Neil Armstrong: d. 25 August 2012 after coronary by-pass surgery (which should never have been attempted IMHO)
Buzz Aldrin: STILL WITH US, will be 88 on 20th Jan
Pete Conrad: d. 8 July 1999 after a motorcycle crash.
Al Bean: STILL WITH US, age 86
Al Shepard: d. 21 July 1998 from complications of leukemia
Ed Mitchell: d. 4 February 2016 under hospice care
Dave Scott: STILL WITH US, age 85
Jim Irwin: d. 8 August 1991 after a third heart attack, first of the Moonwalkers to die
John Young: d. yesterday, complications from pneumonia
Charlie Duke: STILL WITH US, age 82
Gene Cernan: d. 16 January 2017
Harrison "Jack" Schmitt: STILL WITH US, age 82
I have no personal memories of John Young to share, as I have of several other Moonwalkers (see this blogpost for my memoir of Armstrong.) I was accredited to STS-1 and was present at both the launch and landing, but never met its commander. But of course, he truly was a legend. Here's a nice obituary from CollectSpace.
As requested by Trekker, here's the tally for the Command Module Pilots, who stayed in lunar orbit while their luckier mates were cavorting on the surface. It's three down, three to go:
Michael Collins: STILL WITH US, age 88
Dick Gordon: d. last November 6
Stu Roosa: d. 1994 from complications of pancreatitis
Al Worden: STILL WITH US, age 86
Ken Mattingly: STILL WITH US, age 82
Ron Evans, d. 1990 of a heart attack in his sleep
You know those guys had the Right Stuff. It is not surprising that they lived long lives. I'm not going to be "triggered" if you say I am not as good as them.
Can you add the moon 'orbiters'? I know the 'walkers' get all the attention, but it's a pity to leave out those who spent days alone up there, never completely sure if they'd see their companions again.
Of the Apollo 13 crew, Lovell and Haise are still going. Jack Swigert died in 1982, so the first of the Apollo crews to go.
Thanks! Also, Young's cause of death is given as 'complications from pneumonia'.
And of the Apollo 10 crew, who also went to the moon, but didn't land, both Young and Cernan DID later get to land as members of Apollo 16 and 17 respectively, and Stafford is still alive.
Frank Borman and Bill Anders of Apollo 8 "Christmas round the Moon" are, amazingly, both still alive. Borman will be 90 in March. The third crewman of Apollo 8 was, of course, Lovell.
So Apollo 8 has the distinction of being the only mission whose entire crew is still alive and kicking. Long may they survive.
Ahem, actually Apollo 9 (Scott, McDivitt, Schweikart) shares that distinction although, of course, it didn't go to the Moon.
...and 14 is the only one whose entire crew has died.
Just goes to show that the van Allen Radiation Belts are a big hoax.
Or, something else is.
It's neither. The Van Allen belts were discovered 60 years ago and are a very well understood physical phenomenon. People who protest that human space travel through them is impossible simply don't understand about radiation.
Atleast you mentioned Apollo 13 in the comments section...Those guys just can't get a break
This is a reference to the deniers’ conspiratorial ‘NASA just admitted it can’t get through the Van Allen belts!’ claim, which, of course, they get totally wrong.
They latch onto ONE sentence from an interview with a NASA scientist discussing the Orion technology designed for missions up to 21 days long (and possibly even longer, if used on months-long missions to Mars), and take it out of context. What that scientist said was "Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation… We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space." What he DIDN’T let slip was that no human had ever before been through this region of space. What he DID say was different. He was talking about long-term trips through the most intense part of the belts, with modern, sensitive electronic equipment never before tested for endurance under lengthy exposure to radiation. The ‘deniers’ refuse to understand that a) the Apollo missions passed through the Van Allen belts in little over an hour with minimal harmful exposure to the astronauts, and b) the Apollo space craft, although technical miracles in the 1960s, were clunky work horses lacking the sophisticated miniature electronic technology of the 21st century. They contained no electronics that could be fried by one hour’s exposure to radiation. The deniers would be better off learning the context of that NASA scientist’s comment, rather than misinterpreting it to propagate the hoax and demonstrating their own ignorance for all to see.
Good point WildCard!
Since they all never walked on the Moon, they all deserve equal recognition.
Anyway, expat, I agree, that wasn't one of my better thought out comments.
Hoax was not the right word. Just as a James Bond movie is not a "hoax" per se, neither is the Apollo chapter of history. Partly real, just like the actors in the earlier JB movies, and partly fabricated, doesn't make it a hoax. So in that respect, you are correct.
But, as you are want to do, you missed my point once again:
How many of the Apollo astronauts have died of cancer? Maybe one, depending on your interpretation. Yet, they were exposed to more radiation in a few days than most people receive in a lifetime.
Never mind. That credible resource, the Clavius radiation primer, is so bold as to make this statement:
" The body will repair damage done to DNA or to other important molecules, although it will be sick in the meantime.
Ahhhh... maybe. Yes, DNA can "repair" itself. Will is another matter! That's why we have all been taught to be so concerned about sunburn and lots of other cancers, right!? Because the body "will repair" that damage, and melanoma and other skin cancers from sunburn is therefore just another capitalist hoax.
(Let's not mention cosmic rays, and let's not go into the accuracy and reliability of those 1960's "personal dosimeters" the astronauties supposedly wore, or the fact that Wikipedia blatantly contradicts that wonderful Clavius counter to the anti-lunar landings conspiracy theorists.)
Actually, Yeah, Nah. LET'S look at that.
Clavius (and numerous other places):
"The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. "
"The belts are confined to a volume which extends about 65° on either side of the celestial equator." [My emphasis]
The two sources don't even agree on which equator. Never mind. The Apollo crafties ducked around them. I DO accept that!
That'll be why NASA decided to build the Space Launch complex about as far South as was possible... To make sure it was as close to the middle of the VARBs as practicable!
" The Van Allen belts were discovered 60 years ago and are a very well understood physical phenomenon."
Yes, you are partly correct with 60 years, discovered in 1957 or 1958. That was the first two belts... The 3rd wasn't discovered until 2013.
In the light of that, to say they "are a very well understood physical phenomenon" is pushing your luck just a bit, don't you think?
FOR SURE, they were not at all well understood in 1963, only 5 years after discovering the inner two. Nor, in the 70's. Yeah, so NASA did some flights to test stuff. We know that about as reliably as we know men walked on the moon. There just wasn't time to do it all... End of reality, start of illusion.
But as I said here quite a while back, it doesn't matter if it was all a largely fabricated show. It achieved a great purpose. The end justified the means.
Blessed be the believers! They probably still have faith in the Government.
« ...they were exposed to more radiation in a few days than most people receive in a lifetime. »
Please see Table 2, Chapter 3 "Biomedical Results of Apollo". These dosages are roughly equivalent to a year's exposure for a worker at a nuclear power plant.
"We know that about as reliably as we know men walked on the moon."
