ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Dr.Acula on November 04, 2014, 01:55:16 PM
-
Some days ago I was involved in a debate with two HBs. One of them asked me, why NASA never had launched probes with animals to the Moon, similar to the sowjet Zond 5. Because NASA did not do this, Apollo must be faked. ???
My response to him was: Probes with animals didn't deliver enough data about the environment. Probes with several kinds of sensors can provide actual data about kind of radiation, dosis, flux etc.
The other HB said, the LM ascent stage wasn't tested on Moon. I've heard that one of the Surveyor probes did an ascent on the lunar surface, without launching but getting back to the surface.
Now I want to know: Is my response about the probes accurate? And can anybody tell me about this test with the Surveyor probe?
-
From the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program#Missions)
Surveyor 6 was the first spacecraft planned to lift off from the Moon's surface. Surveyor 3 was the first spacecraft to unintentionally liftoff from the Moon's surface, which it did twice, due to an anomaly with Surveyor's Landing Radar which did not shut off the vernier engines but kept them firing throughout the first touchdown, and after it. Apollo 12's Lunar Module Intrepid landed 600 feet from Surveyor 3, as planned. Surveyor 3's TV and telemetry systems were found to have been damaged by its unplanned landings and liftoffs.
The other HB said, the LM ascent stage wasn't tested on Moon.
The answer is, "why should it have been?" What would have been learned that wasn't already know from ground tests and the the previous two flight tests? Apollo 11 was a test flight and every test flight program has an initial landing and takeoff.
-
In a further test of space technology, Surveyor 6's engines were restarted and burned for 2.5 seconds in the first lunar liftoff on November 17 at 10:32 UTC. This created 150 lbf (700 N) of thrust and lifted the vehicle 12 feet (4 m) from the lunar surface. After moving west 8 feet, (2.5 m) the spacecraft once again successfully soft landed and continued functioning as designed.
From the Surveyor 6 wiki article.
-
The answer is, "why should it have been?" What would have been learned that wasn't already know from ground tests and the the previous two flight tests? Apollo 11 was a test flight and every test flight program has an initial landing and takeoff.
This is one of expattwatty's favourite circular arguments. Even a 747 or Concorde had a maiden take off and landings, there has to be a first time for all these things. But the LM was a first in that it was purely designed for work in a vacuum and a 1/6 G environment.
Another favourite is to get photographs from the LOLA project and claim this is how NASA faked the video of the Lunar Landings.
-
From the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program#Missions)
Surveyor 6 was the first spacecraft planned to lift off from the Moon's surface. Surveyor 3 was the first spacecraft to unintentionally liftoff from the Moon's surface, which it did twice, due to an anomaly with Surveyor's Landing Radar which did not shut off the vernier engines but kept them firing throughout the first touchdown, and after it. Apollo 12's Lunar Module Intrepid landed 600 feet from Surveyor 3, as planned. Surveyor 3's TV and telemetry systems were found to have been damaged by its unplanned landings and liftoffs.
The other HB said, the LM ascent stage wasn't tested on Moon.
The answer is, "why should it have been?" What would have been learned that wasn't already know from ground tests and the the previous two flight tests? Apollo 11 was a test flight and every test flight program has an initial landing and takeoff.
Thank you, this was the deatil I've been looking for :)
And you're right, my answer was similar to your counterquestion and to fact, that Apollo 11 was the final test. But I wanted to have some solid arguments, that the ascend procedure was known.
-
In a further test of space technology, Surveyor 6's engines were restarted and burned for 2.5 seconds in the first lunar liftoff on November 17 at 10:32 UTC. This created 150 lbf (700 N) of thrust and lifted the vehicle 12 feet (4 m) from the lunar surface. After moving west 8 feet, (2.5 m) the spacecraft once again successfully soft landed and continued functioning as designed.
From the Surveyor 6 wiki article.
Thanks a lot, this was the detail I've been looking for. :)
-
Apollo 11 was a test flight and every test flight program has an initial landing and takeoff.
Exactly. Had the LM failed while attempting the moon it would have been like any other test flight that had failed, except for the rather morbid scenario that Neil and Buzz would not have been recovered.
-
The other HB said, the LM ascent stage wasn't tested on Moon.
Don't forget Apollo 10. (Many people do)
-
Apollo 11 was a test flight and every test flight program has an initial landing and takeoff.
Exactly. Had the LM failed while attempting the moon it would have been like any other test flight that had failed, except for the rather morbid scenario that Neil and Buzz would not have been recovered.
