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

[Bob B.]

Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)

How could they takeoff and rendezvous with Earth if, as you claim, they couldn't do an IMU alignment on the Moon without a survey marker?

[Peter B]

If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.  The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.  I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.

Do you say this of the scientists from around the world who've examined the rocks supplied by the Apollo missions?

They look at them and say, "These rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, and of being altered by solar radiation and micrometeor impact. NASA says they're from the Moon, and they're consistent with that. They aren't from the Earth, and they didn't come to the Earth as meteorites."

How else did they come to the Earth if not by collection on the Apollo missions?

There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)  There are also martian rocks on earth.

Quite true.

But, as I said earlier,

Lunar meteorites collected in Antarctica show evidence of passing through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and of contamination by the Earth. The Apollo rocks show no such signs, and instead show signs of having been struck by micrometeorites (called zap pits) and solar radiation. There is no technology to recreate zap pits.

Back to Alexsanchez...

Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)

Not so fast.

Most Apollo rocks were photographed on location prior to collection. Many of these photos include astronauts. How were the photos taken?

If they were taken by unmanned sample collection spacecraft on the Moon, then how do astronauts appear in the photos?

But, if they were taken on a fake Moon set somewhere in [name your secret location], what was the set made of? If of lunar material, how much more was collected to make a realistic set? If of terrestrial material, how did it not contaminate the samples?

Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.

"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Read the sentence you quoted. "Debris" not "chunk". I'm sure you read the rest of that article, which included this statement: "While similar to terrestrial basalts, the mare basalts have much higher abundances of iron and are completely lacking in minerals altered by water." They also, as I mentioned above, show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, which is not indicative of terrestrial origin.

So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.

Oh, the humour...

As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets.  That was 1991.

I find it hard to make the comparison. (1) The LM and CSM were heading in the same direction. The Patriots and Scuds were heading in opposite directions. Therefore the closing speeds were very different. (2) The LM and CSM were human controlled, with the rendezvous radar providing information, not controlling a spacecraft. (3) The proposed trajectories of the LM and CSM had been planned in advance, while the Patriots had to track the Scuds in real time.

[alexsanchez]

Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you?  You are very gullible and very naive.  I pity you.  You are a sheep.  Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order.  I must force you sheeple to wake up.  It's for your own good.  Evil awaits you unless you follow me.

More insults. I've added you to the moderation list. I'll have to approve your posts before they appear in the forum, which as Heiwa can attest, sometimes takes a while. If you want to speed up the process you'll have to behave.

what about the insults towards me?  But, I can always sign on as somebody else.

[sts60]

If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.

Unresponsive.  I'm asking the questions because you are making an appeal to authority - in this case, your authority as a reputed expert: an engineer who has extensive aerospace experience and has done GNC work, which is at the very core of your claim that the LM's scheme was inadequate.

I'm just asking you to substantiate your authority and reconcile some of your cited experience.  If you refuse to do so, you leave holes in your story and place your personal authority in doubt.  I've been in aerospace for over two decades, and have worked on civil, military, and commercial programs - and that includes Air Force and NASA contracts.  So I'll consult my own expertise, which naturally I can fully substantiate, and weight it against yours accordingly.

You are correct that your expertise, whatever it actually is, doesn't make your claims right or wrong all by itself.   But you've shown no real knowledge of Apollo either.

The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?

Standard conspiracist rhetoric. Yet you apparently "believe them" when it comes to the reality of the ISS.  So you've shown the government doesn't lie "all the time", thus one has to evaluate the government claims the same way one evaluates your claims: by investigating and using actual expertise.     

The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.

Nonsense.  I work in this field, and I have evaluated the Apollo record in reasonable detail and found it makes hard engineering and scientific sense.   I've also worked with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts and can judge their competence and integrity for myself.

I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.

The Apollo record isn't gospel revealed to the masses who can only choose to believe or disbelieve.  You are clearly unfamiliar with the scientific and technical record, and do not grasp the breadth and depth of what is publicly - and easily - available for examination. 

You act as if you think nobody nobody knows more about Apollo than you do.  From your statements, judging from the simple errors like "LEM" to the whopping misunderstandings of mission design and lunar origin theory, it is instead evident that most of the regulars here know far more about the program than you do.   So waving your hands about your vast aerospace experience isn't really getting you any traction, especially when you provide incomplete and rather contradictory details.