Strange statement about probably the most highly documented exercise in exploration in human history. Many years in it's development, the data from which being processed by thousands of scientists for decades after the last mission left the lunar surface.
The evidences that any of are our parents are actually who they say they are is scant by comparison.
But if you say so...
John Young was always my favourite astronaut, Gemini, 2 Apollo moon missions and the first space Shuttle commander and pretty nifty test pilot.
Not so strange, really!
"Strange statement about probably the most highly documented exercise in exploration in human history."
To use (one of) Shakespeare's many famous lines, in the manner of its day:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I refer, of course, to NASA...
" Many years in it's development, the data from which being processed by thousands of scientists for decades after the last mission left the lunar surface."
Many years? Kicked off in earnest by the Russian success and America's embarrassment and egg-on-face at lagging so far behind, by the 1957 success of Sputnik, and given full impetus in Sept 1962 by Kennedy's "go to the moon" speech; for the intended goal, not enough time, especially given the technology of the day.
How many years development went into the, say, Boeing 777 which disappeared en route to Beijing a few years ago. It's here on Earth, and we still haven't found it. You want me to believe we sent men to the moon in a 1960's rocket, successfully went into orbit, detached the LM, slowed it and dropped out of orbit without going into a spin, descended to the surface and landed there (right on target) successfully, first time up, hopped out (without an air lock) in some highly riskily designed vacuum suits without incident or death, walked around, performed "experiments", picked up rocks, climbed back into that very odd, ugly, seemingly ill-conceived, Jerry-built-looking supposed Lunar Return module, successfully detached it from the Lander stage, took off, successfully re-gained Lunar orbit... in fact, the exact same orbit as the SM... then docked with the SM, clambered in, successfully separated it again, successfully fired the SM return rocket, successfully escaped Lunar Gravity in that big chunky (but beautiful) Service Module, successfully navigated perfectly on course back to Earth, successfully detached the CM, successfully descended through the upper atmosphere at the correct re-entry angle (again, without spinning or bouncing off), and successfully descended to a perfect splashdown right on target without cooking or suffocating the three lads... And that's just the short version.
Oh, I believe! Then, I look at all the dismal failures with sending unmanned, much, MUCH higher technology, computer-controlled landers to Mars, and I believe even more. Three big, fit, nuggetty "Right Stuff" astronauts to the Moon and back, complete with oxygen, temperature and pressure control. Not once, but SIX times, without a single catastrophic failure. I believe.
Then, I look at the much higher tech Space Shuttle failures, and once again, I believe...
Take me back to the '70's, for God's sake! Let me drive one of those lousy, unreliable, (points and capacitor ignition), low compression, high-pollutin', fuel guzzling, lastest technology V8 Yank Tank cars, and let me marvel at the sight of those astronauts blasting off from Earth, [going to the Moon and returning alive.] All on that fuzzy, vacuum tube (and steam) driven semi-colour TV set of the day. Yep, I would believe. And I would feel extremely pissed!
I'm not sure what data you refer to, but what real stuff did they "bring back"? Some moon rocks?
As we well know, and have discussed here earlier, many many meteorites have come to Earth from the Moon, by natural means. A few even came (and come) from Mars, by a similar natural mechanism. Many, many were already here, long before we thought about going to the moon. We clearly don't need Apollo missions to be able to round up a few small collections of genuine moon rocks. So, what, really did they genuinely "bring back" that wasn't already here?
Some odd photos and some even odder movie films? What else?
What do YOU say?
« You want me to believe... [..bla bla semi-accurate account of Apollo mission profile..] And that's just the short version. »
Yes, that's what we enthusiasts celebrate.
I'm totally on the fence with the Moon landings. The video of kicking up dust seems legit. But there is another video where a hammer was making noise on the moon! Not possible! It is making me Schizo!
As I'm "still in orbit", let me burn a little more oxygen...
Actually, (Ivan,) I think it's very simple.
The Scientific Method requires that "scientific claims" can be verified by others.
However, the Apollo missions are not scientific claims. They are political statements. The same rules do not apply.
Further, the experiments have never been repeated by anyone else, not even the Russians. Only by the group called NASA. So, we are forced to rely on a single source, with next to no independent data. It cannot be subject to true scientific scrutiny.
So, all argument based purely on what NASA said / says, is pointless.
We cannot use the Scientific Method as such, and scientists won't contradict the political statement, because it would cost them their careers (through political power, this being a political hot potato).
However, we can use modern scientific knowledge and hindsight to see if it is even plausible...
I say it isn't, as in the previous post.
On the subject of belief... In order to consider the possibility that it didn't happen, you have to suspend your belief that it did happen. That, I'm sure, is the hardest part of the whole proposal.
Speaking for myself, when I was young, I believed what I was told and what I heard on the news, and what I was taught in school. I was a believer. I guess you followed the same path?
However, later, I learned more about reality, and followed the scientific method very closely. In the process, I questioned much of what I believed. As a result, I am no longer a believer that Apollo astronauts went to the moon.
I don't know about you, but I now believe that I have "seen both sides" of the debate - since that is effectively what it is. Political debate. It's not science. I guess therefore, it's really pseudoscience, so qualifies for serious debate (ok, mocking!) here.
As for my parentage, we now have DNA analysis which would be able to confirm that either way, if that's what you meant? That said, there are of course, many cases where that just is not necessary... A certain young prince springs to mind, but expat might object if I go any further with that!
I believe the hammer sound is explained by physical transmission through hand/arm/spacesuit to helmet mic.
Don't worry about that one.
Look at those footprints (and the dust).
Millions of years, baking in the hot sun. No atmosphere - even fresh sand without air doesn't take footprints lightly.
They will tell you the dust particles on the moon are a different shape, since they supposedly weren't created by water action, so are more pointed and accept footprints differently from sand.
So track down the MothBasters episode where they stamp a Moon Boot into supposedly lunar equivalent dust under vacuum, and see what a lousy footprint results. But, being MothBasters, of course, it was proof!
George again. Also look at the movie from A16 I think, expat knows it, showing the 'naut riding the Rover. Check out his left arm (motion, position), and tell me that's realistic!
The genesis of Apollo was indeed political. However, the politics was all over as soon as the crew of Apollo 11 came on board USS Hornet. United States supremacy in spaceflight had been demonstrated, and Kennedy's 1961 challenge had been met, with five months to spare. There was absolutely no political reason to continue with (as planned) nine more expeditions. So to write the whole program off as "nothing but politics" is a comprehensive misunderstanding.
It is also true that several meteorites of lunar origin are available for study, but they cannot compare with specimens hand-picked by trained people who can also document their exact context. It is also a misunderstanding to state that Apollo lunar science does not qualify as such because the experiment is not repeatable. The moonrocks were cut into specimens, and those specimens in many cases were distributed to more than one lab for analysis. So the conclusions of lab A were either confirmed or falsified by labs B and C. As late as 2011 the glass microspheres retrieved from crater Shorty by Apollo 17 were still telling us a new story about the history of the Moon and its water. That's just one example.