The whole world was watching, which would have made it (ascent failure) a major event, but test flight is by its nature a dangerous profession. I don't remember the exact number, but several pilots lost their lives over the high desert while we were trying to figure out hypersonic aerodynamics.
-
Don't forget Apollo 10. (Many people do)
I know what you mean, but this wasn't meant by the HB. He was insisting, that there hadn't been any launch test of the ascent stage from the lunar surface. But he (and me either) didn't know about Surveyor 6.
-
And also Apollo 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_5)
Other people have already said as much, but really you can test and test in any environment you like, sooner or later the only way to test if an astronaut can land on the moon is land an astronaut on the moon. Likewise returning him safely to Earth.
-
Ask him what part of "test pilot" he doesn't understand.
-
Ask him what part of "test pilot" he doesn't understand.
It seems, this person doesn't know anything about the astronauts. The only important thing for him is, that all were active or former airforce pilots. I asked him about Jack Schmitt, he hasn't been aware that Schmitt was a scientist. That's the well known HBs' research skill. ;D
-
Ask him what part of "test pilot" he doesn't understand.
It seems, this person doesn't know anything about the astronauts. The only important thing for him is, that all were active or former airforce pilots. I asked him about Jack Schmitt, he hasn't been aware that Schmitt was a scientist. That's the well known HBs' research skill. ;D
If they had research skills, their hoax belief should come crashing down due to cognitive dissonance.
-
If they had research skills, their hoax belief should come crashing down due to cognitive dissonance.
I couldn't say it better. :)
-
Don't forget Apollo 10. (Many people do)
Yes, don't forget Apollo 10. It was set up to mimic an actual landing flight as closely as possible without actually doing it. There was a "phasing maneuver" that set up the LM so that at staging and ascent ignition it could follow a trajectory like that of an actual landing as closely as possible.
Apollo 10 was also a way to gain flight experience while the LM was still being weight-reduced. The ascent propellant tanks were offloaded to compensate for the extra weight. Had they landed, which they could have done, they could not have returned to orbit. Yet the ascent propellant they did have was enough to send it out of lunar orbit and into a separate orbit around the sun, where it remains today.
-
It seems, this person doesn't know anything about the astronauts. The only important thing for him is, that all were active or former airforce pilots. I asked him about Jack Schmitt, he hasn't been aware that Schmitt was a scientist. That's the well known HBs' research skill. ;D
Careful. Naval aviators such as Armstrong might object to being referred to as Air Force pilots. 8)
-
Careful. Naval aviators such as Armstrong might object to being referred to as Air Force pilots. 8)
Ouch, you're right. Maybe I should use the term military pilots :)
-
Except that Armstrong was no longer a military pilot when he flew as an astronaut. He left the Navy in the early 1960s.
-
Except that Armstrong was no longer a military pilot when he flew as an astronaut. He left the Navy in the early 1960s.
Okaaaaaaaaaaay. There were former and (then) active test pilots with military background. 8)
-
Just to be clear: once a U.S. Naval or Marine aviator, always an aviator. Civilians, the USAF, Army, Coast Guard are pilots.
Never military myself (so I'm a pilot), but my heart lies with the USN.
:)
-
Yeah, every Apollo astronaut (including Skylab and ASTP) was a "pilot", even though some came from the Navy and about 1/3 of them didn't do any actual piloting at all. The LMPs on Apollos 7-17, the Science Pilots on Skylab, and the Docking Module Pilot on ASTP were really acting as flight engineers while the actual piloting was going on.
I think that was even the original term for that position until the astronauts objected.
"Flight engineer" would have been a less silly title than Lunar Module Pilot on Apollos 7 and 8, which carried no lunar modules.
-
The title was pretty silly anyway, I believe, as the commander piloted the LM.
-
The title was pretty silly anyway, I believe, as the commander piloted the LM.
Right, and it's not as though the LMP had nothing at all to do on the way to and from the moon.
-
Egos are funny things. It's like how they renamed the sizes on the condom catheters.
-
Egos are funny things. It's like how they renamed the sizes on the condom catheters.
Yep, the infamous "Catholic condoms". Small, medium, and large became large, X-large, and XX-large.
In this list (http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlegacies/artifactlist.html) of artifacts left behind on the moon by Apollo 11, note items 50 and 51. Two large and two small urine collection device assemblies. I wonder who was the "bigger man", Neil or Buzz? ;)
-
Egos are funny things. It's like how they renamed the sizes on the condom catheters.
Yep, the infamous "Catholic condoms". Small, medium, and large became large, X-large, and XX-large.
