I don’t know if man went to the moon in the sixties

[DAKDAK]

I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false

Here are some of the reasons I believe this
1.   The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
2.   Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
3.   The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
4.   Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were  the norm in the sixties)
5.   Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
6.   Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
7.   Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
8.   The  Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
9.   Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
10.   There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.

[Post restored by LunarOrbit]

[Laurel]

What are your sources for these claims?

[Laurel]

8.   The  Lem [sic] was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space.

You're only referring to the skin of the LM. Do you really think the entire craft was made out of foil? How much research have you done on the LM?

[DAKDAK]

t

[Laurel]

4.   Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were  the norm in the sixties)

What do you say to this? Some might consider it better evidence than "your own memory."
http://www.clavius.org/techcomp.html

[Hal]

glass melts around 700 degrees Fahrenheit

Lots of misconceptions going on here, but if you're truly interested, here's a link to a pdf of a fascinating NASA document:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf, "Apollo Experience Report: Spacecraft Structural Windows" [NASA TN D-4739], which details the design and qualification requirements of both the interior (pressure vessel) and exterior (heat shield) windows.  One relevant statement:

The analytical and test-temperature differentials between the inner and outer surfaces of the heat-shield window were 1600°, 930", and 1130" F for the hatch, rendezvous, and side windows, respectively

Note that the quoted temperatures are for the tested inner/outer surface differentials.  Sounds like sturdy stuff, to me.

[BazBear]

I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false

Here are some of the reasons I believe this
1.   The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
2.   Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
3.   The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
4.   Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were  the norm in the sixties)
5.   Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
6.   Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
7.   Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
8.   The  Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
9.   Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
10.   There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.

Your post is full of inaccuracies. If you are truly interested in learning, please start by doing some reading here http://www.clavius.org/ . That site is owned, written, and edited by an actual aerospace engineer named Jay Windley, who posts here as JayUtah. There are other engineers who post here as well (I'm personally just an interested amateur). I recommend you read through Jay's site, then if you have any questions I'm sure people here will be more than happy to answer them.

The Apollo landings are historical fact, as hopefully you'll soon realize 

[Chew]

I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false

Here are some of the reasons I believe this
1.   The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet

That was the habitable volume, i.e. the volume available for the astronauts to move around. The CM was 12.8' in diameter and 11.4' in height. A simple cone of those dimensions has a volume of about 490 cubic feet.

would not fit (3) men all the food,

How much volume would the food occupy?

water,

Oxygen and hydrogen were combined in a fuel cell to generate electricity; the by-product was water. So the drinking water they needed wasn't brought with them; it was made en route. The water was stored in the Service Module.

air,

Apollo was a single gas environment. Except for a small supply used during re-entry the oxygen was stored in the SM.

spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed

Please provide a source for the volume occupied by those items.

for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)

Unsafe according to whom?

2.   Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.

You were never told that. You are misconstruing what you have heard.

3.   The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today.

Wrong. But so what?

Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.

Why do you assume a figure "8" trajectory is crazy? Do you know how to compute a simple Hohmann transfer orbit?

4.   Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were  the norm in the sixties)

Apollo was anything but "the norm".

5.   Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full.

No mission landed when the Moon was full. All the missions landed early in the lunar morning.

If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon

No one has ever said it wasn't bright on the Moon. What's your point?

6.   Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures

Those people have repeatedly been proven wrong.

and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not?

Because, as you've already said, the Moon was bright.

It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control

You are confusing the live video feed with the long debunked canard about too many photos were taken.

7.   Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade

How did you figure that out?

8.   The  Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space

There was no "bail out" procedure during any portion of the mission.

9.   Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside

Glass has a higher melting point than aluminum.

10.   There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.

So far your attempts to prove that have fallen far short.

[Count Zero]

9.   Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside.

The Shuttle has (had  ) more and larger windows.  Were all of its missions faked, too?

Come to think of it, Not only the Shuttle and Apollo, but also Mercury, Gemini, Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Buran and Shenzhou all had windows.  So either the entire 51-year history of manned space flight is wrong...

...or you are wrong.

Which do you think is more likely?

[Jason Thompson]

1.   The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)

What would be unsafe about keeping the helmets, boots and backpacks needed for the lunar surface activity in the LM? Or keeping water and oxygen in a tank that is not in the habitable volume of the LM? The locations of all these items have been public knowledge for decades now, and no-one who knows anything about space travel finds anything odd about them.

2.   Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.

So scientific knowledge develops after years of research. That's normal. It's how our understanding develops. The moon is not considered a 'wet' place by any means. The water that has been found is bound into the rocks, not sitting around making everything wet. There is a large amount of water in most of the food you eat, but i doubt you'd consider biscuits or crisps 'wet' would you?