Apollo was an almost unqualified triumph of engineering and of engineering management. Our commenter 2% seems to think that its very success makes it not credible. I have the advantage of 2%, however, in that I have actually met and interviewed many of the key people in Apollo engineering and management, so I have been able to form a personal opinion about their skills and integrity.
I wrote "almost unqualified," and that's worth expanding a bit. When you put a thermostat rated for 28V in a 65V circuit, you get Apollo 13. When you make a very subtle wrong assumption in programming the LM computer, you get the executive overload alarms that almost got the first landing aborted. As a matter of fact, every single mission had some kind of technical failure, if only something trivial like cracked glass on an instrument. The astronauts made several navigation mistakes but flight directors were always there to correct them. These are the realities.
Different views are acceptable, obviously.
Accordingly, I wish to dispute a number of your latest points.
" However, the politics was all over as soon as the crew of Apollo 11 came on board USS Hornet. "
Really!? You're making this up!
As the raging debates on the Internet and elsewhere clearly evidence, this argument may never be over. And certainly, if, as I and many others say, it was faked, then it was vital that the truth not be exposed for many years, since its primary purpose was to keep the Russians at bay. Letting it be known that it was, ahh, actually, faked, would have had the exact opposite of the desired effect, so it HAD to be upheld as real, whether it was or not.
So, the politics ABSOLUTELY did not end when the astronauts boarded the Hornet.
"United States supremacy in spaceflight had been demonstrated, and Kennedy's 1961 challenge had been met, "
Apparently. That's what really mattered, but appearances are often deceiving, as many a guy meeting a beautiful woman has later realised.
"There was absolutely no political reason to continue with (as planned) nine more expeditions. "
I think you are exaggerating, incorrectly, with "absolutely no political reason to continue". Not sure when the phrase was first coined, but as the song goes, "Once is never enough." As they say, politics is complicated. And governments and politicians are invariably corrupt, as Lord Acton so aptly observed.
So, there are many possible reasons why the program "needed" to continue beyond a mere one. The opportunity to cash in on the taxpayer's enthusiasm for it would have to be one. Kennedy's memory was probably another. Maybe America even felt a public guilt over his assassination, which it tried to assuage with more "landings" in his honor. Politics has many facets, and reviving a flagging American spirit was undoubtedly another. "We are the Greatest" and all that... Once was hardly enough to confirm that, especially if the Russians were in reality, not far behind.
"So to write the whole program off as "nothing but politics" is a comprehensive misunderstanding."
Not guilty. To whom do you refer?
I won't bother too much with your NASA-supplied anecdotes, as they are simply that. No way to confirm or deny, so senseless discussing.
It makes not an iota of difference whether a "moon rock" came from crater Shorty, or another 1,000 miles away. We know that meteorite impacts with the moon redistribute lumps of lunar rock "all over the place", from the moon, to Earth and "beyond", with most of the lunar escapees no doubt eventually falling into the sun. The rest of what you say really applies, whether the rock arrived on Earth naturally, or, as you would have it, via Apollo, so confirms nothing and is an example of, well, nothing.
As for: " I have the advantage of 2%, however, in that I have actually met and interviewed many of the key people in Apollo engineering and management, so I have been able to form a personal opinion about their skills and integrity."
Thanks! It's nice to be considered an advantage, but I'm certain that's NOT what you meant!
From a science perspective, I consider that (personal involvement) a grave disadvantage! The personal component makes it that much harder to suspend your belief. That, I think, is part of the secret of creating belief in the first place. Even God figured that out, eventually, when a couple of stone tablets didn't cut it, and he sent Jesus Christ himself to personally deliver the message.
I'm not questioning your perceptions of the people you met. However, let's consider this: There is no better way to get a great performance out of an actor than to have him believe that it's not an act, but that it's real! At that point, the actor is not an actor but a participant. I put it to you that you are in exactly the same position. You might have thought you were a science journalist...
As many others have also said, a decision to "fake it" by NASA chiefs and/or the relevant politicians need not have been widely known. Most of the contractors and sub-contractors need never have known. So long as they got paid, what would they care? But I'll bet a lot of them ran into "inexplicable obstinence" when coming back to NASA with suggestions to improve upon designs.
Likewise, most of the staff need never have known. They would therefore make very convincing interview subjects.
"These are the realities."
Surely, realities you cannot prove are simply beliefs?
(I know, it's not a nice thing to say. But neither, IMHO, is asserting that beliefs are realities, as most religions tend to do. Therefore, Apollo might be more like a religion... A pseudoscience-based religion at that.)
Not much of that is worth responding to, but I'll give you a couple:
« It makes not an iota of difference whether a "moon rock" came from crater Shorty, or another 1,000 miles away. »
Oh dear. You don't know much about geology, do you? Context is extremely important, that's the point.
« Likewise, most of the staff need never have known. They would therefore make very convincing interview subjects »
Poppycock. Sheer ignorance.
I believe the hammer sound is explained by physical transmission through hand/arm/spacesuit to helmet mic.
He threw a hammer at the LEM and it made a noise! Not conducting sound through his arm. I think this was either Apollo 14 or 15.
I can't find the Video of the hammer being thrown (I think it was accidental) and striking the LEM. I won't decide until I find that clip again. Of course, that video could be faked also.
I saw this on Youtube:
Do some searching before you make such a statement, because there are several vids on Youtube showing items being thrown by astronauts and you can clearly hear the sound of those objects hitting things like the side of the LEM. Don't come back with something like, the LEM was full of air and the mic inside switched on because it's been proven the LEM was emptied of air to allow the astronauts to go outside and the mic was off!
I can't find the Video. Someone must have downloaded it tho.
George, I totally don't believe anyone threw a hammer at the LM, that would have been beyond foolish. Could you be badly remembering the Apollo 15 hammer & feather demo? (which by the way is a problem for the Apollo hoax theorists).
No, this was a video of the Astronauts outside the LEM doing their activity. Perhaps in this the audio was over-dubbed by a nefarious actor. I have been Googling for it but not getting any hits.
There would be two versions out there if one was faked with over-dubbed audio. I am looking for either, of course, and I think it was A15 or A14.
I think a Wrench was being used and it slipped, striking the LEM. I don't remember the Lunar Rover being there, so it could be A14.
I found this on Google: Apollo hoax evidence_audio analysis a16v 1432159
This is not what I was looking for, but it does support the Lunar landing skeptics.
"Context is extremely important, that's the point."
Oh, Yeah! In the context of science, that is true.
But, as discussed, this is politics, trying to (mis)use science to lend it credibility. In this context, where the provenance of said rocks is so suspect, they are more curios and items of academic curiosity than credible lunar-landing evidence.
Anyway, George's points are far more interesting. Expat, are you not familiar with the oddities of human behaviour in certain, especially intellectually conflicted, circumstances? Like when actors are being asked to perform a particularly absurd, serious or difficult scene? It is common for the actors to suddenly, almost simultaneously "lose control" and break down into collective fits of laughter and hysterics, where production simply cannot continue until they have laughed themselves out, and are able to get serious again.
