Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[BertieSlack]

he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph.

After Armstrong takes manual control the default attitude of the LM is a backward tilt of around 10 degrees. The descent engine is slowing the forward velocity of the LM without Armstrong having to do a thing.

[najak]

he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph.

After Armstrong takes manual control the default attitude of the LM is a backward tilt of around 10 degrees. The descent engine is slowing the forward velocity of the LM without Armstrong having to do a thing.

Thank you for the detail.

I've heard competing claims from Apollogists on this.  When it comes to landing, how is the LM balance maintained?   If it begins to tilt, which becomes more and more, unless countered - how is this tilt detected and then mitigated?

When it comes to this 10 deg tilt -- as it slows down, it has to gradually decrease, to 0 deg tilt.  What system/human provides this "balancing"?

Is the Balancing control performed by Human or the AGC?

===
No matter these answers, I have a issue to vent:
1. If it was Armstrong - then he needed to practice this 10 deg 45mph motion with the LLTV.
2. If the AGC/IMU - then this should have been tested in the context of an LLTV-like vehicle, to prove viability.

Either way - this 45 mph, 10 deg tilt maneuver -- was NEVER FLIGHT TESTED... until they were going the real deal.

And of more importance, the setup of this LLTV, should have been "more like the LM" where feasible -- such as "being top heavy", position the astronaut STANDING UP, with his feet 3 feet above the top of the jet engine...  Give him a 9" window to look out.   Then have him at least do the 45 mph to stopping maneuver many times -- until he can nail it.  (or the AGC can)

Instead, the FIRST time they EVER did these maneuvers, from within a LM-like vehicle, was on the moon.

[najak]

#1: I already gave you a list of papers from the first lunar science conferences. 
#2: I've already pointe you towards Google Scholar, where - if you search properly, you can find research papers from scientists around the world looking at Apollo samples.

#1: Can you supply this link again, I'll check them out this time.
#2: "if you search PROPERLY" - can you please give me a few examples, so that I might know what "properly" means?

I'd like to see evidence, especially pre-2019, of non-NASA institutions studying these samples or rocks.  When I search last time, I got a lot of hits, but almost all were 2019+...

I mostly want to see the studies and 3rd parties involved during the 1970's -- the era where we're told that these were "uber validated by nations and labs around the world" -- I'd like to follow these leads mostly - to see the evidence of this compelling validation.

[najak]

And only one of those answers will be correct.

Agreed -- yet half believe a lie, based mostly upon either Trump or the mainstream telling them what to believe.   Yet people believe what they believe like it's fact.

How much easier was it to dispense "truth" in this manner in the 1960's where Walter Cronkite was trusted by all.   Apollo was non-partisan... started by Democrats, finished by Nixon/GOP.    Everyone wins...

So when I hear about "Cold War was Real -- just ask those who lived through it!"...

You could likewise, as a conservative say "The 2020 Election was Rigged - we lived it... we saw X, Y , Z... 2000 Mules, etc, etc...  it was 100% real".  While Democrats will tell you the exact opposite story -- BOTH believe their views are REAL 100%.   Group delusions are easy to achieve -- I'd say, MUCH easier back in the 1960's, especially with the new age of TV and only a few main broadcast channels.

[najak]

"divided into 8 parts"? Tell me you know nothing about particle size analysis without saying you know nothing about it...

Yes 8 parts average. The average diameter of these particles fell from 80 microns to 35 micros... less then half the diameter.  So the VOLUME is cubed... Under 1/8th   (2^3 = .

I suppose I should instead as 1/12th -- because  80/35 cubed == 11.94.

So each previous particle needs to be, on average cut into 12 pieces! ... to achieve this new average diameter particle.

THIS IS DRASTIC...  And if just "opening it causes this quick stunning breakdown" - this should get more press, and seek more explanation.

Are you aware of any added research on this?

The article I saw gave a generic 1 sentence explanation:  "The most likely explanation for the degradation is damage caused by water vapor, the scientists say."

No names.  No follow-up.  This topic should be hot, but it's not.   Because who is funded to highlight things that might implicate MLH?  No one.

[BertieSlack]

Instead, the FIRST time they EVER did these maneuvers, from within a LM-like vehicle, was on the moon.

It's what test pilots do. And Armstrong wasn't the first person to control the LM while the descent engine was firing. He was the third.
And have a proper look at LLRV/LLTV flights.........

And it's already been explained to you that soft-landing on the Moon had already been achieved. Quit whining that Surveyor 3 bounced. That's because it didn't have a human pilot to cut the engine when the landing radar got confused just above the surface.

Some idiots didn't believe the Wright Brothers..........

BTW -there's plenty of documentation on how the autopilot maintained the LM's attitude. You may have the wit to find it but you will just hand-wave it away in ignorance and in fear of cognitive dissonance.........

[najak]

#1: And have a proper look at LLRV/LLTV flights.........
#2: BTW -there's plenty of documentation on how the autopilot maintained the LM's attitude. You may have the wit to find it but you will just hand-wave it away in ignorance and in fear of cognitive dissonance.........

