PDA

View Full Version : John Xenir's Questions about the Moon Landings



John Xenir
2010-Jul-27, 12:06 PM
Most reasons for conspiracy are political, not scientific. They already got enough data to reproduce the same environment in studio and with special effect there would not be problem for them to make false landing if they wanted to. This hoax is lot different than 9/11, because in 9/11 the question is who's work is the destruction of the skyscrapers, while in moon landing hoax the question is just, were they on or not, no matter how, which is much easier to prove.

However we younger generation, we were born after moon landing and didn't see in real time, so we are little depressed by being deprived for such event, is hard to believe why today no one is going anymore when logically the trip should be at least 10 times cheaper looking at technology. :(

However, before landing, both sides sent probes there which also managed to return, so if they can return, they can return humans too. Most hoax believers believe because they don't like USA winning the space race, however I wouldn't say that this is really absolute victory in space exploration, Soviet side also made some outstanding achievements, so I can't really speak of victory for any one side, more like victory for both sides as the progress in space exploration.

However there is one last thing that bothers me in this landing. Lunar module it's actually very small, which means not a lot of room for fuel either, which is needed for both landing and take-off. This is insignificant to take-off rockets from Earth, which contains at least 100 times of fuel, yes, the gravity of earth is 6 times stronger, there is also some air in Earth's atmosphere, but such difference? That applies also to Mars, which is much closer to Moon, having only double of gravity and some air, which is hard to use even for aerobraking. And they say that return from Mars is too expensive fuel-wise. Really that double gravity does such difference?

NEOWatcher
2010-Jul-27, 12:55 PM
However there is one last thing that bothers me in this landing. Lunar module it's actually very small, which means not a lot of room for fuel either, which is needed for both landing and take-off. This is insignificant to take-off rockets from Earth, which contains at least 100 times of fuel, yes, the gravity of earth is 6 times stronger, there is also some air in Earth's atmosphere, but such difference?
I'm not sure of the numbers, but it starts making sense when you break it all down.
Yes, you got 1/6 gravity. You also have about 1/5 of the velocity needed to reach orbit. And; you have no air resistance.
Then there's the issue of not lifting all that much fuel to begin with.


That applies also to Mars, which is much closer to Moon, having only double of gravity and some air, which is hard to use even for aerobraking. And they say that return from Mars is too expensive fuel-wise. Really that double gravity does such difference?
Again; consider the orbital velocity which brings it to 4x.

Neither of those consider escape velocity for the return since it wasn't the ascent module's job.

Tedward
2010-Jul-27, 01:30 PM
Not forgetting the CM had the fuel and engine to do the return from the moon bit.

Edits. Opps, not reading the above post properly. And should I have said CSM?

JayUtah
2010-Jul-27, 02:14 PM
...

Most reasons for conspiracy are political, not scientific.

Agreed. It doesn't take a long discussion with a conspiracy theorist to make him devolve into political arguments. The problem comes when the conspiracy theorists allege that scientific arguments back up their political belief. That's when they begin to display their sheer ignorance of science. Then they also misinterpret the scientists' objection to the misuse of their field, considering it to be a political rebuttal.

They already got enough data to reproduce the same environment in studio...

Really? Do you work in a film studio?

"The same environment" includes the effects of vacuum, the effects of diminished gravity, and a scale of reproduction (both in time and spatial extent) that most agree is difficult if not impossible to reproduce. I have met and worked with the effects crew from the miniseries From the Earth to the Moon and they are of the opinion that what they see in the Apollo film and video was beyond the capacity of special effects teams to reproduce in 1969.

...while in moon landing hoax the question is just, were they on or not, no matter how, which is much easier to prove.

Yet so much of the Apollo evidence, such as the Moon rocks, remains unaccounted for in conspiracy theories. All we get are suppositional claims, telling us that it "must" have been faked "somehow."

...is hard to believe why today no one is going anymore when logically the trip should be at least 10 times cheaper looking at technology. :(

Do you work in the aerospace industry? What is your estimate based on? What specific technology are you looking at?

However, before landing, both sides sent probes there which also managed to return, so if they can return, they can return humans too.

No, that makes the mistake of assuming that unmanned exploration is equivalent to manned exploration in complexity and cost.

Most hoax believers believe because they don't like USA winning the space race...

Most hoax believers I encounter simply don't like authority, especially government authority.

I wouldn't say that this is really absolute victory in space exploration, Soviet side also made some outstanding achievements...

Indeed they did. After the Soviets abandoned their own Moon program they concentrated on space stations. That ended up having a profound benefit for long-term space habitation, which will enable travel to planets.

Lunar module it's actually very small, which means not a lot of room for fuel either...

The mass properties of the lunar module, its fuel load-out, and its operational parameters are well known. The aerospace industry is highly aware of them and sees no problem.

Really that double gravity does such difference?

Yes, and more. You're greatly simplifying many of the problems of launching spacecraft into orbit.

Jason Thompson
2010-Jul-27, 03:50 PM
They already got enough data to reproduce the same environment in studio and with special effect there would not be problem for them to make false landing if they wanted to.

Sorry but this is simply false. However much data they had, they could not reproduce a vacuum in 1/6th gravity in a studio. The physical limitations of the structure of the building prevent the vacuum part of the simulation, and there is no way to simulate low gravity so well as it is seen in the Apollo footage.


