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

[Peter B]

Now that I've had time to think about it...

They [moon rocks] show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present.

Are you saying there's no water on the moon?

No. I said the moon rocks show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. I said nothing about water subsequently arriving, whether on comets or as described in the article below.

"Glass beads within moon rocks suggest that water seen on the lunar surface originates from the solar wind, researchers say." - space.com
http://www.space.com/18058-moon-water-solar-wind.html

Yes. From the solar wind - an ongoing process which is completely different from the process which formed the rock 3.5 billion years or more ago. That process involved no water, making moon rocks noticeably different from Earth rocks.

The Apollo rocks contain 'zap pits', tiny craters caused by the impact of grains of dust at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. Please describe the process for faking this.

Did the astronauts come back with any 'zap pits'?

Not that I know of. Why should they? The rocks had been collecting zap pits for millions of years at least. The astronauts were on the surface of the Moon for a maximum of 25 hours, proportionately a slightly smaller period of time. You might like to research the rate of micrometeor impact on the Moon.

[nomuse]

2001 ASO = Front Screen Projection.  And let's not forget about Doug Trumbell?

And...?

If you are thinking Dave's silly claims, by the by, there is a basic bit of information about the use of Scotchlite materials on 2001 that he doesn't appear to know (because he based several of his arguments upon this failure of knowledge).

[nomuse]

Oh, and Alex?

What's with the sock on Cosmo Quest?  Not getting enough respect here?

[alexsanchez]

LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.  I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon. 

There you go again.  Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.

Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.

So what specifically was the showstopper?  What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion?  Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here.  Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?

As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

[raven]

Except that would not insure 100% success. After all, there is the huge, huge chance of it being found out, to the endless humiliation of NASA and the United States of America as a whole, especially if the evidence were what is claimed.

[Laurel]

Gene Kranz said in his book that NASA fully expected to lose one or two astronauts during Mercury. Gemini had at least two life-threatening emergencies I can think of right now (Gemini 8 spinning out of control and Gene Cernan's self-described "EVA from hell" on Gemini 9). But NASA was not willing to risk lives for Apollo? Explain please.

And why did three astronauts die during a test of the Command Module? If it wasn't really going to the Moon, why did they have to test it?

[nomuse]

As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

You mean 100% guaranteed success like Iran-Contra, the Watergate break-in and tapes, Potempkin villages, Piltdown Man, the Bruno Hat...?

By what measure have you determined that any campaign of falsehood is guaranteed to escape discovery?

[AtomicDog]

LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.  I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon. 

There you go again.  Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.

Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.

So what specifically was the showstopper?  What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion?  Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here.  Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?

As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

So Nixon, who was inaugurated in January, 1969, told NASA to scrap its successful moon landing program, (which had already successfully performed Apollo 8 a month before he took office), and fake it instead?

[alexsanchez]

LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.  I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon. 

There you go again.  Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.

Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.

So what specifically was the showstopper?  What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion?  Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here.  Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?

As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

So Nixon, who was inaugurated in January, 1969, told NASA to scrap its successful moon landing program, (which had already successfully performed Apollo 8 a month before he took office), and fake it instead?

Well, make it Lyndon Baines "Gulf of Tonkin" Johnson.

[AtomicDog]

You tapdance good, son.

So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?

[cjameshuff]

No. I said the moon rocks show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. I said nothing about water subsequently arriving, whether on comets or as described in the article below.

And the water implanted into glassy bits of regolith is in minute quantities that were only detectable by techniques developed decades after the moon landings. The only significant water on the moon is in polar ice deposits that were nowhere near any landing locations, and which only exist because of their extreme low temperatures due to being constantly shadowed by terrain...the Apollo landings weren't even equipped to explore such areas. That water has been discovered doesn't change the fact that most of the lunar surface is far drier than anywhere on Earth.

[alexsanchez]

You tapdance good, son.

So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?

Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying).  And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk.  Why ruin a good thing.

[alexsanchez]

2001 ASO = Front Screen Projection.  And let's not forget about Doug Trumbell?

And...?

If you are thinking Dave's silly claims, by the by, there is a basic bit of information about the use of Scotchlite materials on 2001 that he doesn't appear to know (because he based several of his arguments upon this failure of knowledge).

Who's Dave?

[AtomicDog]

You tapdance good, son.

So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?

Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying).  And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk.  Why ruin a good thing.

"Just saying" is a weasley way of making an insinuation and denying it at the same time.

And Nixon loved to milk the Apollo missions so much that he cancelled them the first chance he got.

[raven]

You tapdance good, son.

So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?

Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying).  And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk.  Why ruin a good thing.

(bolded for emphases)
Then why say it? What a blatantly dishonest statement!
"I am not saying this, except I am."
Couldn't spread the bull shit thicker with a leaking honey wagon.
Nixon hated Apollo, as he well knew that it was mostly the work of his bitter political rivals. The fruit may have undergone its final ripening while under his purview, but the actual planting and tending was by others.
 If he wanted to milk it, why did he almost axe Apollo 16 and 17? Why were Apollo 18, 19 and 20 cancelled?