A lot of what George refers to points to exactly this type of situation. The 'nauts are overcome by the absurdity of the whole thing, and start "acting up". Throwing hammers at their precious "only means of escape", sitting there on the floor of the set, would be an example of such behaviour.
Yes, it WOULD have been "beyond foolish" if it were on the Moon, but perfectly appropriate for actors on a set in Hollywood. I wouldn't mind betting that NASA "lost" whole rolls of such film, marred by such hi-jinx, but had to be left with something, so some of these "slips" slipped through.
It reminds me of a movie I watched many years ago. I think it was 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off,' but a skim of the plot suggests not. In the movie I'm thinking of, the "lads" had a corpse. They performed all manner of indignities on it, including taking it water skiing, joking with and talking to it insultingly, and setting in it all manner of hilarious poses. Actually, I thought it was hilarious at the time.
One classic Apollo example is the movie clip where one 'nautie instructs the other to "push down on his helmet" to help him get up. The subject 'nautie appears to be hanging in mid-air, such that pushing his helmet down lifts his feet. The actors would have had intellectual difficulty with the fact that they were part of an enormous fraud, despite being hidden inside anonymity suits.
I'm betting hammers hurled at the LM also happened. They were probably only rubber hammers or hollow props anyway.
I may regret this but I'll try a couple of questions on you, 2%:
- Where do you say the Apollo astronauts actually were when they were allegedly on the Moon?
- Do you say the spacecraft, or any part of it, actually reached the Moon, either in orbit or landed?
"I may regret this but I'll try a couple of questions on you, 2%:"
;-) It's an honor. Thank you.
But this may be a patchwork, having had numerous interruptions.
"- Where do you say the Apollo astronauts actually were when they were allegedly on the Moon?"
Somewhere within the space contained (constrained, if you prefer) by (i.e. "lower than") the van Allen radiation belts.
Possibly in Earth orbit, but in the circumstances, I find that EXTREMELY unlikely. In other words, still here on Terra Firma. Where it was safe. Were they could not be killed (easily) by an Apollo Systemic Failure.
"- Do you say the spacecraft, or any part of it, actually reached the Moon, either in orbit or landed?"
You mean, you admit, there was only one!? Which one? ... Ok, let's go with 'them'.
Even so, that's a tricky question.
I believe some unmanned Apollo or earlier spacecraft "reached" the Moon. I'm fairly sure, went into orbit. Some photos were returned. My reason for thinking this is that some of those photos contained images that defy "proper explanation".
Landed? As in controlled landing, in 1969, or the '70's? Given the Mars lander failures, and the "flying" bedstead crash, extremely unlikely. Elon Musk and co, were, I think the first to land a rocket tail first, in 2015.
One of the real problems I have with the whole LEM(on) story is the windows. Flying is hard enough. Flying almost blind. By hand. In 1969. On a plume of rocket exhaust. In a much lower gravitational field. In something not so different from the flying bedstead. In a completely alien environment, with completely unfamiliar surroundings, that you can scarcely see anyway. I say, not possible.
Why? Because the windows were wrong. ;-)
Armstrong couldn't fly the bedstead, with full visibility, a few feet off the ground. But he could fly, and land the LEM on the moon, almost blindfolded, despite clamouring alarms and all the rest of it.
Expect me to believe that Six 'nautie pilots did it on the Moon, without mishap?
Just do a bit of research into commercial plane crashes. Those guys have had hundreds if not thousands of hours of training. In real planes and realistic simulators. They have approach beacons which tell them if they are on the correct glide path. They have ATCs supporting them were required. Cor Blimey! They even have ILS. And modern, highly sophisticated, high-speed computer control systems, which can do the job for them if they choose to let them. And still they sometimes crash their planes by pilot error.
The Apollo 'nauties had none of those advantages.
Worse still, it's not, as in a plane, gliding flight, which is relatively controllable.
It's vertical DESCENT, on a highly unstable rocket plume. Very unnatural, for humans. Kinda like backing up to the toilet bowl.
I say unstable because, in descent, it inherently exhibits massive positive feedback. Point the lander just a little bit to the right, and the rocket will cause it to immediately start pitching to the right, making the problem rapidly worse. Exactly as we saw with Armstrong trying to fly the bedstead. Highly unstable, with very rapid, catastrophic loss of control.
Funny how that problem got glossed over with various BS but basically irrelevant "explanations." The easiest solution was what they did. Stop trying to fly the bedstead. Don't mention it. Gloss over it. Cover up our gross miscalculation. Out of sight, out of mind. We don't need to perfect it, as we won't be landing on the moon anytime soon.
For those who don't quite understand the physics of it, there are a number of very good reasons why cars only have one, low speed, reverse gear. Imagine this: Your modified car is capable of travelling 100MPH in Reverse. The steering is unchanged. How fast are you willing to go, in reverse, down a tree-lined road? Even, on the Bonneville Salt Flats? ANyone who has tried high-speed reversing knows how careful you have to be. Just a little too much steering and you will very rapidly and irrecoverably lose control. And spin. And become completely disorientated, with no idea of how to correct it. Your foot will very suddenly find the brake pedal in the hope that you can save yourself.
And that's on a hard surface. Where the response is immediate, and predictable.
Try it in the air. As Armstrong did... Vacuum, anyone?
One of the most obvious problems with the LEM is that it was short and fat, exacerbating its dynamic instability. Try balancing a broomstick on your finger. Easy, right, because it's long, and has a lot of angular momentum for its mass (weight), so doesn't tip over quickly. You have time to respond, and correct its fall.
Now, swap the broomstick for an orange. Probably much lighter, but can you do it?
Spacex / Falcon 9 could do it, (using 21st century digital electronics) because the rocket was long, and they had high-speed, advanced computer control systems doing the steering. Even then, it took a number of attempts.
Armstrong very quickly found that he couldn't do it with the bedstead. Knowing how skilled Armstrong allegedly was, that probably means it couldn't be done. By a mere human.
Multiple GHz 64-bit CPUs apparently can, with the right practice, programming and control hardware. But I don't believe they were around in 1969. Hell, the transistor was only invented in 1947, and 20 years later, they were still big, power hungry, and SLOW.
Therefore I say, it couldn't have been done in 1969. By man nor machine.
That's a problem...
Hope I've met your expectations!?
Moon landings hoax - Sounds in Vacuum
Millions of people don't believe in Moon landings, but the Videos are hard to find. These videos are being scrubbed from the interwebs. But you can find reams and reams of Flat-Earth Tarded Videos. Because it makes every Netizen seem like "another Conspiritard".