Lunar module it's actually very small, which means not a lot of room for fuel either, which is needed for both landing and take-off.

It had plenty of fuel. The fuel for landing was in the descent stage, and the fuel for liftoff was in tanks in the ascent stage which are clearly visible as the irregular protrusions on either side of the vehicle (the tanks themselves are spherical, but the covering was irregular).


This is insignificant to take-off rockets from Earth, which contains at least 100 times of fuel, yes, the gravity of earth is 6 times stronger, there is also some air in Earth's atmosphere, but such difference?

Yes. Consider these factors:

The Saturn V had to launch a fully fuelled Apollo spacecraft stack (CSM and LM) with three men and all the consumables for the trip to the Moon. It had to get the spacecraft to a speed of 25,000mph against Earth's gravity. The lunar module ascent stage had to lift only itself and two men to lunar orbit (they threw out everything they wouldn't need on the return journey), which means it had to reach only about 3,500mph, and against lunar gravity.

So the LM had to get a lighter spacecraft with fewer men and consumables in it to a lower speed against lower gravity. Conspiracy theorists fail to account for the fact that for every factor you make more difficult in launching a rocket you must add more fuel, and when you add more fuel you then need more fuel to lift that extra mass of fuel as well.


That applies also to Mars, which is much closer to Moon, having only double of gravity and some air, which is hard to use even for aerobraking. And they say that return from Mars is too expensive fuel-wise. Really that double gravity does such difference?

The Saturn V was the most powerful rocket ever built, and that was only enough to get something to the Moon and back. Even if you used an Apollo style lander on Mars it would require far more than twice the fuel of the lunar module to lift off again.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-27, 04:44 PM
Most reasons for conspiracy are political, not scientific. They already got enough data to reproduce the same environment in studio and with special effect there would not be problem for them to make false landing if they wanted to.
<snip>
However we younger generation, we were born after moon landing and didn't see in real time, so we are little depressed by being deprived for such event, is hard to believe why today no one is going anymore when logically the trip should be at least 10 times cheaper looking at technology. :(
Actually, the technology that grew cheaper is the one needed to fake the landing, not the technology needed to do them.
Rocket engines aren't much cheaper than then and neither is rocket fuel. Computers are vastly more powerful and much cheaper, but they were a minuscule part of the total expense.

The main point that appears near impossible for younger people to grasp because special effects especially CGI has become so ridiculously cheap is that, given the technology of the time, going was actually cheaper than it would have been to fake it, even if it would have been possible.

NEOWatcher
2010-Jul-27, 05:09 PM
...Rocket engines aren't much cheaper than then and neither is rocket fuel. Computers are vastly more powerful and much cheaper, but they were a minuscule part of the total expense...
To expand on that.
S-1C (saturn V first stage) weighed about 5 million pounds fueled, and about 300 thousand empty. 6% is not fuel. We don't have the technology to make fuel lighter.
Even if we can make the rocket 25% lighter with composites, we're still talking about saving less than 2% weight-wise.

Technology advances, but physics remains the same.

John Xenir
2010-Jul-27, 06:08 PM
Ok, thanks for the answers. The technology I had in mind was mostly propulsion, seeing how they make today's cars consume less, I hoped that the same is happening with space rockets too.

Gillianren
2010-Jul-27, 06:24 PM
However we younger generation, we were born after moon landing and didn't see in real time, so we are little depressed by being deprived for such event, is hard to believe why today no one is going anymore when logically the trip should be at least 10 times cheaper looking at technology. :(

I am sick to death of this argument, and not just the fallacious technical arguments which are adequately covered by the others.

I was -7 during the Apollo landings. My parents hadn't even met yet. All the friends I see on a day-to-day basis are younger than I, some substantially so. Yet not a one of us thinks of the Apollo hoax idea as anything but silly. A lot of the "major" HBs were alive during the Apollo landing; one declares (falsely) that he worked in a major role on the Apollo program. Age is far less an indicator of anything than people seem to think. If anything, I think it would go the other way. People of my grandparents' generation were more likely to believe that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance than people of my generation, simply because we never considered the possibility.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-27, 07:18 PM
Ok, thanks for the answers. The technology I had in mind was mostly propulsion, seeing how they make today's cars consume less, I hoped that the same is happening with space rockets too.
The energy efficiency for rockets were already close to optimal then, we have managed to optimize it a little bit more but not nearly as much as cars because cars were horribly wasteful to start with.

Swift
2010-Jul-27, 07:44 PM
I have split John Xenir's questions about the moon landings off of the Why do people believe thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=1768504&page=12#post1768504)

KaiYeves
2010-Jul-27, 07:56 PM
I am sick to death of this argument, and not just the fallacious technical arguments which are adequately covered by the others.

I was -7 during the Apollo landings. My parents hadn't even met yet. All the friends I see on a day-to-day basis are younger than I, some substantially so. Yet not a one of us thinks of the Apollo hoax idea as anything but silly. A lot of the "major" HBs were alive during the Apollo landing; one declares (falsely) that he worked in a major role on the Apollo program. Age is far less an indicator of anything than people seem to think. If anything, I think it would go the other way. People of my grandparents' generation were more likely to believe that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance than people of my generation, simply because we never considered the possibility.

Seconded, except that I was -24 at the time.

Kinetic
2010-Jul-27, 08:00 PM
I was -6 when we last landed on the moon. I know a few moon hoax believers who were alive at the time of the landings. IMO age is not really a factor except in the impressionable 11-13 group.

