Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Peter B]

So you're suggesting that because NASA is in danger of being defunded by the US government, a viable strategy for it is to approach the US government...for more money.

The funds from Congress were to fund NASA.  Without NASA funding, all is lost.   Baron and his 500-page report needed to not be in the spotlight, else it cast more doubt on NASA as a whole.  But Baron was relentless, and was roping in more witnesses -- until he wasn't.

NASAX didn't have a public budget - it was rolled into the NASA budget and maybe even some from the DoD.  Shifting money around is an easy govt task.

Yeah, sorry, WHAT?? If Congress ceases NASA's Apollo funding, Apollo is finished, "NASAX" or not. Do you seriously think that people won't ask what's going on if work on Apollo continues after NASA's funding for it has been cut off?

[Peter B]

#1: And this is why you make it seem pointless to just explain stuff to you - you ignore it. See reply #372 in this thread for the explanation for Webb's resignation - the sort of politics that happens in the US government every time a new President is elected:
#2: Again, you'd know this if you paid the slightest attention to actual evidence.

#1: The election was a month away, and 3.5 months away from the transition of power.  In the meantime, why not stick around to be a part of this GRAND VICTORY (which is the FIRST TIME EVER that Astronauts have been launched through the Van Allen Belts, and then into orbit around the moon!)...

I hear your "evidence" - but equating "words given from top leaders about reasons for resignation" as Truth - -is a big stretch.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm sorry but you're just being argumentative.

If you weren't biased, you might see this as fishy too.  Think about it more.   Webb was like the "Father of Apollo" - it was his brain-child.  He championed it.  It was based upon his zeal and confidence that Congress approved of the program.

Not only have I thought about it, I've been studying Apollo as history for more than 25 years, so I've examined it in far more detail than you have. Apollo wasn't Webb's "brain-child". It was devised before he was Administrator. Yes, he championed it with Congress, because that was his job as Administrator. But if you read his biography and read his NASA oral history you see that he was very much an eminence grise - a power behind the scenes, and not a rocket fan-boy.

Then he makes what should have been a reckless decision to change the Apollo 8 mission into a Moon Orbit late-in-the-game - and you think that this was "his decision".  In order to make such a bold decision, you must have some real conviction about it...  but, instead he resigns 2 months later -- and does not even attend the launch!  Hmmm....  no fish here.

And once again your lack of knowledge leads you to draw conclusions that you think are suspicious. Webb didn't "make" the Apollo 8 decision. George Low made it and convinced other Apollo senior managers, and between them they convinced Webb, who was the most skeptical of the lot. So we know that your statement "you think that this was "his decision"" is incorrect.

As for not attending the launch, others have already pointed out to you Webb's record on attending launches.

#2: "Paid attention to evidence..."
If you didn't simply give full credence to the narrative they "tell you" and instead looked at the actions/events that are transpiring -- you might see more compelling evidence.

Webb's actions indicate something different than the "excuse" he gave for resigning.  His excuse makes little sense.

And if Apollo 8 was a success, why on earth would Nixon replace the "Father of Apollo"??    Under his leadership/inspiration, wasn't Apollo 8 itself a miracle?   Would Nixon disrupt this leadership 6 months before Apollo 11?

Webb didn't want a part of Apollo anymore...  this is pretty blatant to neutral eyes.   GenZ won't fall for his "excuse" and call it "fact/evidence".

The current Administrator, Bill Nelson, is the 14th Administrator of NASA, and he'll be leaving to make way for Trump's nominee. Of the preceding 13 Administrators, it's reasonable to say that six of them left due to a change of President (Glennan, Webb, Frosch, Griffin, Bolden and Bridenstine). So that would make 50% of NASA Administrators leaving their jobs because of a change of President.

See what happens when you look at "the actions/events that are transpiring"?

[onebigmonkey]

Seeing as NASA's failings are part of najaks's discussion, I happened across this publication while looking into something else:

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Electronic-Design/1969/Electronic-Design-V17-N17-1969-0816.pdf

In it there's an interview with George H. Hage, Apollo Program Deputy Director and Mission Director for Apollo 11.

Here are his responses to some pertinent questions:

After losing 22 months to unscheduled testing, how did you manage to place a man on the moon within the time schedule?

The Apollo program was stabilized before January 1967, so that there was leeway in scheduling until mid-summer of last year. Then, of course, we changed the mission sequence. The pre-fire version of the projected Apollo 7 had no launch designation. If the Apollo 7 had performed as planned, there is no question that we would have been on the moon by now. But when a program of this kind runs into a deficiency of the magnitude of the fire, you have no alternative but to do whatever is required to fix it. Only then were Apollos 8, 9 and 10 sent on their way. During the testing and redesign of the spacecraft, three unmanned flights were launched.

What effort was necessary to compensate for management mistakes?