In this list (http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlegacies/artifactlist.html) of artifacts left behind on the moon by Apollo 11, note items 50 and 51. Two large and two small urine collection device assemblies. I wonder who was the "bigger man", Neil or Buzz? ;)
I heard it straight from the horse's mouth as 'large, gigantic, and humongous'. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fJbztthNrVQ#t=1087)
-
In this list (http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlegacies/artifactlist.html) of artifacts left behind on the moon by Apollo 11, note items 50 and 51. Two large and two small urine collection device assemblies. I wonder who was the "bigger man", Neil or Buzz? ;)
That's probably why they carried two of each -- so nobody would ever have to know.
-
The answer is, "why should it have been?"
It's part of the Hoaxers inability to learn. To them the idea of applying knowledge you learned from one tested scenario to another scenario is something impossible.
-
In this list (http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlegacies/artifactlist.html) of artifacts left behind on the moon by Apollo 11, note items 50 and 51. Two large and two small urine collection device assemblies. I wonder who was the "bigger man", Neil or Buzz? ;)
Interesting one this
26. Medals Commemorating Two Dead Cosmonauts
One of these will be Vladimir Komorov who died in April 1967 when the parachute of his Soyuz 1 capsule failed after re-entrry. AFAIK no other cosmonauts were killed on missions before 1969, so I wonder who the second one was?
EDIT: OK, I think it was probably Yuri Gagarin, killed not in a spaceflight but a flight training accident in 1968.
-
In this list (http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlegacies/artifactlist.html) of artifacts left behind on the moon by Apollo 11, note items 50 and 51. Two large and two small urine collection device assemblies. I wonder who was the "bigger man", Neil or Buzz? ;)
Interesting one this
26. Medals Commemorating Two Dead Cosmonauts
One of these will be Vladimir Komorov who died in April 1967 when the parachute of his Soyuz 1 capsule failed after re-entrry. AFAIK no other cosmonauts were killed on missions before 1969, so I wonder who the second one was?
I believe it's for Gagarin, who as I'm sure you know, died in a plane crash (along with flight instructor Vladimir Seryogin) on 27 March 1968 during a routine training flight.
-
Thanks Baz, you must have posted while I was editing.
-
Yep, the infamous "Catholic condoms". Small, medium, and large became large, X-large, and XX-large.
In this list (http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlegacies/artifactlist.html) of artifacts left behind on the moon by Apollo 11, note items 50 and 51. Two large and two small urine collection device assemblies. I wonder who was the "bigger man", Neil or Buzz? ;)
[/quote]
I can't remember, where I've read it, but there was an article about those urine bags. When the astronauts dropped them, it was measured by the seismometers on the lunar surface. I think, it was one of the scientists who said, this was the first quake caused by urine of astronauts. ;D
-
On a more serious note, if things weren't ready by Apollo 11 and additional testing needed to be done, why fake it? Apollo 12 also landed within Kennedy's vowed 'before this decade is out'.
-
On a more serious note, if things weren't ready by Apollo 11 and additional testing needed to be done, why fake it? Apollo 12 also landed within Kennedy's vowed 'before this decade is out'.
From my experience with HBs (or CTists in general, really), had 12 been the first successful landing, the failure of 11 to land first for whatever reason, would become proof to a certain subset of the HBs of fakery. The same sort who say that Apollo 13 was staged dramatic fiction.
-
From my experience with HBs (or CTists in general, really), had 12 been the first successful landing, the failure of 11 to land first for whatever reason, would become proof to a certain subset of the HBs of fakery. The same sort who say that Apollo 13 was staged dramatic fiction.
I don't necessarily mean a failure, but, rather, another non-landing test flight to suss out any remaining issues.
-
On a more serious note, if things weren't ready by Apollo 11 and additional testing needed to be done, why fake it? Apollo 12 also landed within Kennedy's vowed 'before this decade is out'.
Back in the late 80's I was playing "Trivial Pursuit" and one of the questions was, "What is the date of the first day of the 21st century?" I thought, "Well, that's uncharacteristically easy. January 1st, 2000, of course." Confident that I had it right, I saw that the answer was January 1, 2001! "What the hell???" I blurted. Then I thought about it for a second and it dawned on me. Yes! Each century begins in the --01 year because there was no year zero. If you theoretically trace our calendar back, to BC, it will go directly from the end of 1BC to 1AD.
I looked it up in three encyclopedias and they confirmed it. The year 2000 is entirely in the 20th century. Likewise, all decades will begin with the --1 year. So 1970 is part of the decade in which Kennedy set his goal.