MartianMarvin
2010-Jul-27, 08:28 PM
...Consider these factors:

The Saturn V had to launch a fully fuelled Apollo spacecraft stack (CSM and LM) with three men and all the consumables for the trip to the Moon. It had to get the spacecraft to a speed of 25,000mph against Earth's gravity. The lunar module ascent stage had to lift only itself and two men to lunar orbit (they threw out everything they wouldn't need on the return journey), which means it had to reach only about 3,500mph, and against lunar gravity.

So the LM had to get a lighter spacecraft with fewer men and consumables in it to a lower speed against lower gravity. Conspiracy theorists fail to account for the fact that for every factor you make more difficult in launching a rocket you must add more fuel, and when you add more fuel you then need more fuel to lift that extra mass of fuel as well.


There was also material gathered from the Moon (regolith, rocks, and in one case, part of a Surveyor probe), although that may certainly have amounted to less than what was consumed/discarded from the ascent module over the course of the visit.

R.A.F.
2010-Jul-27, 09:39 PM
I was -7 during the Apollo landings.


...I was -24...


I was -6...

I was +14...and yes all this talk of age "is" making me feel old. :(


Actually, that's not the truth...It's one thing to talk about the landings now, in hindsight, but quite another to have experienced it all as it happened. I feel quite fortunate to have been born at a time when all this was going on.

Those times seem as "magical" now as they did then. Part of me really does feel quite sorry for those who would deny what (in my opinion) was the greatest achievement of history.

...and here I go getting all sentimental... :)




edit to add...hey...which thread am I "in", anyhow???

Swift
2010-Jul-27, 09:51 PM
Hey R.A.F., at least some of these "young whipper-snappers" (I was +10.5 in July 1969) may get to see men walk on Mars.

Gillianren
2010-Jul-27, 10:57 PM
For what it's worth, I have the knees of a woman twice my age!

In all seriousness, I really do envy you lot the experience. My mother does not have a moving story about Apollo. Then again, I have noticed that my mother is not exactly the queen of the storytellers. I did collect a few older friends' experiences last summer, and I really wish I had a similar moment to tell my own daughter. She's old enough now so that we pretty much share them.

R.A.F.
2010-Jul-28, 12:39 AM
Hey R.A.F., at least some of these "young whipper-snappers" (I was +10.5 in July 1969) may get to see men walk on Mars.

I certainly hope that to be so...I fear "people of our age" won't be around for that first "Mars walk"...heck, I'd be happy to live long enough to see another Moon walk, but even that is in doubt.

Then again, it would be wicked cool to watch live video of astronauts exploring an asteroid


I really do envy you lot the experience.

I don't know about envy, but there was a lot that happened in the 4 years, from the end of 68 till the end of 72.

Just to list a few...for the first time, men "left" Earth orbit to orbit the Moon. Barely 6 months later, men were walking on the Moon. less than 3 years after that, men were driving for miles on the Moon.

It all happened so quickly, and then it was gone...


One thing I am delighted about is that spacecraftfilms has put all the Moonwalks on DVD. Watching them really does give you a sense of how it was...


...and yes...I am very much looking forward to the Apollo 11 enhanced video which should be arriving the end of this month!! Yippie. :)

Gillianren
2010-Jul-28, 01:27 AM
I really can't think of anything in my lifetime which had the same kind of worldwide spectacular positive reaction. Of course, I'm not sure what would.

vonmazur
2010-Jul-28, 02:13 AM
Gillian and guys: I was on active duty in the US Army when this took place.....and we got the inside briefings, which were, stay off of certain UHF frequencies, and if you want, listen when the moon is visible, you cannot hear Houston, but the Apollo will come in loud and clear...This was at Ft Hood TX...We all ran down to the flight line and fired up the UHF in the Hueys just to listen to them....Very memorable and makes the Hoaxers arguments impossible for me at least!

(I forgot to add, we had to join the "Intra-solar Venusian Bankers plot" and make a sacrifice to Moolah the head Deity! Involved beer and whisky.....)

Dale

Selenite
2010-Jul-28, 03:18 AM
However we younger generation, we were born after moon landing and didn't see in real time, so we are little depressed by being deprived for such event, is hard to believe why today no one is going anymore when logically the trip should be at least 10 times cheaper looking at technology. :(

On January 23rd 1960, the bathyscaphe Trieste with two men aboard descended 6.82 miles into the Pacific to the deepest portion of the ocean in the Mariana Trench. They spent barely twenty minutes on the ocean floor before undertaking the three hour ascent. Since then, no manned craft has ever returned to the Challenger Deep. Just robot submarines. Why? Because they're more cost-effective and you don't put a human life at risk. Even in 2010, surrounded as we are by hand-held computers, it's still difficult and risky to send humans that deep and there really isn't a compelling motive to.

Happily, 50 years later, no one seems to think the descent was a hoax. No political hay to be made there, I guess ;)

Graybeard6
2010-Jul-28, 03:48 AM
Ah! Someone else who was an adult in 1969. I was 34, stationed in Hawai'i, and awaiting the birth of our first (and only) child. We lived up hill from the main part of Ft Shafter, and I was outside with a portable TV and binoculars, looking at the video feed and trying to find Tranquility Base. (Yes, I knew better, but one can always try.) I had hoped to see the first Mars landing, but I will consider myself lucky to see the return to the Moon.
I don't know if I've told this story before on this board (I'm old! dangit.) but ~1950 a friend and I were sitting at recess and talking about the latest Robert Heinlien story in the Saturday Evening Post and I declaimed "The first man to walk on the moon has already been born!" A teacher, a very sweet nun, heard me, and notes went home to our parents, suggesting counseling for our dangerous fantasies. Years later, we were reminiscing and wondered what they would have done if we'd proclaimed he was at that time flying fighters in the Navy?