#1: I'm trying to find all of the footage I can find.  There's just not much of it to go around.  I imagine there's a lot more "claims of flights" though.

Do any of them say "we simulated the 10 deg 45 mph tilt, and brought it to a stop"?

#2:  I've seen plenty of "top level design docs" stating the plans/theories.  This is the easy part.
Implementation, test, recycle - that's the meat. 

What I'm not seeing is ANY signs of adequate flight testing, and that the LLTV they decided to use, was blatantly different from the LM in some very critical ways.

The LM context differences that they SHOULD have simulated, but didn't:
1. Top Heavy design
2. Pilot standing 3' above the jet, not sitting near level with jet.
3. Only give him a 9" window to look out.
4. Simulate the 45 mph, 10 deg tilt maneuver.

And, since the AGC was supposed to maintain Attitude control:
1. Integrate to this top-heavy LLTV, with IMU, to flight test it -- show it can maintain the attitude.
2. Have it maneuver from even higher speeds than 45 mph to a stop.

INSTEAD, the FIRST TIME any of this was FLIGHT TESTED was "AT THE MOON".

If the AGC was as magic as they claimed - they would have done this testing here on earth, as a Proof of Concept that "yes, this AGC using IMU inputs, CAN maintain balance on an LM-like craft".

But they didn't -- because they couldn't.  If they could, they would -- because to have this TEST FOR FIRST TIME ON THE MOON - would be idiocy.

[BertieSlack]

What I'm not seeing is ANY signs of adequate flight testing, and that the LLTV they decided to use, was blatantly different from the LM in some very critical ways.

Stop whining..........
You are spectacularly unqualified to determine what is adequate in this context.

[najak]

Stop whining..........You are spectacularly unqualified to determine what is adequate in this context.

What Google/YT will soft-suppress, is enabling the mainstream smart people to see this information.  If more of the actual dirt/details of Apollo became common knowledge, you'd see a LOT more smart people begin to doubt the Landings.

I'd really like to see those who are more qualified than me to judge this short-coming of Apollo -- to SEE THESE DETAILS.

Most have no clue of the details, because these are never advertised.  Instead all we find from mainstream are articles assuring "it's all real; those who think otherwise are idiots - here look at the top 10 reasons they doubt it... and they also believe the earth is flat"...   And that's the typical journey/experience of someone daring to "question the moon landing".

It's part of the reason I work so hard here and tolerate the abuse/insults.   I want to see these factual details shared more widely -- to the intelligent/qualified/professionals/scientists - for their evaluation and opinion.   Not just those working for NASA/SpaceX who are probably contracted to not comment publicly.

I'd like to speak with one of them in person, off the record, get the real scoop.  I don't think they are as convinced we landed, as are you.

[Jason Thompson]

If more of the actual dirt/details of Apollo became common knowledge, you'd see a LOT more smart people begin to doubt the Landings.

People have been saying that for decades. More and more details come out and yet nothing has changed. The only people who doubt are the ignorant ones like you who have zero expertise in the relevant fields.

I'd really like to see those who are more qualified than me to judge this short-coming of Apollo -- to SEE THESE DETAILS.

People more qualified than you are literally looking at those details right here right now. You are simply not accepting their responses because they don't agree with you.

[BertieSlack]

Stop whining..........You are spectacularly unqualified to determine what is adequate in this context.

What Google/YT will soft-suppress, is enabling the mainstream smart people to see this information.  If more of the actual dirt/details of Apollo became common knowledge, you'd see a LOT more smart people begin to doubt the Landings.

I'd really like to see those who are more qualified than me to judge this short-coming of Apollo -- to SEE THESE DETAILS.

Most have no clue of the details, because these are never advertised.  Instead all we find from mainstream are articles assuring "it's all real; those who think otherwise are idiots - here look at the top 10 reasons they doubt it... and they also believe the earth is flat"...   And that's the typical journey/experience of someone daring to "question the moon landing".

It's part of the reason I work so hard here and tolerate the abuse/insults.   I want to see these factual details shared more widely -- to the intelligent/qualified/professionals/scientists - for their evaluation and opinion.   Not just those working for NASA/SpaceX who are probably contracted to not comment publicly.

I'd like to speak with one of them in person, off the record, get the real scoop.  I don't think they are as convinced we landed, as are you.

"I can't find it therefore it is deliberately hidden & fake"

Written with the paranoia and conceit of a two-bob conspiracy theorist......

[Jason Thompson]

#1: I'm trying to find all of the footage I can find.

Without leaving your desk of course. Has it occurred to you that not all this information is actually available online and you might have to go and find the actual footage in an archive somewhere, then have the right access to a projector to view it?

What I'm not seeing is ANY signs of adequate flight testing, and that the LLTV they decided to use, was blatantly different from the LM in some very critical ways.

You are not qualified to judge what is adequate, and you have so far still not grasped the very specific thing the LLTV was intended for. I'll say it again, it was intended to provide the astronaut with some idea of the way a landing in 1/6th gravity would feel, because all his pilot training has so far equipped him only to handle a vehicle descending under 1G, and there are differences in timing and response that he would not be familiar with when manually controlling a vehicle landing on the Moon. It was NOT, and was NEVER intended or claimed to be, a simulator of the LM itself.