Any program of this size is going to be faced with errors in human judgment. I suspect there are those who would be critical of this management in trying to determine the cause of the fire that killed the three astronauts three years ago. I suggest that circumstance was created by a technical blind spot—because we did not recognize the hazard in having present simultaneously all the conditions that could lead to a catastrophic fire of that type. The three conditions are: fuel, and we had materials in the spacecraft that were combustible; ignition sources, and any time you have an  electrical system inside a machine you have potential ignition sources; and tmosphere, that will cause the fire to propagate. If all three of these elements are present, you have a potential fire threat. Actions taken as a consequence of that circumstance have been extremely thorough. The interior of the spacecraft, both the Lunar Module and the Command Module, have been redesigned to rigorously remove flammable material. Wiring has been carefully protected to minimize the possibility of shortcircuits, and great care has been taken to protect against over loading circuits. Finally, the atmosphere of the spacecraft at launch was changed to be less of an oxidizing agent. We changed the mixture from pure oxygen to 40% nitrogen and 60% oxygen, an environment that is less sensitive to propagating a fire. Also, a very demanding test program was conducted after this redesign: the interior of an actual boilerplate spacecraft was built with materials, wiring, etc., to duplicate the flight unit. By spotting various ignition sources, we set fires in many places throughout the spacecraft to determine if, in fact, they would propagate. Resolution of this problem cost us time between January, 1967, and October, 1968.

Is it ever possible to correct minor mistakes before they become public knowledge?

The policy of the spaceflight program has been one of complete exposure, not only nationally, but to the world. That’s a very powerful incentive for those of us who are involved in turning out these programs to be extremely careful, and critical, and to do everything that’s reasonably within our power to make every flight a success. Our “power” takes the form of a very complete and extensive ground test program.

There's a couple of other interesting Apollo articles in the edition as well.

[ajv]

First, the link was broken for me - missing a trailing "f".

Thanks for this magazine link. Why do I get the feeling that JayUtah went straight to magazine page 254 and hasn't been seen since?

Did you know you can get a data modem up to 150 baud for only $349? - wow! (The 2400/4800 baud ones are outside my price range.)

[Peter B]

Seeing as NASA's failings are part of najaks's discussion, I happened across this publication while looking into something else:

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Electronic-Design/1969/Electronic-Design-V17-N17-1969-0816.pdf

In it there's an interview with George H. Hage, Apollo Program Deputy Director and Mission Director for Apollo 11.

Here are his responses to some pertinent questions:

After losing 22 months to unscheduled testing, how did you manage to place a man on the moon within the time schedule?

The Apollo program was stabilized before January 1967, so that there was leeway in scheduling until mid-summer of last year. Then, of course, we changed the mission sequence. The pre-fire version of the projected Apollo 7 had no launch designation. If the Apollo 7 had performed as planned, there is no question that we would have been on the moon by now. But when a program of this kind runs into a deficiency of the magnitude of the fire, you have no alternative but to do whatever is required to fix it. Only then were Apollos 8, 9 and 10 sent on their way. During the testing and redesign of the spacecraft, three unmanned flights were launched.

What effort was necessary to compensate for management mistakes?

Any program of this size is going to be faced with errors in human judgment. I suspect there are those who would be critical of this management in trying to determine the cause of the fire that killed the three astronauts three years ago. I suggest that circumstance was created by a technical blind spot—because we did not recognize the hazard in having present simultaneously all the conditions that could lead to a catastrophic fire of that type. The three conditions are: fuel, and we had materials in the spacecraft that were combustible; ignition sources, and any time you have an  electrical system inside a machine you have potential ignition sources; and tmosphere, that will cause the fire to propagate. If all three of these elements are present, you have a potential fire threat. Actions taken as a consequence of that circumstance have been extremely thorough. The interior of the spacecraft, both the Lunar Module and the Command Module, have been redesigned to rigorously remove flammable material. Wiring has been carefully protected to minimize the possibility of shortcircuits, and great care has been taken to protect against over loading circuits. Finally, the atmosphere of the spacecraft at launch was changed to be less of an oxidizing agent. We changed the mixture from pure oxygen to 40% nitrogen and 60% oxygen, an environment that is less sensitive to propagating a fire. Also, a very demanding test program was conducted after this redesign: the interior of an actual boilerplate spacecraft was built with materials, wiring, etc., to duplicate the flight unit. By spotting various ignition sources, we set fires in many places throughout the spacecraft to determine if, in fact, they would propagate. Resolution of this problem cost us time between January, 1967, and October, 1968.

Is it ever possible to correct minor mistakes before they become public knowledge?

The policy of the spaceflight program has been one of complete exposure, not only nationally, but to the world. That’s a very powerful incentive for those of us who are involved in turning out these programs to be extremely careful, and critical, and to do everything that’s reasonably within our power to make every flight a success. Our “power” takes the form of a very complete and extensive ground test program.

There's a couple of other interesting Apollo articles in the edition as well.

The problem is that while most people would consider the interviewee as being honest and open about NASA's shortcomings, I predict Najak's response would be like this:

Paid by NASA, and probably is best paying client/boss.    If he was "inept" they'd find someone else to earn this good money.
Before taking the job, probably had to sign away a few Rights (NDA stuff, etc) -- so that if he decided to "choose honesty over very good money" - he couldn't legally be honest...  He'd be breaking the law against NASA (not just a normal commercial company).

So you are correct -- these type results that can only be proclaimed by "those working for NASA" -- are not so compelling to me either way.  To me - it's "just words" - predictable words.

(And yes, that's a direct quote of Najak after I linked a different interview for his reading pleasure.)

[bknight]

Toe be clear all manned spacecraft went through a 100% oxygen test prior to launch, NASA's luck just ran out .