What would you do differently?

[striv]

I'm new to this forum, so apologies if this is not an appropriate topic or placed in the wrong forum.

I've read a lot of posts here over last 3 weeks and some of the linked materials. And there's a lot of fascinating material that I thoroughly enjoyed and learned a lot from, and will continue to do so for long time to come. Both in terms of learning about Apollo but also about hoax believers. I am amazed as to how easily people are willing to believe that stuff and how completely unwilling to accept the demonstrable proofs that they just might be wrong and continue to cling onto the misguided theories.

So here's my question.  If you where designing Apollo mission, and had an additional specific goal of reducing or eliminating any possible future doubt that your mission actually took place, what if anything would you do differently? Is it even possible to completely eliminate such doubt? Could it have been reduced? Could something have been done in hindsight that this kind doubt wouldn't be as common as it is?

Consider answering both in context of using only 1960s technology as it where back then, or using current technology if that gives a better edge.

Thank you for you time. 

[JayUtah]

Welcome!  And yes, this is the right place for such a question.

There are two sorts of answers.  The first is easy in that from an understanding of how conspiracy theorists work, there is no unassailable standard of proof.  We've seen arguments of the general form that NASA is essentially omnipotent when it comes to its hypothetical ability to pull off a hoax.

That makes the second sort of answer interesting, because the sky is the limit.  We can think in terms of independent inspectors and observers to watch the development and operation of the missions.  We can allow skeptics to place monitoring and recording devices on the spacecraft.  We have discussed here several methods of creating a signal or event on the Moon that can be seen directly from Earth.  None of these are impervious from speculative denial, but it's a topic that comes up occasionally.

[gillianren]

Current technology makes me think "webcam," but let's face it--that would be a pretty boring webcam.  Maybe if there were a remote mechanism to turn it?

[striv]

There are two sorts of answers.  The first is easy in that from an understanding of how conspiracy theorists work, there is no unassailable standard of proof.

That bothers me the most, coming from math background where rigor of proof is everything. You don't have people running around claiming pythagorean theorem is a hoax, because well there's a proof. QED. If only it was that simple in real life.

We've seen arguments of the general form that NASA is essentially omnipotent when it comes to its hypothetical ability to pull off a hoax.

Very difficult to defend against that really. You guys are doing a herculean job here, specifically in light of such broad accusations. Although personally I agree with the assessment that it is easier to actually go to
the moon then create a hoax that would withstand scrutiny. No matter how much resources you have.

That makes the second sort of answer interesting, because the sky is the limit.  We can think in terms of independent inspectors and observers to watch the development and operation of the missions.  We can allow skeptics to place monitoring and recording devices on the spacecraft. 

I can just imagine claims that all "independent" observers, are in on it. And why should skeptic 2 believe the skeptic's 1 verification? He clearly was bought and went over to the dark side.

We have discussed here several methods of creating a signal or event on the Moon that can be seen directly from Earth.  None of these are impervious from speculative denial, but it's a topic that comes up occasionally.

Now that is interesting idea. I like it. You schedule an event where even amateur telescope observers can witness in real time, through their own telescope. Simulcast with the video footage of the activation from the moon itself. An equivalent of basically waving the hand to you from the Moon. That would be awesome. Unlikely to happen as I doubt something like that would ever be considered a mission parameter, but it would be pretty cool.

I'll have to find this discussion regarding the signal generation from the moon that can be observed from Earth. Sounds like an intriguing topic.

[striv]

Current technology makes me think "webcam," but let's face it--that would be a pretty boring webcam.  Maybe if there were a remote mechanism to turn it?

I don't know. If you make it into 24 hour reality TV show with multiple cams -- it might not be that boring.

[gillianren]

Current technology makes me think "webcam," but let's face it--that would be a pretty boring webcam.  Maybe if there were a remote mechanism to turn it?

I don't know. If you make it into 24 hour reality TV show with multiple cams -- it might not be that boring.

I meant more leaving one on the Moon after the astronauts had gone.  After all, there was an awful lot of footage already taken while they were up there, and that doesn't convince those who don't want to be convinced.

[Tedward]

Audience participation. So to speak.

Visits from primary or junior school (not sure what the same is in the US) through to people on degree level learning. Get involved with the community on wider scale. From the first two plates riveted together through to landing back on earth. Design experiments to be left etc.

But, nay sayers gonna nay say. Then ignore them.

Personally I like the idea of getting involved, obviously there must be constraints with respect to getting the job done. I have been following several missions on line, I get email updates, nice web sites to follow  and links to explore. I know it is not aimed at me personally but I get a sense of being part of it even though I know damn well I have done sod all to help the people achieve their task.

[ka9q]

I meant more leaving one on the Moon after the astronauts had gone.  After all, there was an awful lot of footage already taken while they were up there, and that doesn't convince those who don't want to be convinced.

They did, at least on the last three missions. Only lasted a few days max, though.

But I don't think there's anything you could do to get the hard-core deniers to concede defeat. (Whether they'd be privately convinced is a separate question). And I'm sure that nobody working on Apollo at the time would have even seriously considered the possibility that some might think it wasn't real.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Nothing would convince some of the sceptics, if you could take them to the moon and show them the Apollo artefacts, they would no doubt say:- "Well NASA have had 45 years to place the evidence!"

[frenat]

Keep going and expanding.  But of course that would require approval and funding from Congress which they didn't get.

[Echnaton]

If you where designing Apollo mission, and had an additional specific goal of reducing or eliminating any possible future doubt that your mission actually took place, what if anything would you do differently?

