced lunar lander..
do you know what is required for developing a more advanced lunar lander??

MONEY!!

So they ignore the LM, and have 'lunar lander contests'?

Now, do you get the problem?

the problem i get is that you dont understand anything engineering related..

the lunar module was designed with only ONE VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE.. i bet you wont know what this means..

originally posted by: turbonium1

Grumman built the LM. Forty years later, Grumman holds lunar lander contests?!?

its an innovation contest do you not understand its purpose??

some automakers use universities to design the cars of the future as contests.. are you trying to suggest that these automakers have been making fake cars for the last 100 years??

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

This is why you fail consistently at this discussion: you do not have any understanding of what is involved.

Because they need to deliver larger payloads. They need larger payloads because of the different mission objectives.. The Saturn V rocket is still the biggest rocket ever made to get the Apollo equipment to the moon. The practicalities of this makes it very difficult to do in the same way the Apollo missions were done. Orion is also intended to provide a launch platform for different types of mission, not just lunar landings. Th Saturn V was much more a single purpose rocket intended to get the CSM & LM out of Earth orbit to the moon. If you'd like to prove that isn't what it was designed for, or wasn't capable of doing it, then you just go right ahead and prove it to us all. That would be just super.

I'm happy to oblige...

Extended Lunar Surface Missions would begin in March 1970. Two to four Saturn V launches per year would be needed to support one to two surface missions a year.

Evolution to a lunar base would go from the basic Apollo hardware to AES (Apollo Extension Systems) to ALSS (Apollo Logistics Support System using the LEM Truck), and then LESA (Lunar Exploration System for Apollo). Modules developed for ALSS or LEM Truck could be used in LESA systems for commonality and to reduce development costs. The end result would be ever-expanding permanent stations on the moon.

www.astronautix.com...



They were planning to ADD other vehicles as it progressed, but the Saturn V was planned to be used throughout the entire program.

The Saturn V was (supposedly) designed for extended missions, and for building permanent moon bases.

Super, indeed!

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Who says it isnn't the foundation? The Model T is the foundation of my car, but my car still needed a separate development programme to build it.

You want to compare the LM to the Model T?

First of all, they didn't stop developing any cars for over 40 years (and counting).

Second, the Ford Motor Company didn't need to stage annual "Build Us a New Automobile" contests, and give million-dollar prizes for vehicles that don't even work.

Show me where they've used the LM technology as the foundation for developing new lunar landers... because I've never seen it.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Furthermore, not do I not only say we both have and had the technology, I can prove it. How about your contention that the technology wasn't up to it? Can you prove that? I can wait for you to do that or I can go ahead and raise a family in the hope that you'll have the answer ready in time for my great-grandkids.

You can prove we have the technology? Go right ahead, then.

To prove we DON'T have the technology is like proving flying pink elephants DON'T exist.

The claim is yours, so you need to prove your claim. It is not up to me to disprove your claim, if it's even possible.

If the technology existed, as claimed, and they went to the moon, as claimed, and wanted to return to the moon, as claimed, and planned to have similar missions to Apollo, as claimed, and planned to emphasize Apollo's "heritage technology" for those missions, as claimed....it would not have failed. Not 'smoking-gun' proof, but it sure makes a convincing argument. And it beats your case, hands down.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Second, the Ford Motor Company didn't need to stage annual "Build Us a New Automobile" contests, and give million-dollar prizes for vehicles that don't even work.

Ford and Lawrence Tech University (LTU) have again teamed up for a design competition asking prospecting students to reinterpret the Ford Cortina for the year 2030. The prizes include over $100,000 in scholarships.
www.carbodydesign.com...

i guess this means the ford were building fake cortinas.. or maybe they forgot how to build them..

originally posted by: turbonium1

They were planning to ADD other vehicles as it progressed, but the Saturn V was planned to be used throughout the entire program.

The Saturn V was (supposedly) designed for extended missions, and for building permanent moon bases.

One piece at a time, because of the limitations of the delivery method. Are you now claiming that the Saturn V was not capable of getting things to the moon because later missions planned on getting more things to the moon using the Saturn V? The system was still to do a 'launch and go' method to get straight to the moon, not launch to Earth orbit then go from there. See? Different approaches to getting to the moon.

If you read that page you'll notice that it talks about new equipment and technology several times, and the number of Saturn V launches would be huge. Gee, do you think this might be why they wanted to try and develop a different way of getting all that bigger heavier gear out of orbit and on to the moon and mars?

You want to compare the LM to the Model T?

First of all, they didn't stop developing any cars for over 40 years (and counting).

Second, the Ford Motor Company didn't need to stage annual "Build Us a New Automobile" contests, and give million-dollar prizes for vehicles that don't even work.