Swift
2010-Jul-28, 04:44 AM
For what it's worth, I have the knees of a woman twice my age!
Well, you better given them back to her before she misses them. http://philwoods.net/forums/images/smilies/rimshot.gif

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D

Spoons
2010-Jul-28, 05:12 AM
Well, you better given them back to her before she misses them. http://philwoods.net/forums/images/smilies/rimshot.gif

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D

Ah, classic Swift.

KA9Q
2010-Jul-28, 06:40 AM
I have met and worked with the effects crew from the miniseries From the Earth to the Moon and they are of the opinion that what they see in the Apollo film and video was beyond the capacity of special effects teams to reproduce in 1969..If not still today.

As my main data point I cite Magnificent Desolation, an IMAX movie made only 5 years ago. Despite its obvious attention to detail and the incorporation of much original Apollo imagery, I can easily tell that it was not really shot on the surface of the moon.

There are some obvious technical mistakes such as leaving the communications connectors on the pressure suits disconnected. But most of it is the "look" of the film. The contrast and lighting distinctly differs from real Apollo imagery. The motion of the astronauts doesn't match that of the Apollo astronauts on video or 16mm film, nor that of true 1/6g airplane environments.

Movie CGI is gets better all the time, and it could probably be done a little better today. But there should be no question that it was far beyond the ability of the industry in 1969. Another look at "2001: A Space Odyssey" should drive that point home.

KA9Q
2010-Jul-28, 07:07 AM
listen when the moon is visible, you cannot hear Houston, but the Apollo will come in loud and clear...This was at Ft Hood TX...At what point in the mission was this? What frequencies did you listen to, and what did you hear? While still in earth orbit, Apollo used VHF voice as did much launch vehicle telemetry. The particular frequencies were in the VHF military aviation band and I'd expect those signals to be quite strong.

However, once Apollo was on its way to the moon they switched to the "Unified S-band System" on a frequency just below 2300 MHz, so you wouldn't have heard it on a military aviation receiver (unless the VHF transmitters were also left on).

Read http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11 about a guy in Kentucky who managed to hear the VHF-AM transmitter in Neil Armstrong's PLSS during the Apollo 11 EVA. This transmitter was intended only to travel the few feet from his backpack to an antenna on the top of the LM, which then retransmitted their voices to earth along with TV on S-band with considerably more power and a directional dish antenna. But ironically, had Baysinger tried to listen to that S-band downlink intended for earth, he would have heard nothing with any antenna that would have fit in his back yard. The lunar module Eagle was transmitting wideband FM mode at the time to carry the video signal, and only a huge dish such as that at Parkes, Australia could receive it.

But Larry didn't do it with the stock radios and antennas in a military helicopter. He built a fairly large antenna using a design for radio astronomy and pointed it at the moon. He also had luck in his favor; the moon was just setting at the time, so he was able to pick up a reflection of the signal off the ground as well as the signal direct from the moon. At times these two signals will cancel each other, but at other times they add and produce a louder signal than you'd otherwise get if the moon was high in the sky (this is a trick often used by ham "moonbouncers") whose antennas are a little below par. Indeed, you can hear this very slow fading in Larry's recording. At best it's extremely noisy but at other times it's completely inaudible.

One still can't completely rule out the possibility that this was a hoax. But if it was, it was still consistent with the results of the "link budget" I ran using all the parameters I could find for both Baysinger's receiver and Armstrong's transmitter on the moon.

Dave J
2010-Jul-28, 01:49 PM
On January 23rd 1960, the bathyscaphe Trieste with two men aboard descended 6.82 miles into the Pacific to the deepest portion of the ocean in the Mariana Trench. They spent barely twenty minutes on the ocean floor before undertaking the three hour ascent. Since then, no manned craft has ever returned to the Challenger Deep. Just robot submarines. Why? Because they're more cost-effective and you don't put a human life at risk. Even in 2010, surrounded as we are by hand-held computers, it's still difficult and risky to send humans that deep and there really isn't a compelling motive to.

Happily, 50 years later, no one seems to think the descent was a hoax. No political hay to be made there, I guess ;)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but...
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=117670

Some folks see a conspiracy under every couch cushion...

R.A.F.
2010-Jul-28, 01:55 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but...
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=117670

Some folks see a conspiracy under every couch cushion...

Darn it Dave...I was just going to post that.... grrrr. :)

So this post isn't a "waste" I was going to say that "you should never underestimate the irrationality of others".

samkent
2010-Jul-28, 02:03 PM
I was -7 during the Apollo landings. My parents hadn't even met yet.

??
I'm confused.
??
Must a n a l y z e.

Nick Theodorakis
2010-Jul-28, 02:48 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but...
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=117670

Some folks see a conspiracy under every couch cushion...

If you read farther down the thread (post 6), you'll see that the OP explained he was making the exact same point that Selenite did:



I must confess to my share of the blame for this thread. I was using the Trieste expedition as an analogy in the Apollo debate - I really didn't think that anyone would seriously claim that it was an obviously faked mission.