« Where it was safe. Were they could not be killed (easily) by an Apollo Systemic Failure. »
Well then you have a problem. Throughout the ten+ days of the missions, you have to arrange for their voices (in some cases with distinctive accents, think Charlie Duke) to be received by mission control. Sitting comfortably on Earth won't do, nor will Earth orbit. The comms have to be received by one of the three 80ft dishes at Madrid, Goldstone and Parkes as the planet turns. Dozens of technicians at those sites would have known if the S-band signal was not coming from the direction of the Moon. In addition, if after climbing into the CM in full view of the public, they then climbed out again and went for safety, dozens (possibly hundreds) of staff would have known about that.
« Armstrong couldn't fly the bedstead, with full visibility, a few feet off the ground »
Yes he could, and so could all the other commanders. There were 3 LLVs and only one of them crashed. Once.
« I say unstable because, in descent, it inherently exhibits massive positive feedback. Point the lander just a little bit to the right, and the rocket will cause it to immediately start pitching to the right, making the problem rapidly worse. »
I suppose you would claim that the unmanned Moon landers Surveyors 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 didn't soft-land either. You have to contend with the fact that parts from Surveyor 3 were actually returned to Earth by the crew of Apollo 12. They're identifiable, by hundreds of engineers from both NASA and Hughes Aircraft.
« ANyone who has tried high-speed reversing knows how careful you have to be. Just a little too much steering and you will very rapidly and irrecoverably lose control. And spin. And become completely disorientated, with no idea of how to correct it. »
Ever see that movie Smokey and the Bandit? In which Hollywood stunt drivers drive backwards at about 40mph? IT'S A SKILL.
Remember all those screens in Mission Control? 40 in all, I think. Every one of them has to display coherent and plausible data for every second of ten days. I can't now remember how many telemetry channels were in the Unified S-band signal, it was something like 128 for the CM, 256 for the LM. The LM had to have more because once the astronauts were outside there was separate telemetry from each of them in addition to the spacecraft itself.
If this humungous data stream was faked, who did the faking and where were they? Was it a tight little clique of only those in the know--say, the NASA Administrator and Deputy? The very idea makes me smile. Well, LOL actually. How many people do you think it would take to program, install and implement such a scheme? Again, the data stream MUST arrive from the direction of the Moon.
Lest you should think the whole scheme could have been pre-programmed, please take note of the fact that the landings were not precisely as scheduled. Here are the divergences:
Nominal Actual Divergence
11 102:47 102:46 -00:01
12 110:39 110:33 -00:06
14 108:53 108:15 -00:38
15 104:41 104:42 +00:01
16 98:46 104:30 +05:43
17 113:01 110:22 -02:39
2%, your contention that only a small number of staff need have known about the fakery lies in ruins.
Trying again with that tabulation:
All kinds of sounds were recorded during the Apollo Missions that should NOT have been heard! Alan Bean even commented with "I should not be able to hear that hammer".
Geroge: I searched the Apollo 12 transcripts and didn't find that. There was a lot of chit-chat about the hammer used to drive core tubes in, but nothing about the sound.
"2%, your contention that only a small number of staff need have known about the fakery lies in ruins."
Don't be congratulating yo'self too soon, ol' chap.
If ya can't make it, fake it. And lie about it.
My "contention" was not as you quote. What I said was:
As many others have also said, a decision to "fake it" by NASA chiefs and/or the relevant politicians need not have been widely known. Most of the contractors and sub-contractors need never have known. .... Likewise, most of the staff need never have known.
"[M]ost" in this binary context of "know" or "not know" means greater than half are in the "not know" group.. That means a substantial number of staff could have known. Not, as you say, a small number.
Note that I don't include contractors and sub-contractors among the "staff" or the "knows" because there was no "need to know" as the term goes.
As for the rest. Well, for one, you still haven't solved the single source problem.
All your information, as far as I can see, comes from NASA. If NASA was prepared to commit to lying and faking all the Apollo missions, then of course, it must still committed to that decision. So, whatever evidence is "needed" to convince the skeptics is still able to be "located". What is the point of asking a liar to prove anything they have said? You'll go round in circles forever.
Your "Divergences" therefore prove nothing, except, perhaps, false precision. I hope they take all the relevant navigation errors, course corrections and resulting delays, not to mention limited human precision (reaction times, coordination errors, etc) into account, lest someone be able to prove they must be fake.
Now, for the proof that the 'nauties couldn't have been on Earth because they had to be at the Moon...
Good try. No cigar!
On the basis of your beliefs, it was possible to send voice signals by radio, both to the SM/CM orbiting the moon, and back. (When in 'sight', of course.)
So, here's one simpler option (than sending living, breathing blokes). Since I'm faking this landing, I set up the CM radio receiver/transmitter as a signal relay before we launch the unmanned ship to the moon. Then, I collect the lads in the studio at the right times, and have them in suits or whatever as required, talking as if they are really there, doin' it. Transmit that via a different radio dish to the moon. Hello, Hello? Is that the 'nauts I hear...?
They must be really there!
That's just one possibility. That involves a lot of probably completely unnecessary trouble and hassle. There were much simpler, easier ways around it, like Absolute Secrecy undertakings.
Black Ops are not that new, of course. Speaking of which, there were at least a dozen US satellites launched (still in orbit??) by 1969. Check out Project SCORE from 1958, on Wikipedia for some possibilities. Multiple Terrestrial Radio Dishes may not have been the only option for solving the rotating Earth issues.
Besides, the (very small numbers of) people at Madrid, Goldstone and Parkes may well have known the signals weren't coming from where they expected... The issues are NO DIFFERENT. And all under the NASA umbrella.
If they were that bothered about were the signals actually came from. Shit, maybe they never really left the studio - until piped to the Public Broadcast network. Again, the issues are NO DIFFERENT. And all under the NASA umbrella.
Unfortunately, I have not researched the Surveyor stories so can't comment on them, but it is interesting that the Surveyors we supposedly so successful but we couldn't robotically soft-land on Mars first, second, (how many times?) so many years later, with MUCH more advanced technology. Isn't that, rather curious"? Technology went very badly backwards...
As for the returned parts - again, all under NASA's umbrella. How many of the "returned" parts were made in the first place? Who really knows? Magic tricks are invariably very simple, when you understand how they are done...
Oh, I can't overlook Smokey and the Bandit. Don't recall seeing it; may have, but certainly don't remember seeing the speedo needle showing -40MPH. And I guess they didn't have variable speed movie cameras in those days. But, Yes, I do believe everything I see in the movies. But only 40MPH? I allowed for 100...
Besides, proving that an illustrative analogy may be false isn't good logic. (Actually, it's terrible, egg-on-the-face material.) It still doesn't prove that the thing it was attempting to illustrate is false.
Now, let's whip out Ockham's Razor for a quick stropping.
"a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian. His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected or when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. "
I don't think he would mind if we substitute beliefs for hypotheses, here.
You believe men went to the moon in Apollo, landed and walked on it. I believe they didn't.
To get men to the moon and back alive would take a real shipload of vital equipment, all of which would have to work for them to achieve it, and survive.
As I understand it, the real, calculated probability of success (not sure which Apollo mission) was in the order of 1 in 500. VERY, VERY high risk of failure.