And all of that hype about the new millennium beginning Jan. 1, 2000?... nope, they were wrong. And I never saw one commentator anywhere mentioning the error.
I have often wondered if we may have lost three astronauts because nobody at NASA ever gave this a thought. Well, why would they in the 1960's?
Clear skies,
Brant
-
On a more serious note, if things weren't ready by Apollo 11 and additional testing needed to be done, why fake it? Apollo 12 also landed within Kennedy's vowed 'before this decade is out'.
Back in the late 80's I was playing "Trivial Pursuit" and one of the questions was, "What is the date of the first day of the 21st century?" I thought, "Well, that's uncharacteristically easy. January 1st, 2000, of course." Confident that I had it right, I saw that the answer was January 1, 2001! "What the hell???" I blurted. Then I thought about it for a second and it dawned on me. Yes! Each century begins in the --01 year because there was no year zero. If you theoretically trace our calendar back, to BC, it will go directly from the end of 1BC to 1AD.
I looked it up in three encyclopedias and they confirmed it. The year 2000 is entirely in the 20th century. Likewise, all decades will begin with the --1 year. So 1970 is part of the decade in which Kennedy set his goal.
And all of that hype about the new millennium beginning Jan. 1, 2000?... nope, they were wrong. And I never saw one commentator anywhere mentioning the error.
I have often wondered if we may have lost three astronauts because nobody at NASA ever gave this a thought. Well, why would they in the 1960's?
Clear skies,
Brant
Losing three astronauts because of the desire to reach the Moon by the end of 1969?
I'm sure I've read somewhere that some people in NASA did indeed point out that the decade technically didn't end until the end of 1970. However, IIRC, they also accepted that most ordinary people would interpret "the end of the decade" as meaning the end of 1969, and trying to include 1970 would seem like nitpicking. (Consider, after all, your own reaction to being told your answer was incorrect!) It's also worth considering the Soviets wouldn't have been deflected by calendrical niceties either as they dished out the propaganda.
-
I have often wondered if we may have lost three astronauts because nobody at NASA ever gave this a thought. Well, why would they in the 1960's?
Kennedy adviser Ted Sorensen was involved in the policy discussions that led to the "end of the decade" speech and stated they were in effect keeping the difference between the implied common usage and the technical calender dating in their pocket. He appears in the Nova program To the Moon.
-
I think the public reaction to a landing delayed to 1970 but claiming it was still technically the 1960s would be the same as the public reaction to people arguing that the new millennium actually started in 2001.
When did you have your new millennium party? ;)
-
Kennedy and his advisers knew the administration would be long out of office by that point. So they would be able to stand on technicalities on something that is ultimately so trivial.
-
When did you have your new millennium party? ;)
Two years in a row, because I am just that kind of guy.
-
I can't remember, where I've read it, but there was an article about those urine bags. When the astronauts dropped them, it was measured by the seismometers on the lunar surface. I think, it was one of the scientists who said, this was the first quake caused by urine of astronauts. ;D
I am fond of citing the big misunderstanding about urine dumps during Apollo 13 to illustrate just how incredibly sensitive two-way Doppler range-rate tracking had already become.
-
Interesting one this
26. Medals Commemorating Two Dead Cosmonauts
One of these will be Vladimir Komorov who died in April 1967 when the parachute of his Soyuz 1 capsule failed after re-entrry. AFAIK no other cosmonauts were killed on missions before 1969, so I wonder who the second one was?
It actually commemorates Pavel Belyayev.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Belyayev
EDIT: OK, I think it was probably Yuri Gagarin, killed not in a spaceflight but a flight training accident in 1968.
-
Interesting one this
26. Medals Commemorating Two Dead Cosmonauts
One of these will be Vladimir Komorov who died in April 1967 when the parachute of his Soyuz 1 capsule failed after re-entrry. AFAIK no other cosmonauts were killed on missions before 1969, so I wonder who the second one was?
It actually commemorates Pavel Belyayev.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Belyayev
-
Interesting one this
26. Medals Commemorating Two Dead Cosmonauts
One of these will be Vladimir Komorov who died in April 1967 when the parachute of his Soyuz 1 capsule failed after re-entrry. AFAIK no other cosmonauts were killed on missions before 1969, so I wonder who the second one was?
It actually commemorates Pavel Belyayev.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Belyayev
No. Quoting the Wikipedia article "His name appears on the plaque accompanying the Fallen Astronaut sculpture placed on the Moon on 1 August 1971 by the crew of Apollo 15". We were discussing the medals left by the Apollo 11 crew, and Belyayev didn't die until nearly six months after Apollo 11.