Nick

captain swoop
2010-Jul-28, 03:28 PM
Good old Turbonium.

Jason Thompson
2010-Jul-28, 03:47 PM
??
I'm confused.
??
Must a n a l y z e.

Take careful note of the minus sign before the number 7 and it might become a little clearer....

DonM435
2010-Jul-28, 03:57 PM
For what it's worth, I have the knees of a woman twice my age!



I, on the other hand [mixed metaphor], have the knees of a toddler. Or rather a young robot. I had replacement surgery two and three years ago. From that fact you may guess that I am old enough to remember the Moon landings.

I don't believe that anyone predicted decades before that we'd have live television for the Apollo project, and it certainly wasn't a mission rqeuirement. It seems to me that if the powers-that-be wanted to fake it convincingly, they'd have stuck with radio and still photographs for at least the earliest performances. Based upon their success, they'd have introduced the live television at a later stage -- as the technology improved -- to help confirm the illusion.

Grashtel
2010-Jul-28, 04:43 PM
I, on the other hand [mixed metaphor], have the knees of a toddler. Or rather a young robot. I had replacement surgery two and three years ago. From that fact you may guess that I am old enough to remember the Moon landings.

I don't believe that anyone predicted decades before that we'd have live television for the Apollo project, and it certainly wasn't a mission rqeuirement. It seems to me that if the powers-that-be wanted to fake it convincingly, they'd have stuck with radio and still photographs for at least the earliest performances. Based upon their success, they'd have introduced the live television at a later stage -- as the technology improved -- to help confirm the illusion.
While I don't remember the source (IIRC most likely someone here or on Apollohoax.net) initially at least it wasn't planned to have live Video from Apollo 11, though more PR savvy heads prevailed in the end.

Gillianren
2010-Jul-28, 04:46 PM
Well, and depending on how "decades" we're talking about, of course they didn't!

samkent
2010-Jul-28, 04:50 PM
I overlooked the minus. Would that make her a preemy of the nth degree?

NEOWatcher
2010-Jul-28, 04:50 PM
While I don't remember the source (IIRC most likely someone here or on Apollohoax.net) initially at least it wasn't planned to have live Video from Apollo 11, though more PR savvy heads prevailed in the end.
PR savvy or maybe just level headed. With the possibility of no return of film, it would serve as more than just PR.

I saw it live, unfortunately, I only saw it on a black and white TV. :shifty:

DonM435
2010-Jul-28, 05:00 PM
Well, and depending on how "decades" we're talking about, of course they didn't!

Television was around (though not commonplace) in the 1930s, right? Lots of science fiction writers "described" the first Moon landing in the 1940s and 1950s, but I don't think that any anticipated live television coverage.

Gillianren
2010-Jul-28, 06:07 PM
I find that most science fiction writers ignore the possibility that rare technology will become commonplace in the home. Television existed, but doubtless it was thought of as a novelty which wouldn't go anywhere.

LaurelHS
2010-Jul-28, 06:09 PM
Dave Scott said something like that in In The Shadow of the Moon: "I realized of all the science fiction writers who ever wrote about going to the Moon, I don't believe any of them ever dreamed about the world watching it on television."

Tedward
2010-Jul-28, 06:35 PM
Re TV. I got the impression (from various books) that some did not want it. Main reasons being weight and engineering and seeing it as a frivolous add on when there were more pressing things to consider. Other saw what it could deliver and pushed for it.

Now, any event is nothing unless it gets a youchube appearance filmed on any number of mobile phones and mini cams etc.

KaiYeves
2010-Jul-28, 09:17 PM
A teacher, a very sweet nun, heard me, and notes went home to our parents, suggesting counseling for our dangerous fantasies. Years later, we were reminiscing and wondered what they would have done if we'd proclaimed he was at that time flying fighters in the Navy?

That is a great story.

Really, all of the stories people who were in positive digits at the time from this board that I've heard have been great. I love hearing people's Apollo stories.

Strange
2010-Jul-28, 09:27 PM
If you read farther down the thread (post 6), you'll see that the OP explained he was making the exact same point that Selenite did:

That wasn't the OP. It was someone else apologizing for the OP finding out about the Trieste and thinking it could be a conspiracy. At first I thought the OP was doing it as a satire, but no ...

slang
2010-Jul-28, 10:43 PM
Then again, it would be wicked cool to watch live video of astronauts exploring an asteroid

I can think of one person who would no doubt find it booooring! Not me, though. Wicked cool would be an understatement.


Good old Turbonium.

Good? ;)


Sorry to burst your bubble, but...
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=117670

Awww.. has anyone brought up Concorde yet? Why aren't 'we' flying passengers around anymore, faster than sound?

Selenite
2010-Jul-29, 12:51 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but...
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=117670

Some folks see a conspiracy under every couch cushion...

Wow. My bubble has indeed been burst to atoms. I found this nugget of nonsense from that thread particularly breathtaking...

"No, it's an entirely valid argument. We have vastly superior technology that we did in 1960. We still can't do it now, which means we couldn't do it then.

It's as simple as that."

Must be nice to live in such a simple world.

KaiYeves
2010-Jul-29, 01:00 AM
I can think of one person who would no doubt find it booooring! Not me, though. Wicked cool would be an understatement.