To keep 'em on the ground, and make a movie of it (especially when movie making was already a well-established (Smokey) industry) would require MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less equipment, hassle, risk and expense. The chances of being able to pull it off, very close to 100%, as history shows us.
Now, recalling that this was a Political enterprise, I can tell you with about the same certainty, which one the politicians would have chosen.
The same one as Ockham's Razor would have left alive.
Finally, expat, a question for you.
There is a famous, fabulous photo of the Service Module, pictured shining in silver livery with the moon's surface as the entire backdrop. This, I understand, was taken from the LEM.
Can you reiterate how and when this photo was taken, please?
« I set up the CM radio receiver/transmitter as a signal relay before we launch the unmanned ship to the moon. Then, I collect the lads in the studio at the right times, and have them in suits or whatever as required, talking as if they are really there, doin' it. Transmit that via a different radio dish to the moon. Hello, Hello? Is that the 'nauts I hear...? »
It won't work. You could never get the signal transit time right. Think about it.
« There is a famous, fabulous photo of the Service Module, pictured shining in silver livery with the moon's surface as the entire backdrop. This, I understand, was taken from the LEM.
Can you reiterate how and when this photo was taken, please? »
You'll have to provide a link to the pic.
Dave Scott shot a whole series of stills during the rendezvous after return to lunar orbit. They're on mag #88, frames 11967-11977. Might you be meaning one of them?
This one, for example?
Scenes that show Sounds were quietly scrubbed from the Net. I guess transcripts too!
See Apollo 15 Mission Log at 120:52:17
"It won't work. You could never get the signal transit time right. Think about it."
I don't see why not. Signal transit time - relative to what? (Oh, you mean wrt those lunar grandstand spectators we talked about before?) I did think about it, and don't see anything insurmountable, or even very difficult. Except for SM battery power...
"This one, for example?"
Not that one. Funny thing is, I can't find the one I want any more. As George suggested, maybe it got "purged".
The shot I recall doesn't show the module's "lunch". Full covers. And as I recall, there is no sky in the shot, like it's looking down upon the SM, with the lunar surface below. In the shot I recall, the SM is orientated "horizontally" (lengthwise, side-on, East-West) across my computer screen.
Anyone else recall it?
Maybe NASA realised the fatal flaw in that image and has "recalled" it!?
Dear old 2%
A little refutation.
"As many others have also said, a decision to "fake it" by NASA chiefs and/or the relevant politicians need not have been widely known. Most of the contractors and sub-contractors need never have known. .... Likewise, most of the staff need never have known."
However for all required elements of the "hoax" to work, a far greater number of people, than the decision makers, would be exposed to the data from Apollo, who would have the knowledge to see it as questionable.
If the fakery is as filled with holes in as you protest, surely the literally hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists, who have come along during and since Apollo would be a problem. Individuals who have knowledge of the events of the Apollo missions and the education to see the “holes” in them, if they really existed.
Why aren’t there hoards of such engineers and scientists, even those from competing nations, screaming “shenanigans” while waving a PhD in one hand and hard data in the other?
"Unfortunately, I have not researched the Surveyor stories so can't comment on them, but it is interesting that the Surveyors we supposedly so successful but we couldn't robotically soft-land on Mars first, second, (how many times?) so many years later, with MUCH more advanced technology. Isn't that, rather curious"? Technology went very badly backwards..."
Not exactly an “apples for apples” comparison. The differences in gravity, atmosphere and distance from Earth make the Moon and Mars very different landing propositions. Additionally NASA's first two Mars landing attempts (Viking 1 and 2) were successful, as were the majority of those that followed them, even with the significantly more difficult problems of landing on that world, compared with those of the Moon.
Further more, other nations have made robotic landings on the moon, both before and after Surveyor and Apollo.
"As I understand it, the real, calculated probability of success (not sure which Apollo mission) was in the order of 1 in 500. VERY, VERY high risk of failure."
That is an extraordinarily high risk ratio for any endeavour, someone leaping off a 10 storey building probably has a higher chance of survival than that.
So given it's such an extraordinary claim, I have to ask, "citation please".
"To keep 'em on the ground, and make a movie of it (especially when movie making was already a well-established..."
Ah yes, the old "it would be easier to fake it" argument, which ignores the technical impossibility at the time to do so, in anything like a convincing way. The height of this form of cinematic effects at the time would have been 2001: A space Odyssey and its depiction of movement and lighting in space and low gravity environments were far too low to be truly believable.
Even throwing in some spurious "secret movie tech" held by the US government wouldn't cut it, as even today the depiction of zero and low G environments is hardly 100% realistic. Just take a look at any recent movie that depicts these and then compare it with video from the ISS.
... and to continue.
"One of the most obvious problems with the LEM is that it was short and fat, exacerbating its dynamic instability. Try balancing a broomstick on your finger. Easy, right, because it's long, and has a lot of angular momentum for its mass (weight), so doesn't tip over quickly. You have time to respond, and correct its fall."
Actually that is completely incorrect, the last thing you would want as a lander is a tall thin vehicle, as this would have significant stability problems when landing on anything other than a perfectly flat surface (the last time I checked the moon was a bit bumpy). For a lander you want the centre of mass as close to the ground as possible, while not compromising the performance of the vehicle in flight.
Additionally, your argument is nonsensical, as surely NASA would have created the most likely looking vehicle to be successful, not one which decades later, a commenter on a forum could say "broomstick balancing" and their whole house of cards folds.
Strangely this “short and fat” ratio has been followed by every lander, sent by every nation, to every body in the solar system, before during and after Apollo.
Perhaps that’s because it actually works.
I'm sure that even you would have to agree that the many billions of dollars spent on the Apollo program, should have attracted a total engineering talent that is greater than yours.
Unless you happen to secretly be Tony Stark.
TP: "If they were that bothered about were the signals actually came from"
That comment shows you've failed to understand, or wilfully ignored, the problem caused by your belief that they were elsewhere. Being bothered doesn't enter into it; it's a requirement of the physics.
Faking it would involve the cost of these radio facilities as well as the sworn silence of many people who were expecting to see communications on those dishes at the right times as a result of the physics of the radio waves coming from all points along the journey from Earth to Moon and back.
And that's dwarfed by the cost and risk of having just ONE single person of the 400,000 people involved (perhaps expat can confirm that number, I looked it up) blab about it all being fake and giving some evidence to prove it. Imagine how famous they would be! It's hard enough to get people to stay quiet in a relatively small organisation. Look at Edward Snowden's revelations, with evidence, from one of the most secretive organisations around.
Yet you would have us believe that NASA somehow controls nearly half a million people, stops them from talking about their unexpected experiences during Apollo 11 and spent a fortune on working sites which were just for show.
This video perfectly sums up your clueless ideas.
TP: "Maybe NASA realised the fatal flaw in that image and has "recalled" it!?"