3.   The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.

That's because they are unmanned and can happily get away with using lower energy transfer orbits that take months to get there. The very first probes to the Moon all used the 'crazy' trajectory you describe. Were all lunar shots by everyone faked until we started using the longer, lower energy transfer orbits?

4.   Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were  the norm in the sixties)

And your evidence for this is what? Slide rules can be used to do all the mathematics needed for a flight to the Moon. Pencil and paper can be used by a half decent mathematician. What was so inadequate about computer technology in that time period?

5.   Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon

Apollo 17 went to the moon when it was a thin waxing crescent. In any case, why would the light on the Moon blind the astronauts? The moon is lit by the Sun just as the Earth is, so if you don't get blinded by sunlight on a clear day here, why would you on the Moon? Your eye has a huge dynamic range, and humans can see if remarkably low light given time to adapt.

6.   Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control

Have you seen all of that footage? I have. It is perfectly consistent with one camera per mission being operated by remote control.

7.   Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade

Lack of understanding of thermal tranfer noted. If you can touch the outisde of your oven without being burned and the outside of your freezer without being frozen, do you really think they'd have trouble with thermal control in space? What about being on the Moon makes a water-cooled space suit any less effective than being anywhere else in space?

8.   The  Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space

Simply rubbish. The LM was made of aluminium, with an outer layer of mylar and tape for thermal control purposes. It was quite a sturdy spacecraft. And the abort procedure certainly did not involve bailing out.

9.   Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside

Would it? Why?

10.   There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.

Circular reasoning noted. You presented this as a list of reasons why the Apollo record is false. You can't use 'because it was false' as a reason to justify that!

[Jason Thompson]

the fact that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit

So why would water inside a spacesuit under several layers of various insulating materials instantly freeze in the shade on the moon? It has to lose all the heat it already has in order to freeze.

and glass melts around 700 degrees Fahrenheit is common knowledge

What kind of glass? I work in a lab and I can use a bunsen burner to melt glass pipettes to extrude them to make fine glass fibres, or I can use a bunsen burner to boil up solutions in a glass tube that does not melt when I put it in the flame. Heat-resistant glass has been around for decades.

my source on computer and communication technology is not backed up by anything except for my own memory

Then we may dismiss it for lack of evidence, since your memory likely does not go back to the sixties, and in any case very likely did not involve the application of computer technology to the problems of lunar flight.

[dwight]

6.   Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control

The single TV camera, single TV feed footage could easily be controlled via remote control. The unbroken GCTA video easily debunks this. As does any basic level photography/video theory with regards to lighting with regards to the "wrong lighting" claim.

[Echnaton]

I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false

Given the depth of your misunderstanding of the historical events, the construction of the vehicles, the lunar environment and the relevant sciences, it is not surprising that you think it is a hoax.

5.   Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon

You seem to be implying that the moon would somehow be so bright that it would be impossible to be on the surface.  Yet the moon is lit by the same source as the earth, the sun, and both are practically the same distance from the sun.  So why would it be significantly brighter than say a desert on earth?  Please clarify this for us.

8.   The  Lem

This is, by itself, a dead giveaway that you have been reading the typical and long ago discredited writings of hoax promoters.  So please either speak for yourself and document your sources or provide us with the origins of your beliefs.  Otherwise you will have nothing better to support your position that personal incredulity.  Is that what you really want to stand on?

[Zakalwe]

What are your sources for these claims?

Probably here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Grand_Day_Out

 

[Glom]

1.   The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space.

What volume do you think was required? There is no questioning that it was not a comfortable environment.

The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)

How so? Because that's where the lunar extravehicular mobility units were stored.  The pressure garment assemblies used for the launch were stored in the CM of course.

2.   Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.

That's no description of the Moon I recognise.

3.   The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.

The typical Hohman transfer orbit is still used. It's just that other spacraft, which don't need to worry about life support, choose to use a lower energy transfer.

4.   Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were  the norm in the sixties)

How much computing power do you think is required for such a task?

5.   Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon

The full moon is pretty bright. But guess what is even brighter. Earth. We're still seeing.

The phase of the Moon was different for each mission so your original assertion is wrong. To compound your error, Apollo 17 went at the thinest crescent of any of them.

6.   Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not?

Why would they need lights? You just pointed out in your very last point that the lunar surface should have been really bright. Which is it? Is the Moon blindingly bright or is it so dark you'd need artificial lights?

It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control

Why? There was a tv camera plonked on a rover. Why does that need a dedicated camera man nevermind three?

7.   Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade

And how would the water have shed all that latent heat?

8.   The  Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space

Some of the layers were that but the structure of the LM has more than one layer to it.

There was no bailout contingency. I have no idea where you got that from.

9.   Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside

How hot do you think the glass became?