why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[Mag40]

Finally, consider that as the LM is on the surface of the Moon, the Moon is rotating.  This causes the landing site to move in relation to the orbital plane of the CSM.  Before the LM can launch and perform a rendezvous, the CSM must perform a plane change to bring the landing site back into the plane of the orbit.  If the CSM is in a low inclination orbit with the landing site near the equator, the movement of the landing site is mostly within the plane of the orbit, with only a small amount of movement outside (perpendicular to) the plane of the orbit.  This means that the CSM has to make only a  small plane change.  On the other hand, if the CSM is in a high inclination orbit with the landing site near a pole, as the Moon rotates the landing site moves mostly out of the plane of the orbit.  This means that after several days on the Moon, the CSM must perform a very large plane change to bring the landing site back into the orbital plane.  Anyone familiar with orbital mechanics knows that large plane changes are very costly in terms of delta-v, hence propellant.  The Apollo CSM simply didn’t have the capacity to perform such a maneuver.

In summary, Apollo was limited by the amount of propellant it could carry to landing sites in the equatorial region.

That answers the question I asked in this thread many thanks!

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=345.0

[alexsanchez]

My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.  He was a really smart guy.  Best boss I ever had.  I found a patent by him for a redundant inertial measurement system.  I worked on DRIMS for a while (Delta Redundant Inertial Measurement System.)
http://www.google.com/patents/US4125017

[gillianren]

Yes?  What did he think about Apollo?  Since he knew it really happened, and he was a really smart guy, how come you disagree with him?

[Jason Thompson]

My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.

And?

As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.

But even if we suppose you are telling the truth, you now claim to have worked for or with people from three of the major contractors for the Apollo program. Do these people agree with your assertion that the engineering of Apollo was not up to the task of landing on the Moon and returning safely to Earth? And yes, that is what you are claiming.

If they do, why aren't they supporting you? If they don't, why do you disagree with these smart people?

[alexsanchez]

My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.

And?

As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.

But even if we suppose you are telling the truth, you now claim to have worked for or with people from three of the major contractors for the Apollo program. Do these people agree with your assertion that the engineering of Apollo was not up to the task of landing on the Moon and returning safely to Earth? And yes, that is what you are claiming.

If they do, why aren't they supporting you? If they don't, why do you disagree with these smart people?

In those days I didn't question the moon landings.  We didn't have the internet, for one thing.  I did however question how we took off from the moon knowing what went into putting a satellite in orbit from earth.  We were still using punched cards and magnetic core memory in 1980.  (I used to have a piece of core memory I ripped out of a smashed guidance computer that was sitting on a shelf.  It had been fished out of the ocean after a failed launch.  The computer was made by Delco in Goleta, Calif.)

[alexsanchez]

My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.

And?

As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.

But even if we suppose you are telling the truth, you now claim to have worked for or with people from three of the major contractors for the Apollo program. Do these people agree with your assertion that the engineering of Apollo was not up to the task of landing on the Moon and returning safely to Earth? And yes, that is what you are claiming.

If they do, why aren't they supporting you? If they don't, why do you disagree with these smart people?

If you didn't care, you wouldn't comment.  BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA.  I got a $2k bonus for it.

[Laurel]

What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?

[alexsanchez]

What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?

1)  Easy exchange of information and ideas.
2)  Youtube.
3)  Easy access to NASA video and photos.
4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

[alexsanchez]

My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.

And?

As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.

But even if we suppose...

Who's we?  Do you all live in the same house?  Do you all share the same brain?

It's easier to deceive a man than to convince him he's been deceived. - Mark Twain

[LunarOrbit]

Who's we?  Do you all live in the same house?  Do you all share the same brain?

Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.

[LunarOrbit]

What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?

1)  Easy exchange of information and ideas.

Ease of access to information is great, for sure, but I would say the quality of information isn't necessarily better.

For instance...

2)  Youtube.

Youtube is the worse source of misinformation (at least in video form) about Apollo you'll find anywhere on the internet.

3)  Easy access to NASA video and photos.

Video and photos that clearly show the Apollo astronauts on the Moon.

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.

http://goo.gl/nTFqN

Aulis? That's your source? lol

[alexsanchez]

Who's we?  Do you all live in the same house?  Do you all share the same brain?

Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.

Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.  What do you talk about when I'm not here?  How much you all have the exact same point of view? Sounds pretty boring.  Hey... who moved the LM in this picture??
http://goo.gl/UPBJU

[frenat]

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?

[alexsanchez]

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?

Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.  It's not perspective, it's parallax.  There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.

Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain

[LunarOrbit]

Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.

Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.  What do you talk about when I'm not here?

Reality.

How much you all have the exact same point of view?

That's the funny thing about "reality"... people tend to agree about it when they're rational. You don't see a lot of rational people disagreeing about what 2+2 equals, do you?

Sounds pretty boring.  Hey... who moved the LM in this picture??
http://goo.gl/UPBJU

I recommend you read about "parallax", Mr. Engineer.