Curious that just one post ago you were in love with Occam's razor, and now here you are with a choice of:
a) NASA faked the Moon landings at great cost, somehow surmounting huge technical obstacles to pull it off, somehow controlling hundreds of thousands of people to stay silent, somehow removing all available evidence of the conspiracy, and somehow forcing unknown numbers of third-parties outside of their control to remove publicly available incriminating images just in the nick of time to prevent the whole charade from unravelling decades later.
b) You're wrong.
Go on, have another go with that Occam's razor.
120:52:17 Irwin: (Still at the MESA) You can tell, Joe, I have the geopallet on the back end of the Rover. I don't know whether it's locked on there properly yet.
How is this relevant?
I must have imagined what I saw. I bet you don't have a link to an actual video!
I think this covers it.
1 minute 45 seconds in - thrown object hits LEM, makes noise! LEM was also depressurized, so no "mic in LEM" picked it up!
The Moon is a substantial distance away, yet I hear Houston and A15 talking with minimal delay. They should be a delay of about 2 seconds. There seems to be only 1 second of delay near the end of that Video.
There should be 4 seconds of delay! 2 seconds there, 2 seconds back to Houston!
"The Moon is a substantial distance away, yet I hear Houston and A15 talking with minimal delay. They should be a delay of about 2 seconds. There seems to be only 1 second of delay near the end of that Video."
Very good point, George.
The distance to the moon is about 380,000km. The speed of light is about 300,000km/s.
So, over a second each way for a normal radio signal. Plus "processing time" while the distant speaker formulates a response before speaking. And, possibly, relay times here on earth, from Parkes or wherever, to Houston.
Thus, Signal Transit Time (as mentioned above by expat) there and back (disregarding Earth relay delays), would be 760/300 ~= 2.5 seconds. Likely verbal communications delay therefore at least 3 seconds.
So, elaborating for Ivan and Chris, in response to a 'naut on the moon's statement, it would take at least 3 seconds for him to get a response from Houston. Slightly less possibly, from a lightning quick thinker in Houston.
""One of the most obvious problems with the LEM is that it was short and fat, exacerbating its dynamic instability. Try balancing a broomstick on your finger. Easy, right, because it's long, and has a lot of angular momentum for its mass (weight), so doesn't tip over quickly. You have time to respond, and correct its fall."
Actually that is completely incorrect, the last thing you would want as a lander is a tall thin vehicle, as this would have significant stability problems when landing on anything other than a perfectly flat surface (the last time I checked the moon was a bit bumpy). For a lander you want the centre of mass as close to the ground as possible, while not compromising the performance of the vehicle in flight."
Thanks for clarifying that. I completely understand why you believe Apollo 'nauts walked on the moon, where there is no atmosphere.
So, I guess you managed to balance that orange on your finger quite successfully. Did you bore a hole in it first (in order to lower the centre of gravity)?
1.3 seconds, George, according to Wiki.
I may be wrong, but at least my logic is not hopelessly flawed!
"a) NASA faked the Moon landings at great cost, somehow surmounting huge technical obstacles to pull it off, "
That, of course, is why Hollywood still never uses miniature models, wooden sets, painted backdrops, CGI and all the rest of it. Because it's so much cheaper to make the real thing and surmount the utterly enormous technical obstacles, much easier to take the real risks, AND it makes the movies so much more authentic.
Sarcasm, I "recall" they say, is the lowest form of wit. Oh, dear.
None of that matters! Sounds made and recorded propagating in Vacuum. Filmed in Studio PROVEN!`
So, George, that effectively falsifies your contention that "Scenes that show Sounds were quietly scrubbed from the Net. I guess transcripts too!"
Back to the drawing board...
Many thanks for this brief clip:
When you watch, make sure you have the sound turned on.
The laughter (canned or not) is some kind of secret, coded clue...
Listen for the Delay!
Back to the drawing board? Why would I need to do that?
Anonymous Trekker said...
"1.3 seconds, George, according to Wiki."
1.3 x 2 =?
1.3 seconds, George, according to Wiki.
2.6 seconds for the return trip!
« Back to the drawing board? Why would I need to do that? »
Because something you claimed is now falsified.
I see similarities to other Space science issues. Quasars behind opaque Galaxies, completely destroying the whole "Red Shift is distance" assertion of Astrophysicists. THEORY FALSIFIED replace THEORY WITH SOMETHING ELSE!
YES I KNOW I'M SHOUTING !!
You still lose this one.
How about Quasars being all oriented in the same direction, co-ordinating their spins over hundreds of millions of light years ... for no reason.
"Because something you claimed is now falsified."
Hmmmm. That doesn't seem to have hurt the Apollo Political Project and its supporters' beliefs too much.
But, is what George (mis?)stated a vital link in his chain of logic? I don't think so, in which case it doesn't really matter.
I'd say, scrubbed from the 'net is simply a "Work in Progress". We all know that Google Search will "fail to find" lots of interesting pages and documents. Not to mention, images on satellite photos. That doesn't mean they aren't there. But it's a highly effective means to an end.
Just like stumbling around the house in the dark doesn't mean the furniture isn't there any more. Sorry Chris, I know, that's a very bad analogy...
How about this? You read something in a very long book, in your very extensive library. But you have lost the scrap of paper where you noted down the book and page number it's in. Now, some A/H has deleted the Library Catalog, AND ripped out the Index! How ya gonna find it?
"How about Quasars being all oriented in the same direction, co-ordinating their spins over hundreds of millions of light years ... for no reason."
There's a reason.
That we don't know it doesn't alter that.
But, Yes, it's very interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks!
That radio delay is partly what confounds 2%'s loony idea that Apollo astronauts were taking it easy all the time, delivering a script. As noted, the source of their voice transmission has to be part of the Unified S-band signal, along with the telemetry and the TV, and it must come from the direction of the Moon.
Some sort of relay apparatus seems to be necessary, but where would it be? No Earth orbit will do, not even at geosynchronous altitude. Lunar orbit won't do either because of the occultation. How about the L1 libration point? The problem is that then the radio delay would be too long during the trans-lunar phase of the mission, and too short when the astronauts were supposed to be on the surface. Damn.
Damn be damned!
"That radio delay is partly what confounds 2%'s loony idea that Apollo astronauts were taking it easy all the time, delivering a script. As noted, the source of their voice transmission has to be part of ..."
a.) Never said taking it easy. Just working less time, but under higher gravity.
b.) "has to be" is only for the purposes of your current (deliberately flawed in an attempt to win the argument) hypothesis.
As I said, there were many options. I believe they had tape recorders in 1968. As I recall, back in the day, that was how radio stations controlled (blocked) offensive comments made by talk-back callers. The conversations were recorded onto tape by a record head, a loop of tape of whatever length of delay you wanted was set up, and the conversation was then played to air through a playback head with a few seconds introduced delay. Bad language was simply "switched out" during the playback, as the technician now knew it was coming.
Given the distance, you would expect a lot of signal noise, so the extra noise introduced by the record and playback process would only serve to add authenticity. Bad quality, or partly worn tapes could even have been used to add to the effect.