[gillianren]

Heck, I know more about engineering than this guy does.  Also psychology, history, and geology.

[frenat]

"I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task..."

Why would you make an assumption like that?  I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.

Now I'm really confused.  See, you said you were an engineer, and that you worked guidance, and that Apollo didn't have an appropriate way to guide the LM.  The correctness of this claim aside, how do you reconcile the alleged inability of the GNC engineers to come up with a usable solution with your new claim that you "NEVER said engineering was not up to the task"?

And do your high-powered space business friends agree with your claim that Apollo was a fake?

Also, thanks for the information on your undergraduate degree.  I'd still love to hear the rest of your story, as outlined in reply #66.   You've added Huntington Beach to your resume, and that you did "some work" for MacDac there... what did you do?

If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.  The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.  I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.

EVERYBODY lies.  Does that mean everything everybody says is always wrong?  No, of course not.  It doesn't matter if the government lies or how often.  The science with Apollo stands up and is internally and externally consistent.

[frenat]

The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.

Is everything just black and white to you, Alex? Do you really believe that just because the government has lied about some things it means that everything they have ever said was a lie? Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you? Don't you see how ridiculous you're being?

Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?

"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

"Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?"

I know where they weren't.

No you don't.  You have an opinion about it but it happens to be wrong.

[frenat]

So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.

Buzz Armstrong? No such astronaut. You can't even get the basic information about Apollo 11 right. Sad.

Obviously I meant to say Buzz Lightyear.

[LunarOrbit]

But, I can always sign on as somebody else.

That would make you a liar. And a hypocrite.

[frenat]

But, I can always sign on as somebody else.

That would make you a liar. And a hypocrite.

And according to his own logic that would mean he always lies.

[ka9q]

The proposed trajectories of the LM and CSM had been planned in advance, while the Patriots had to track the Scuds in real time.

The crucial difference is that Apollo lunar orbit rendezvous is cooperative while Patriot/Scud interception is exactly the opposite. Everyone from the designers of the two Apollo spacecraft, the teams of engineers assisting from the ground, and especially their highly trained crews very much wanted a successful rendezvous. The Scuds' Iraqi operators very much wanted to avoid successful Patriot intercepts.

The CSM carried an active transponder; without it, the LM's rendezvous radar would not have worked. Although the LM normally plays the active role, as a backup it carried a flashing strobe and a VHF transponder of its own to enable the Command Module to become the active party should the LM be unable to perform its task.

The CSM and LM had several hours to complete rendezvous, with several opportunities available for midcourse corrections to remove any errors in previous maneuvers. After rendezvous they had plenty of time to dock, again with both crews actively cooperating.

The operators of the Scuds very much wanted to evade interception by the Patriots, so they launched without advance notification as to time or target and without any features to assist the Patriot. The flight of a Scud was very short, giving the Patriot operators very little time to detect the Scud launch, determine its trajectory and to launch an interceptor. The goal was not a zero-velocity rendezvous and docking but interception at a very high relative velocity sufficient to "kill" the Scud by kinetic energy alone; this leaves very little margin for error and no second chance if it misses the first time. And on and on.

For various political reasons the US military consistently minimizes the differences between ballistic missile defense and cooperative rendezvous, greatly understating the difficulty of the former. Ironically our friend 'alexsanchez' seems to have fallen victim to this propaganda. What a terrible state of affairs for someone who obviously prides himself on not being fooled by the US government!

 

[Abaddon]

There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)  There are also martian rocks on earth.  Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)  Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.

"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.

Zap pits.
Solar radiation.
Lack of atmospheric re-entry effects.
Surely an engineer understands these simple concepts, no?

As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets.  That was 1991.

"...in the first Bush Gulf War, when the probability of a Patriot missile (cost: $1 to $6 million) actually taking out a Scud missile (cost: $0.22 to $1 million) was only 9 percent."
http://corporategreedchronicles.com/2011/11/25/like-the-patriot-act-there-is-nothing-patriotic-about-the-raytheon-patriot-missile/

As a super duper engineer surely you understand that these are not comparable scenarios, and why, no?