Precisely, they didn't stop developing the car. The produce concept cars. They try new technology and different designs. The basic idea is still 4 wheels and an engine. Are analogies too difficult for you to deal with?

Show me where they've used the LM technology as the foundation for developing new lunar landers... because I've never seen it.

I doubt you've looked, but if have and you can't see by looking at proposed new designs that the fundamental principles are the same, then you still haven't looked.

You can prove we have the technology? Go right ahead, then.

To prove we DON'T have the technology is like proving flying pink elephants DON'T exist.

The claim is yours, so you need to prove your claim. It is not up to me to disprove your claim, if it's even possible.

So you can't prove the technology didn't exist? Pretty dumb claim to make then isn't i?

You can look at all the archive footage of the technology in action, both in earth orbit, lunar orbit and all points in between. You can look at my website comparing the LRO images of that technology actually on the moon with photographs taken before it was on the moon. You can look at all the photographs of the technology on the moon by astronauts including time and date specific images of Earth. You can look at all the experimental data sent by the technology that went to the moon and returned data for several years after Apollo finished. I can tell you about the eyewitness accounts, both in print and in my presence, of the people that the technology sent to the moon and bought back. You can read all the technical documentation that explains the development and function of the technology. All of this is out there. Should be easy for you to find - especially my site it's in my sig.

You have brought nothing to support your contention that the technology did not exist.

If the technology existed, as claimed, and they went to the moon, as claimed, and wanted to return to the moon, as claimed, and planned to have similar missions to Apollo, as claimed, and planned to emphasize Apollo's "heritage technology" for those missions, as claimed....it would not have failed.

Where did it fail? We did go to the moon, all of the evidence supports it, none of your claims hold water. The fact that we have not been back is down to money, not equipment failure. You have never offered any evidence that the Apollo equipment could not or did not work, all you've done is droned about how it couldn't have without stating why.

Not 'smoking-gun' proof, but it sure makes a convincing argument. And it beats your case, hands down.

You've offered no proof, ever, other than "I don't understand what I am looking at".

Any time you want to list the technology that didn't exist would be just peachy.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Show me where they've used the LM technology as the foundation for developing new lunar landers... because I've never seen it.

There's the Altair Lunar Lander, which was in the preliminary design phase when the Constellation Program was cancelled in 2010 (Constellation was officially removed from the budget in 2011).

The Altair lander was similar in concept to the Apollo LM, but larger. It could take four astronaut's to the Moon's surface, rather than the two astronauts that the Apollo LM could accommodate. This planned lunar version would use similar fuels as the Apollo version -- hypergolic fuels, which are two-part fuels that react on contact, making for an extremely reliable and mechanically simple thrust system (reliability was key).



As the Constellation Program also potentially involved eventual manned missions to Mars, preliminary plans for the Mars version of the Altair included an ascent engine that worked with LOX/Methane fuel, and also included a Sabatier Reactor, with which the astronauts could potentially make their own methane fuel in situ while on Mars.

Constellation -- Altair Lunar lander Fact Sheet


Here is a link to a full report prepared in 2005 on the Architecture NASA planned to use for the now-defunct Constellation Program:

NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study -- Final Report (2005)

a reply to: turbonium1

The Saturn V was (supposedly) designed for extended missions, and for building permanent moon bases.

That's right and after permanent moon bases they were going to build a fleet of Saturn V for Mars in the 1980's. Both Wernher von Braun and Vice President Spiro Agnew were talking about it during the Apollo program. But the dream was cancelled by Nixon and NASA was ordered to stay in low earth orbit for 40+ years with the space shuttle decision (a decision very much influenced by Howard Hughes and his Mormon entourage, NASA administrator James Fletcher.) Every US president has since upheld the restriction. The Russians won't send a human being over 475km space altitude because they know the radiation will kill a human being or a monkey, any mammal, in fact, it is a Glass Ceiling.

Like all things that happened during Richard Nixon's first term we should remember the sage advice,

appearances can be deceiving.

It's not really possible to understand the meaning of "Apollo" without also considering the political will of president Nixon. Sure, it was Kennedy who set the goal, Johnson who set up the circumstances for scoring the goal but it was Nixon who actually scored it, six or seven times in a row. No other world leader had such great luck in space exploration. If we included the successful return of the Apollo 13 crew then - this highly unusual sequence of success is as unlikely as seven consecutive royal flushes in a Las Vegas high stakes poker game.

Conversely, Skylab 1 & 2 were nearly-deathtraps for astronauts. That was in Nixon's second term which is rarely, if ever, discussed on ATS.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: turbonium1

The Saturn V was (supposedly) designed for extended missions, and for building permanent moon bases.

