Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[Luke Pemberton]

...and adding to Peter's post Neil. Please explain the great big huge rockets that blasted into the sky. There is plenty of video evidence for those events; your criteria for proof. What's good enough for the goose and all that.

It would seem that the engineers could design a 3 stage rocket capable of TLI, yet they couldn't design a sublimator to keep an astronaut cool? I suggest the PLSS anomaly lies with your thinking, and not the events reported by NASA and other space/media/scientific agencies. (I took the liberty of answering my question, as I don't expect to get one from you any time soon.)

Tell me, if you are indeed the anti-christ, can I have video evidence of the 666 mark on your body. I'd like the independent witnesses to be me, God and Jesus. I think we can trust the integrity of the latter two, one is a heavenly deity that has infinite knowledge. The other has a fairly good track record on the honesty front.

[Luke Pemberton]

If you are able to get close enough, please take some pictures and post them.  Have fun on your trip.

I'm taking a 75-300 mm lens, so I should be able to get close enough (Checking lens bag now).

[Apollo 957]

...
ETA: Off topic, but I'm off for a two day trip in London. I understand that the Apollo 10 CM is on display at the Science Museum and have been egging to go for some time, so I should have some nice pictures. I'm going to the Tower too. All the best dealing with Baker. I cannot say it has been fun with the Holohoax turn of events.

If you are able to get close enough, please take some pictures and post them.  Have fun on your trip.

FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93

[Luke Pemberton]

FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93

Thanks, I really like the enthusiasm of James Burke.

[Apollo 957]

FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93

Thanks, I really like the enthusiasm of James Burke.

If you get the chance in London, try the Emirates Air Line from Greenwich to Albert Dock

[Dalhousie]

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.

That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents.  But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.

I think someone did a calculation of the aggregate risk from everyone doing this during training was greater than someone getting it wrong in a real emergency.

[bknight]

FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93

All those type videos a really cool.  I wish I were in one of them in the late 60's early 70's.

[Dalhousie]

Please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms.

Please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft.

As we know for a fact these samples came from the Moon, please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.

Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return.  Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.

It has been done - Luna 16, 20,24.  But Peter B's point is that the diversity of samples is the problem.  It's a major challenge to built a machine to do one of these tasks, let alone all of them.  There were drill cores, push/hammer cores, rake samples o larger regolith fragments, scoop samples of bulk regolith, small rocks, larger rocks (the largest larger than the aggregate mass of all samples returned by unmanned missions), and solar wind samples on foil collectors.  Plus one sampling method - hammering pieces off larger rocks - makes sense only with astronauts. There is no way someone would choose this method with an unmanned mission.

[bknight]

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.

That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents.  But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.

I think someone did a calculation of the aggregate risk from everyone doing this during training was greater than someone getting it wrong in a real emergency.

Knowing the possible effects of an improper ascent, I could testify about the risk for sure.  From an overall standpoint the calculation may indeed give results that the training risks outweigh the benefits of the training, but what happens in a real emergency though?  I'm not arguing with you just letting my experience speak.

[Dalhousie]

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.

That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents.  But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.

I think someone did a calculation of the aggregate risk from everyone doing this during training was greater than someone getting it wrong in a real emergency.

Knowing the possible effects of an improper ascent, I could testify about the risk for sure.  From an overall standpoint the calculation may indeed give results that the training risks outweigh the benefits of the training, but what happens in a real emergency though?  I'm not arguing with you just letting my experience speak.

Me neither - I am glad I did it!

[bknight]

It has been done - Luna 16, 20,24.  But Peter B's point is that the diversity of samples is the problem.  It's a major challenge to built a machine to do one of these tasks, let alone all of them.  There were drill cores, push/hammer cores, rake samples o larger regolith fragments, scoop samples of bulk regolith, small rocks, larger rocks (the largest larger than the aggregate mass of all samples returned by unmanned missions), and solar wind samples on foil collectors.  Plus one sampling method - hammering pieces off larger rocks - makes sense only with astronauts. There is no way someone would choose this method with an unmanned mission.

Yes it has been done with the result of .326 kg of samples versus the 380 kg returned by Apollo.  That was the rocket/fuel size I was referring.  Now the methods are another side of the problem with the claim.

[bknight]

Me neither - I am glad I did it!

Our senior instructor had a rather oddly bent arm from JUST a bends issue. So I have the same thought!

[Dalhousie]

It has been done - Luna 16, 20,24.  But Peter B's point is that the diversity of samples is the problem.  It's a major challenge to built a machine to do one of these tasks, let alone all of them.  There were drill cores, push/hammer cores, rake samples o larger regolith fragments, scoop samples of bulk regolith, small rocks, larger rocks (the largest larger than the aggregate mass of all samples returned by unmanned missions), and solar wind samples on foil collectors.  Plus one sampling method - hammering pieces off larger rocks - makes sense only with astronauts. There is no way someone would choose this method with an unmanned mission.

Yes it has been done with the result of .326 kg of samples versus the 380 kg returned by Apollo.  That was the rocket/fuel size I was referring.  Now the methods are another side of the problem with the claim.

Obviously Luna 16, 20, 24 were much smaller than Apollo.  Which means that any unmanned system would have had to have been proportionally larger. 

No only were the samples more diverse, but also came from many sites, so there would have had to have been a rover. This sort of combined unmanned rover and sample return missions is extremely challenging even today, the proposed Mars missions are aiming to return at best a few 100 grams.

And of course multiple missions, as there different provinces (highlands, different mare provinces) in the sample suits. 

[smartcooky]

Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return.  Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.

It would be a real problem with today's robotic technology, with the technology available in 1969, it would be impossible.

[Dalhousie]

Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return.  Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.

It would be a real problem with today's robotic technology, with the technology available in 1969, it would be impossible.

Which is why Luna 16, 20 and 24 used a flexible core tube which was coiled up in the return capsule.  The proposed partial sample return mission (2020 rover) will retrieve short cores only.