Quoted and bolded for truth.


Awww.. has anyone brought up Concorde yet? Why aren't 'we' flying passengers around anymore, faster than sound?
Never say never! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8712806.stm)

Sardonicone
2010-Jul-29, 02:06 AM
Ok, thanks for the answers. The technology I had in mind was mostly propulsion, seeing how they make today's cars consume less, I hoped that the same is happening with space rockets too.


While more exotic forms of propulsion are coming down the pike, none of them as of yet would have the required oomph to get to LEO. We're essentially still using the same exact technology from the 1960's in that regard.

As (I believe) Jay has stated before, we're continuing to go with what we know works. Most propulsion breakthroughs we're currently coming up with work great as far as being in-space. But for getting out of huge gravity wells in a hurry like Earths, it's still all about using really big candles.

vonmazur
2010-Jul-29, 04:21 AM
At what point in the mission was this? What frequencies did you listen to, and what did you hear? While still in earth orbit, Apollo used VHF voice as did much launch vehicle telemetry. The particular frequencies were in the VHF military aviation band and I'd expect those signals to be quite strong.

However, once Apollo was on its way to the moon they switched to the "Unified S-band System" on a frequency just below 2300 MHz, so you wouldn't have heard it on a military aviation receiver (unless the VHF transmitters were also left on).

Read http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11 about a guy in Kentucky who managed to hear the VHF-AM transmitter in Neil Armstrong's PLSS during the Apollo 11 EVA. This transmitter was intended only to travel the few feet from his backpack to an antenna on the top of the LM, which then retransmitted their voices to earth along with TV on S-band with considerably more power and a directional dish antenna. But ironically, had Baysinger tried to listen to that S-band downlink intended for earth, he would have heard nothing with any antenna that would have fit in his back yard. The lunar module Eagle was transmitting wideband FM mode at the time to carry the video signal, and only a huge dish such as that at Parkes, Australia could receive it.

But Larry didn't do it with the stock radios and antennas in a military helicopter. He built a fairly large antenna using a design for radio astronomy and pointed it at the moon. He also had luck in his favor; the moon was just setting at the time, so he was able to pick up a reflection of the signal off the ground as well as the signal direct from the moon. At times these two signals will cancel each other, but at other times they add and produce a louder signal than you'd otherwise get if the moon was high in the sky (this is a trick often used by ham "moonbouncers") whose antennas are a little below par. Indeed, you can hear this very slow fading in Larry's recording. At best it's extremely noisy but at other times it's completely inaudible.

One still can't completely rule out the possibility that this was a hoax. But if it was, it was still consistent with the results of the "link budget" I ran using all the parameters I could find for both Baysinger's receiver and Armstrong's transmitter on the moon.

It might have been VHF, just that 40 years has fogged the memory. We did not hear much though, I have always wondered about that....I guess they were being cautious about the radio interference or something similar. No every Huey had the right VHF radio, for some reason there were at least two different ones, one of which we were not supposed to use on certain frequencies in the CONUS...It might have interfered with the VOR or something like that...I think there is no chance that the moon missions were faked...

Dale

Jason Thompson
2010-Jul-29, 06:56 AM
Re TV. I got the impression (from various books) that some did not want it. Main reasons being weight and engineering and seeing it as a frivolous add on when there were more pressing things to consider. Other saw what it could deliver and pushed for it.

This is true. Chris Kraft recalls that he had this argument with some of the crews and managers, who said that TV was extra weight and was not related to the already complicated business of going to the Moon. It was a frivolity that they did not need. Kraft actually convened a panel to assess the situation re: TV and make a recommendation, hoping that they would realise that the PR for the taxpayers who were providing the funds would be invaluable, and was aghast when, at the meeting in which they presented their findings, they agreed with the ones who did not want it! He effectively shouted them down, because it was obvious that not one of them had considered the problem from the PR point of view. Thus, TV was included, and those astronauts who didn't like it just had to accept that it was part of the flight plan.

Swift
2010-Jul-29, 08:18 PM
I have moved the posts relating to hypergreatthing thoughts about the moon landings and hoax believers to the Why do people believe thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/105318-Moon-hoax-why-do-people-believe-it). This thread was originally split off from that one because John Xenir's questions were more of a technical nature. hypergreathing's are back to the why people believe question, and so I've moved them there.

KA9Q
2010-Aug-01, 07:07 AM
We did not hear much though, I have always wondered about that....Dale That doesn't surprise me at all. If you were listening while they were in the earth parking orbit before TLI, you would only have been able to hear them during their brief passes over your location, probably no more than 10 minutes out of every 90 minute orbit. And they weren't very talkative, either; they were quite busy during this time checking out the spacecraft and preparing for TLI.

A high altitude spacecraft, such as one at the moon, can see almost half of the entire earth at once. But in low earth orbit they can only see a much smaller circle that moves rapidly with them. NASA published maps of the earth parking orbits of the Apollo missions that could have helped you tell when they'd be overhead, and that would have given you a good chance to hear them without having to listen the whole time.

This problem of poor earth coverage by satellites in low earth orbit plagued NASA all through the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab days. It's why they gave such a high priority to the TDRSS satellite constellation early in the Shuttle period. Prior to TDRSS they had dozens of ground stations that still couldn't give them continuous coverage of low earth orbit. Many stations would have had to be in the middle of the oceans, and while NASA had a fleet of tracking ships and airplanes they could only afford to deploy them when they were absolutely needed to cover some important mission event such as staging, orbital insertion, TLI, or re-entry. And it's interesting to note that during many of the Apollo lunar missions, the entire transcript of a ARIA (airplane) pass might look like this:

Apollo xx, Houston with you through ARIA 3.