That's right and after permanent moon bases they were going to build a fleet of Saturn V for Mars in the 1980's. Both Wernher von Braun and Vice President Spiro Agnew were talking about it during the Apollo program. But the dream was cancelled by Nixon and

The latter kind of explains why the former didn't happen.

NASA was ordered to stay in low earth orbit for 40+ years with the space shuttle decision (a decision very much influenced by Howard Hughes and his Mormon entourage, NASA administrator James Fletcher.)

Hughes had nothing to do with it, neither did anyone's religion.

Every US president has since upheld the restriction.

No, they have approved budgets. NASA has decided what to do with them.

The Russians won't send a human being over 475km space altitude because they know the radiation will kill a human being or a monkey, any mammal, in fact, it is a Glass Ceiling.

Repeatedly regurgitating unsupported garbage does not stop it from being unsupported garbage. There is no glass ceiling, the radiation is not fatal if properly shielded against, and you are being deliberately and disingenuously selective in your choice of biological payload to avoid mentioning the Soviet probes that sent organisms to the moon and back.

Like all things that happened during Richard Nixon's first term we should remember the sage advice,

appearances can be deceiving.

It's not really possible to understand the meaning of "Apollo" without also considering the political will of president Nixon.

Unless you aren't pathologically obsessed with Nixon.

Sure, it was Kennedy who set the goal, Johnson who set up the circumstances for scoring the goal but it was Nixon who actually scored it, six or seven times in a row. No other world leader had such great luck in space exploration. If we included the successful return of the Apollo 13 crew then - this highly unusual sequence of success is as unlikely as seven consecutive royal flushes in a Las Vegas high stakes poker game.

Conversely, Skylab 1 & 2 were nearly-deathtraps for astronauts.

So, projects set up by previous presidents worked, but Nixon's didn't? So? Proves nothing - never mind anything about Apollo.

That aside, Skylab was an extension of the programme turbonium has alluded to - which was set up before Nixon.

That was in Nixon's second term which is rarely, if ever, discussed on ATS.

Because no one cares.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter because they know the radiation will kill a human being or a monkey, any mammal, in fact, it is a Glass Ceiling.

unshielded, depends on exposure time..
shielded, depends on exposure time..

not a single soviet scientist has mentioned that it is absolutely impossible for humans to traverse the VAB..
not a single chinese scientist has mentioned that it is absolutely impossible for humans to traverse the VAB..

in fact not a single satellite launching capable nation has ever said that it is absolutely impossible to get humans past the VAB..

the only people that say that it is absolutely impossible are well known hoax theorists, so scientist of every nation are silenced and on an extremely short leash, watched 24/7 but hoax believers are allowed to do what they want even make a living from these claims..

the powers that be/illuminati/boogey man/richard nixons ghost, all know about these hoax believers and their claims as its their job to control the masses (apparently) but they just allow them all to make these wild claims to distract you "free thinkers" from real issues..

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The Russians won't send a human being over 475km space altitude because they know the radiation will kill a human being or a monkey, any mammal, in fact, it is a Glass Ceiling.

What a short memory you have! Remember E. E. Kovalev from this other thread? You know perfectly well that the only reason that Russians can only loft crewed missions into LEO is because they do not have a powerful enough booster. In fact, the Soyuz spacecraft was specifically designed for lunar missions.

a reply to: turbonium1

So If I understand you correctly you don't think apollo tech was used today?? Everything they used in apollo will be in the new craft parts have changed no longer use vacuum tubes. But everything still works the same from engine to oxygen scrubbers even Nasas space suits can be traced back to apollo.

Now as your comment of not being able to build apollo today your right. We can't stuff that was manufactured than no longer exists like vacuum tubes. You would have to create a plant to manufacture them costing far more than using a computer. so with tech uogrades new challenges are intruduced. Even cars today have many parts a model t never had. Why technology improves some things makes others obsolete. Even Rocket engines are more efficient today than they were than but also far more complicated.

If your soul argument for no lunar landings is technology changed that'd laughable.

Once the apollo 11 LEM landed on the moon which was tracked in detail by jordrall bank in england.

They then rested for six and a half hours.

Then they took the one great step for mankind which the world watched, and all that video came from austraila ?

Did the earth spin faster that day ??

SayonaraJupiter: That was in Nixon's second term which is rarely, if ever, discussed on ATS.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Because no one cares.

Well, that's just like, your opinion man.

a reply to: DJW001

The Russians have not been over 475km in space altitude. They made that record in 1965 and they haven't sent a human, monkey or mammal over 475km since 1965.

OBM is being disingenuous by mentioning "biological payloads".

Well, I highly recommend this to the Apollo Defenders: don't rely on the "biological payloads" argument because it's not valid.

Do you agree or disagree?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Please describe the "biological payloads" that the Russians sent through the Earth Radiation Belts.