Anyone who has listened in to the radio while making a talkback call will be familiar with that delay, though it annoys the radio station staff no end. And of course, it's implemented in digital electronics these days.
For clarity, of course only the 'nauts-side audio would go through the tape delay for ground-based recordings, and vice versa for lunar-based recordings.
Having created the audio, it could also be sent to the unmanned SM mentioned earlier (set up in radio relay mode), and the direction of the signal, and the Signal Transit Time delays would all line up, though that would require quite a bit more work. But even the occultation would be right! To a greater precision than humans could have arranged in the day. In fact, isn't there some anomaly around the recorded occultation time? Explainable as human (faking) error versus actual physics...
TP, if you want to try and mock me, instead of addressing the points I raised, that's absolutely fine and I don't mind. It's water of a duck's back to me. However the points I raised show the flaws in your thinking and you are going to have to address them - and the numerous problems raised by others - if you want to push your theories.
Personally I'm happy if you don't bother because everything you've said is very basic and has already been shown to be wrong (including others saying the same things and being shot down, eg start on Wikipedia), and this blog is for mocking pseudoscience, not really for educating commenters who don't understand basic highschool science.
This "strategery" of Expat reminds me of a few Sports figures. Everybody hated playing against Claude Lemieux (Hockey) or Dennis Rodman (Basketball). But everyone wanted them on THEIR team!
The Quasar Spin stuff was put out recently, but only popularized on the Electric Universe website. Someone will, no doubt, ask "where do these enormous Birkeland Currents come from?" They just do, and really no one knows and may never know!
There's a reason
Being that they are 1. Small 2. Nearby 3. Aligned with Birkeland Currents.
Astrophysicists are always dealing themselves Royal Flushes. It's never 2 pair or 3 of a kind.
I think Digital or Analog Audio Delay modules existed then as they do today! They're dirt cheap in music stores today!
« Having created the audio, it could also be sent to the unmanned SM mentioned earlier (set up in radio relay mode), and the direction of the signal, and the Signal Transit Time delays would all line up... bla bla bla etc. »
You're getting awfully close to the "wouldn't it be simpler just to go ahead and do the mission" condition.
Of course I fully realize that you may be trolling, and having a bit of a giggle behind your hand. I don't care. I write these rebuttals as much for other Apollo deniers who might come across this dialog as for you personally.
The original purpose of this thread was to pay homage to the men who did such truly heroic things, those that have since died and those that are still with us. What's despicbale about you Apollo deniers is that, through your own ignorance, you belittle and demean those men and the almost equally heroic engineers and managers who made their daring possible. Those of us who are truly "in the know" about Apollo will never cease admiring and honoring those heroes. The deniers can eat their hearts out as far as I'm concerned
How long will it take to get back to the Moon? We will die of Old Age before that happens. There are people with the Right Stuff today, but they only go to the ISS.
I think I have responded to your points. I even reiterated Ockham's Razor (as requested but for expat), with a tape recorder created delay, versus a sending a whole ship to the moon with living, breathing guys in it. But he didn't seem to get that.
Anyway, I don't know where you have shown any of my analysis to be faulty, so see nothing more to respond to. In future, try not to be quite so insulting! Mocking and ridicule, fine. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I don't know the official definition of 'troll', but I know it's a derogatory term designed to target people who make opposing comments on blogs. If I haven't shown I'm far more than a troll by now, then I never could. That said, you have been a good host (apart from the latest 'despicable' comment, perhaps). Though I have never stopped wondering why you run this blog.
As for the brave guys. Trust me, I'm pretty much with you on that. Whether they went or they didn't, they have been subjected to great tests, and survived admirably, though Armstrong withdrew out of the picture. I know one or more 'nauts have refused to swear one or more times on Bibles for the sake of one or more "doco" makers. If it was me, and I had been to the Moon, I would have asked them to bring a whole truckload of Bibles for me to swear on, so the refusal(s) strike me as very interesting. Surprisingly, Buzz didn't think of that as a great side-line business. That is also interesting.
Anyway, enough! They say that people believe what they want to believe. Or see what they want to see. And that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
I want (to know, to see) the truth.
It's been a lot of fun.
« But he didn't seem to get that. »
Oh I got it all right, it made me LOL. You never did grasp the point that the unified S-band signal included maybe 400 channels of telemetry PLUS TV, tracking and ranging in addition to voice. This signal WAS received at Madrid, Goldstone and Parkes--a few hundred engineers knew that and some wrote books about it. The telemetry WAS fed to Houston and it DID feed those 40 screens in Mission Control with meaningful data. Several hundred engineers attested to that and some of them wrote books about it too.
The TV, telemetry, tracking and voice comms all synchronized into a coherent picture, do you understand that? Tape recorder MY ASS.
The "cover thrown and hitting LEM" during A15 had sound overdubbed, by nefarious parties? Just waiting for a ridiculous response from any one concerned.
Those signals could be sent from a Robotic mission, you know, getting above those nasty Van Allen radiation belts that didn't cause any trouble in 1969 ... but today?
We will never know obviously.
The TV, telemetry, tracking and voice comms all synchronized into a coherent picture
Which must have been bounced to a real robotic mission. The Command Module could have been 2 feet long, the LEM only 1 foot. There is no way knowing how those images of CM and LEM are "full size".
maybe 400 channels of telemetry robot to robot full size mission possible in 2069
« There is no way knowing how those images of CM and LEM are "full size". »
I recommend a visit to the Air & Space museum in DC. Take your tape measure.
I start worrying about being wrong, as soon as any Manned Moon or Mars mission is green-lighted, and is being constructed.
Is is possible that this George Benkal is actuall;y the ORD thing in drag? They display the same Dunning Kruger Syndrome.
No. A couple of anonymous comments that I judged came from orbs have quietly disappeared in the last two days.
Ok, thanks for being on top of it. It is not often you see two people on the same forum displaying such an appalling ignorance. Appreciate your efforts!
Seems a shame to be stuck on 99 comments... One to make it a 'ton'.
"It is not often you see two people on the same forum displaying such an appalling ignorance.
"Needs to get out more..." Try YouTube. The ignorant massively outnumber all other categories. Come to that, try 'most any internet forum. Ignarintz Rulz. We have our Education System to thank for that.
Thinking about Apollo:
Definition of Apollo
1 : the Greek and Roman god of sunlight, prophecy, music, and poetry
2 : any of a class of asteroids having an orbit that extends from inside to beyond the earth's orbit
[Apollo, an asteroid of this class]
Prophecy, Poetry, Music! Not much there to inspire, admire or capture the imagination, or even suggest Bravery, High Adventure, Great Achievement or even Landmark Lunar Space Pioneering.
Maybe it's really an acronym - A.P.O.L.L.O.:
How about :
Ambitious Political Objective Leveraging Lunar Obsession
Such an appalling ignorance of impossible Sound propagation on the Moon.
Personal attack in 3, 2, 1.
101 and it's done.
Post a Comment