If the AGC was as magic as they claimed - they would have done this testing here on earth, as a Proof of Concept that "yes, this AGC using IMU inputs, CAN maintain balance on an LM-like craft".

And if you can't let go of the idea of rockets 'balancing' your understanding will never improve. The AGC, among other things, uses the RCS system to maintain attitude, and the LM was not the first vehicle to use such a system.

because to have this TEST FOR FIRST TIME ON THE MOON - would be idiocy.
[/b]

Once again, the LM was flight tested three times before Apollo 11, and the systems were subject to ground tests. The issue is not the testing regime, it's your layman's expectations of what that should entail. Once again I ask, what exactly are your qualifications in this area?

[najak]

It's a shame I can't start any new threads - there are so many separate big topics we are touching on here -- in a splintered/meandered fashion.

Here's one I'd like to EXPLORE.   It's compelling to ME, but if it's hogwash, I would expect the members here be able to tell me some specifics about "why it's a garbage concern".

Here goes -- regarding the "SaturnV's Power Capacity".

Here's a link that compares SaturnV to the modern day SLS:

https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/nasa-sls-mega-moon-rocket-compares-apollo-era-saturn-v


Things to note here:
SLS is 0.75 Mlbs lighter, but has 1.3 Mlbs more thrust power.
SaturnV has 7.5 Mlbs of thrust, but weighed 6.5 Mlbs at launch --  so only had 1 MLbs of excess thrust to accelerate or LIFT cargo.
SLS has 8.8 Mlbs of Thrust! and only weighs 5.75 Mlbs at launch! --  so it has 3.05 Mlbs of EXCESS Thrust to Accelerate and LIFT cargo.

But the SLS can only carry HALF the payload to the moon as the SaturnV.

===
Von Braun's original Math indicated that we'd need 3 GIANT Rockets and Refuelings in order to get the CSM/LM to the moon.

What we settled for was a single half-sized SaturnV....  yeah, that should do the trick.

Look, they told us it worked!  See it on TV?  Look at the slow motion footage - that's low gravity!

So -- how is a 1968 SaturnV with 1/3rd the Lifting capacity as the SLS, able to deliver DOUBLE the load to the moon?

I'm asking for a friend.

[Zakalwe]

#1: And have a proper look at LLRV/LLTV flights.........
#2: BTW -there's plenty of documentation on how the autopilot maintained the LM's attitude. You may have the wit to find it but you will just hand-wave it away in ignorance and in fear of cognitive dissonance.........

#1: I'm trying to find all of the footage I can find.  There's just not much of it to go around.  I imagine there's a lot more "claims of flights" though.

Do any of them say "we simulated the 10 deg 45 mph tilt, and brought it to a stop"?

#2:  I've seen plenty of "top level design docs" stating the plans/theories.  This is the easy part.
Implementation, test, recycle - that's the meat. 

What I'm not seeing is ANY signs of adequate flight testing, and that the LLTV they decided to use, was blatantly different from the LM in some very critical ways.

The LM context differences that they SHOULD have simulated, but didn't:
1. Top Heavy design
2. Pilot standing 3' above the jet, not sitting near level with jet.
3. Only give him a 9" window to look out.
4. Simulate the 45 mph, 10 deg tilt maneuver.

And, since the AGC was supposed to maintain Attitude control:
1. Integrate to this top-heavy LLTV, with IMU, to flight test it -- show it can maintain the attitude.
2. Have it maneuver from even higher speeds than 45 mph to a stop.

INSTEAD, the FIRST TIME any of this was FLIGHT TESTED was "AT THE MOON".

If the AGC was as magic as they claimed - they would have done this testing here on earth, as a Proof of Concept that "yes, this AGC using IMU inputs, CAN maintain balance on an LM-like craft".

But they didn't -- because they couldn't.  If they could, they would -- because to have this TEST FOR FIRST TIME ON THE MOON - would be idiocy.

Please detail your experience on designing flight test programs for cutting edge space programs.
 I'm sure you must have loads, otherwise it would appear that you are posting another load of speculative nonsense based on woefully poor knowledge.

If I ran the zoo it would be the best zoo ever


The Dunnings-Kruger effect is strong in this thread.

[najak]

Please detail your experience on designing flight test programs for cutting edge space programs.
 I'm sure you must have loads, otherwise it would appear that you are posting another load of speculative nonsense based on woefully poor knowledge.

I've been the lead for various product developments, in electronics and software.  You don't skip "system/field testing", and you almost NEVER had things succeed the first time - you plan in "issue reporting" and recycle, and retest.

For Apollo, they skipped vital system/field testing for the AGC and for the pilots.

The first system/field test was on the moon.  While Skipping any attempts to do it here.

This is just plain Product Development sense.  But they were in a hurry - schedule-driven... skipping steps.   

I agree with Alan Bean, quote: “No way!  It’s too many unknowns!  We couldn’t possibly do that!  There’s no way!”