Roger Houston, Apollo xx. Loud and clear.

(pause of several minutes)

Apollo xx, Houston. LOS ARIA 3 at GET 2:13:23. AOS at Carnarvon at 2:18:59.
Houston, Apollo xx. Roger. Talk to you later.

I don't know if the ARIAs could relay telemetry, but if all they could do was voice then I bet the crew on those aircraft didn't feel especially important that day!

Glom
2010-Aug-04, 09:55 AM
It is quite a thought that such things could be the case given how for granted we take global communications. Amazing to think that there wasn't always a junk yard at 36,000 km.

vonmazur
2010-Aug-05, 06:11 AM
Well, we heard some conversations, but as you describe, very little and fleeting, but since it was on the freqs we were told to not transmit upon, I always thought that it was just what the breifing said, "NASA and do not interrupt for any reason"......They were very serious about this at the time...

Dale

KA9Q
2010-Aug-05, 07:41 AM
You probably wouldn't have been able to interrupt anyway. Apollo communications were generally full duplex, meaning that Apollo transmitted continuously on one frequency and the ground transmitted continuously on another. So if you transmitted on the frequency on which you heard Apollo, they wouldn't hear you. If you were close to a ground station you might interfere with that station's reception of their downlink, but that was about it.

Caveat: while Apollo S-band was always full duplex, VHF could be either. The lunar EVAs were definitely full duplex, and it sounds like the same was done during earth orbit, but they also had the ability to operate half duplex when necessary to permit a "party line" type of operation with more than two stations, e.g., during recovery. Half duplex is what you're used to on an aviation channel, with each party taking turns transmitting on the same RF channel. You can tell the difference by the presence of a "squelch tail" after each transmission, as the RF carrier is switched off. In full duplex, each transmitter stays on continuously and only the microphone is muted at the end of a transmission.

Tomblvd
2010-Aug-07, 10:36 PM
Talking about ages, I was +6 for Apollo 11, but anytime I think about the missions, the one thing that comes to my mind that I remember best is a commercial, of all things, that ran on NBC constantly during their coverage:

Bringin' Home the Oil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEyF80FFpTw

Ring a bell for any of the other geezers???

Lone Wolf
2010-Sep-01, 09:51 PM
People of my grandparents' generation were more likely to believe that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance than people of my generation, simply because we never considered the possibility.

Point of contention : The US were in fact warned repeatedly about the attack, from their own "Father of the Air Force" Billy Mitchell in his courts-martial in 1925, to the Peruvian Ambassador to Japan in January 1941, and beyond.
The US Navy, War Department, Intelligence services, and senior government and advisers all ignored them because they thought an attack was "infeasible, unthinkable, and technologically impossible".
Because the Japanese practised very strict security around the operation - messages were hand-delivered by couriers, so no Sig-Int was captured by the US, who could decode and read the main Japanese Naval and Diplomatic codes almost in real-time. They basically had only "word of mouth" and no actual proof to go on.
Whatever reason the US had for the Japanese to not attack was almost always at the same time, being overcome by Japanese training, technological improvements, and being ram-rodded by a military-controlled government that had always got what they wanted, to the point of making the government ineffective by "constructive resignation" of personnel in important posts in the Cabinet.

All that said, there was no conspiracy on the US side, merely a "Comedy of errors" - "They can't attack us because we're too powerful - we'd smash them!". Bad decisions made on bad information and faulty assumptions right up to the incoming first wave was detected and mis-identified as an expected flight of bombers from the mainland (even though the attackers were coming in from another direction altogether). You can't really fault those decisions, just because in hind-sight we know more now than they did then. Remembering that right up until that attack, the US Forces were still operating on Peacetime conditions and regulations - whereas Wartime rules allowed for much greater action to be taken.
I heartily recommend Gordon W. Prange's "At Dawn We Slept" for further reading on this subject.

In 1969 I was -5, and now would have really liked to be of an age to have watched it live. It was an amazing feat for all concerned in the project, from Gemini and Mercury to Apollo itself, and politics aside, for all the peoples of the world.
Even with my very basic, and limited understanding of the principles involved, I can't see any basis for a hoax claim being legitimate. It just doesn't make sense, at any level, it was faked.

One of my most bittersweet memories is of my 9th birthday : I bought an Airfix model of a Saturn V rocket. I spent weeks gluing it together, so no glue bubbled out of the joins, more weeks painting it perfectly. And two days after it was finished, my baby sister smashed it. I'd had the usual WW2 Airfix planes, but they'd never really captured me the way that rocket had.

I wonder if Amazon has that model......

Gillianren
2010-Sep-01, 10:45 PM
Point of contention : The US were in fact warned repeatedly about the attack, from their own "Father of the Air Force" Billy Mitchell in his courts-martial in 1925, to the Peruvian Ambassador to Japan in January 1941, and beyond.

Yes, but the specific conspiracy to which I refer is not "Japan is likely to attack US holdings, probably in Hawaii, at some point." I mean the one which claims that Roosevelt knew precisely when and where they'd attack and that he let it happen.