[Zakalwe]

Alexsanchez

I am waiting for your response to a request to put money up. My offer stands and you can read it in post 58. Please specify the charity of your choice, and please provide the evidence requested.

There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)  There are also martian rocks on earth.  Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)  Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.

"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.

I've edited out the delusional rantings and hand-waving about Patriot missiles. I see that you are trying to claim that the 380+Kg of Apollo rocks were returned by robotics or are meteorites. Please see my post 57 in this thread.
Please explain these anomalies in your thinking:
1) Why did the Soviets only return 32.6grams, yet Apollo returned 382Kgs?

2) If the rocks were returned robotically, then you are conceding that it was possible to launch a vehicle, navigate to the Moon, perform a braking manoeuvre, enter orbit, soft land a probe, collect samples, leave the surface, navigate back to Earth and soft land. You cannot return samples robotically without these steps.. As you are now claiming "it was robots what done it" , why are you banging on that LOR was impossible? And that it was impossible to take off from the surface?? They either did that robotically to get the rocks, or it was impossible. If it is impossible, then please explain the rocks. It is is possible, then stop hand-waving about LOR and taking off from the surface. Which is it??? (and by the way, do you know what being hoisted by your own petard means?)

The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion. 

Which is it Alex? Something landed and took off or didn't. Make your mind up.

3) If the Apollo samples were robotically collected, then please detail when the launches took place, from where, and the dates of the returned samples. Bear in mind that a launch powerful enough to do all of the items in point 2 is going to be noticed. The Apollo launches were visible from over 500 miles away. Seismometers on the other side of the Earth registered the shock waves. Heck, amateur astronomers n the UK imaged the LOX dumps from the Saturn boosters in cisLunar space.

4) If it is your contention that the USA is in possession of 382Kg of Lunar rocks sourced from the polar regions then why has no other country with Arctic/Antarctic presence this amount of Lunar material?

5) Your contention is that the Lunar samples are Moon-derived meteorites. Please explain why the Apollo samples show no sign of atmospheric entry, no sign of atmospheric erosion. Please also detail your qualifications in geology and field experience that would allow you to make such a claim. Please also point to a peer-reviewed published report of yours in this field (if you can satisfy either of these, I will double the amount that I will pay to a charity of your choice).

Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.) 

No they don't. The Soviets have Moon DUST. The Luna missions returned 32.6 grams. The first sample return mission, Luna 16, took off in September 1970, a full year after Apollo 11 returned its samples.

As you accept that the Russians could take off from the Lunar surface can you please explain why they didn't need a theodolite and plumb bob. Please also explain how they managed to soft land on the Moon, yet your contention is that the Americans couldn't? (swinging from that petard again, eh?)


No hand-waving or spittle-flecked nonsense in your response Alexsanchez. These are straight question that you must be able to answer if your ideas are expected to have ANY credibility.

what about the insults towards me?  But, I can always sign on as somebody else.

Oh, and stop play-acting like a whiney little brat that's wandered into the playground and got a slap for talking smack with the bigger boys. Your very first post contained a slur against the members here. Act your physical age, not your mental age FFS (or indeed your IQ number).

[Jason Thompson]

If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.

It would lend credence to your claims regarding the engineering challenges of Apollo being insurmountable though.

The government lies all the time.

Are you saying you have never lied? Can you claim a 100% honesty record over your entire life?

The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.

Rubbish. The Apollo program is a documented historical event that can be independently verified. I don't 'believe' the Apollo lunar landings happened because someone told me they did. I accept the reality because I understand how to evaluate the evidence.

Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.

So what? Governments lying in general has no bearing on whether or not you can prove Apollo was faked.

[smartcooky]

The moon landing is a belief system.

No, the Lunar landings are factual knowledge verifiable by solid scientific, observational, and physical evidence and close to a million reliable witnesses.

However, Lunar Landing Hoax Believing is a belief system. It is indulged in by an ever decreasing number of gullible fools, crackpots and nut-bars. Hoax believers cannot bring a single shred of evidence to back up their beliefs that does not fall over when placed under the slightest scientific scrutiny.

And you sir are a fraud. You are no more an engineer than I am the President of the United States. The only thing you are capable of engineering is the big hole that you are digging yourself into with every bare-face lie that you post.