Lone Wolf
2010-Sep-02, 01:43 AM
Would that be the "Roosevelt saw the only way an Isolationist America would only enter the war if they were victimised", or the "Ongoing American policy against aggressive Japan boxed them into a corner where their only response could be to come out fighting, thus giving America a reason to enter the war legitimately" or the "Churchill, sick of hocking the crown jewels to pay the over-priced American armaments companies for Lend-Lease, purposely conspired with Roosevelt and the American military to force Japan on a path of global conquest" or the "Sending of War Warning messages to all Pacific bases but Pearl would leave the Japanese and easy win and an easy way for America to enter the war" theory? :P

Either one you choose, or all of them, being so similar in effect, they all have very little basis in reality and exigent conditions then outside of some fairly distorted interpretation of memos, signals, and behaviours on the parts of American officials.

IIRC, there was a good half-dozen inquiries after the attack, ranging in scathing attacks on the military, to outright scape-goating of Short and Kimmel, even though they were tightly constrained as to authority to invoke war-time restrictions during peace-time operating conditions - remember, Pearl Harbor specifically, and Pacific forces in general were still operating on a Peace-time footing even on Sunday 7th December, 1941. Although Senior Commanding officers, they had almost no scope for independent action to safeguard resources (ships, planes, installations, bases, etc). Everything they were, and are judged upon was/is after the fact. There's just no evidence, either physically, or in verbal testimony during the inquiries to suggest, let alone prove, the US Government and/or Roosevelt conspired to allow this attack.

Lots of bad luck, and some bad judgement on the American's side, with lots of good luck and utmost secrecy on the Japanese part.
Interesting to note that for all the "We should and must allow the Japanese to fire the first shots" messaging between the President, and his diplomats and military, the first "kill" was actually an American destroyer, USS Ward IIRC, sinking a Japanese submarine just off the harbour entrance a few hours before the main attack - bad judgement rendered this most clear warning was also disregarded by the US Navy.

Another reason many thought Pearl was safe was the comparatively shallow waters - about 40ft. A similar attack to this in November of 1940 by the British Fleet Air Arm upon the Italian fleet in Taranto Harbour, Italy, was deemed irrelevant to Pearl, because of the WW1-era planes used, (which the Japanese no longer had) and the deeper waters, even though the British modified their torpedoes (as did the Japanese for Pearl). The Japanese even sent observers to Taranto, and is probably the basis for their initial plannings of the mission.

Billy Mitchell's foresight in the 1920s aside, it was only the Japanese that considered Aircraft Carriers to be the capital ships of a fleet. I can't remember at what point the Royal Navy switched to this view, but in December of 1941, I can't think of any other nation that didn't consider, and protect Battleships over anything else in a fleet. Much is made of the "fact" that the American carriers were missing from Pearl at the time...which is true. As far as it goes. One was undergoing refit on the West coast, the other two were out delivering planes to Wake and Guam (and other Pacific bases?). In fact, Enterprise was due back at Pearl the day before the attack, but bad weather delayed her. She did enter range of the attackers planes during the attack, and had to scramble away, and led the misdirected search for the Japanese Fleet to the south of Hawaii, in the aftermath.

Yamamoto himself had severe doubts about the attack, but as ordered, planned and executed it. He'd studied at Harvard, and seen the industrial capacity of America, and knew when roused, it could outperform anything Japan had, or conquered, even at reduced operating capability. Again, there's no hint of collusion at any stage of his US "tour" with any government or military official.

In short, while there was many, many chances for the US to detect, and/or protect against an attack on the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, they were missed, ignored, or plain not seen in time. Bad luck, bad decisions, bad leadership. The obverse being just as true : Very good luck and planning on the Japanese part. The fact they also ignored warnings passed to them is down to the Rules of Engagement they were operating under at the time - peace. Not "tensions" or war, but peace-time. It can be argued they could have/should have taken steps to disperse ships and planes, but that's well after the fact, with more than unsubstantiated gossip to base decisions on.

PS - sorry I was so late replying it's very late (or early) here in the UK, and I got distracted with another website, and finding my copy of At Dawn We Slept to check a couple of things.

Spoons
2010-Sep-02, 05:10 AM
I wonder if Amazon has that model......

This one? (http://www.airfix.com/airfix-products/themed-sets/a11170-apollo-saturn-v-a11170/)

Lone Wolf
2010-Sep-02, 07:43 AM
This one? (http://www.airfix.com/airfix-products/themed-sets/a11170-apollo-saturn-v-a11170/)

Maybe, but it cost nowhere near 35 back then! Not even with paints, glue and brushes factored in.

Still, it would look nice on my desk :D

Spoons
2010-Sep-02, 07:48 AM
It does look cool. I've been thinking about trying my hand at some models recently. If I strike out with them I might try make one of those, a car or airplane. Gotta keep the hands busy somehow or I'll end up getting into mischief.

Jim
2010-Sep-02, 04:20 PM
This thread seems to have wandered about as far off topic as it can. (Pearl Harbor?! Really??) And the OP hasn't participated in some time. I'm closing it. If John Xenir wants to have it reopened - or if anyone else has something on topic to add - report this post.

Jim
2010-Sep-02, 04:20 PM
This thread seems to have wandered about as far off topic as it can. (Pearl Harbor?! Really??) And the OP hasn't participated in some time. I'm closing it. If John Xenir wants to have it reopened - or if anyone else has something on topic to add - report this post.