There is nothing any one can do to keep some people from believing in unlikely or even weird things.  Its just a part of human nature.  So if you're doing something, either important or mundane, it is best to ignore the weirdos and stick to what is appropriate for the project.  There will always also be people like us to tear the weird ideas to shreds.

[Humots]

There are two sorts of answers.  The first is easy in that from an understanding of how conspiracy theorists work, there is no unassailable standard of proof.

That bothers me the most, coming from math background where rigor of proof is everything. You don't have people running around claiming pythagorean theorem is a hoax, because well there's a proof. QED. If only it was that simple in real life.

We've seen arguments of the general form that NASA is essentially omnipotent when it comes to its hypothetical ability to pull off a hoax.

Very difficult to defend against that really. You guys are doing a herculean job here, specifically in light of such broad accusations. Although personally I agree with the assessment that it is easier to actually go to
the moon then create a hoax that would withstand scrutiny. No matter how much resources you have.

That makes the second sort of answer interesting, because the sky is the limit.  We can think in terms of independent inspectors and observers to watch the development and operation of the missions.  We can allow skeptics to place monitoring and recording devices on the spacecraft. 

I can just imagine claims that all "independent" observers, are in on it. And why should skeptic 2 believe the skeptic's 1 verification? He clearly was bought and went over to the dark side.

We have discussed here several methods of creating a signal or event on the Moon that can be seen directly from Earth.  None of these are impervious from speculative denial, but it's a topic that comes up occasionally.

Now that is interesting idea. I like it. You schedule an event where even amateur telescope observers can witness in real time, through their own telescope. Simulcast with the video footage of the activation from the moon itself. An equivalent of basically waving the hand to you from the Moon. That would be awesome. Unlikely to happen as I doubt something like that would ever be considered a mission parameter, but it would be pretty cool.

I'll have to find this discussion regarding the signal generation from the moon that can be observed from Earth. Sounds like an intriguing topic.

The Science Fiction author Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story (way pre Apollo) about a joint American-Soviet-English moon expedition, with a ship for each country starting from orbit.

One event was firing off a cloud of (IIRC) sodium vapor from a location in darkness on the Earth-facing side of the moon.  The cloud would expand greatly, and when it came into sunlight would be naked-eye visible across the face of the moon.

When they did this, the whole world was watching, literally.

It turned out that someone had put a stencil in the device that shaped the cloud into letters.

Clarke didn't come out and say it, but made it plain that the letters spelled "Coca-Cola".

The man who did it was fired, but he was already set for life.

If something like that happened for real, I don't think I would ever stop laughing.

[Luke Pemberton]

If you where designing Apollo mission, and had an additional specific goal of reducing or eliminating any possible future doubt that your mission actually took place, what if anything would you do differently?

You're never going to convince some people. Echnaton summarises my views perfectly. There are always going to be the Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene characters. 9/11 was probably the most captured event of modern times, but there's a whole conspiracy industry dedicated to that awful day.

[ka9q]

Now that is interesting idea. I like it. You schedule an event where even amateur telescope observers can witness in real time, through their own telescope. Simulcast with the video footage of the activation from the moon itself. An equivalent of basically waving the hand to you from the Moon. That would be awesome. Unlikely to happen as I doubt something like that would ever be considered a mission parameter, but it would be pretty cool.

They kinda did just this, though on radio frequencies rather than optical, and somewhat unintentionally.

Radio has two big advantages over optical: you don't have to resolve the source and form an image, you only need to collect enough power. And the background noise level is far lower than at optical frequencies, so a huge antenna was not always needed.

Several radio hams received Apollo signals direct from the moon, and in several ways. Two received S-band signals from Apollo 16 and one (Larry Baysinger) actually received UHF direct from Neil Armstrong's backpack during the Apollo 11 EVA. The funny thing is that the S-band signal was the one designed to go to earth; the UHF signal was only intended to go a few meters from Armstrong to the Lunar Module for relay on the S-band signal! And another funny thing is that had Baysinger tried to receive S-band at that time, he would have failed. This is because the LM transmitter was in FM mode at the time to carry video, and that requires a very large antenna or you get nothing at all (the "capture effect"). Hence the movie "The Dish". (The S-band transmissions could also be made in PM, and that's the mode the other two hams received).

The UHF signal was AM, like aviation, and while it was very noisy you could definitely tell they were there. Using the parameters for Baysinger's equipment I ran the "link budget" myself (I'm both a radio ham and a radio communications R&D engineer) and what I heard is exactly what the budget told me I should hear. The signal even disappeared midway through the EVA when the moon set in Kentucky, and prior to that there was slow fading of the type expected when you get both a direct signal and one reflected from the ground alternately boosting and canceling each other at the antenna. It's a trick often used by radio hams who bounce their own signals off the moon ("moonbounce" or "EME").

But of course all these hams -- private individuals, on their own dime and in their backyards -- were somehow paid off by NASA to keep the secret...

[Luke Pemberton]

Several radio hams received Apollo signals direct from the moon, and in several ways. Two received S-band signals from Apollo 16 and one (Larry Baysinger) actually received UHF direct from Neil Armstrong's backpack during the Apollo 11 EVA. The funny thing is that the S-band signal was the one designed to go to earth; the UHF signal was only intended to go a few meters from Armstrong to the Lunar Module for relay on the S-band signal! And another funny thing is that had Baysinger tried to receive S-band at that time, he would have failed. This is because the LM transmitter was in FM mode at the time to carry video, and that requires a very large antenna or you get nothing at all (the "capture effect").

I always like Wonder Blunder's take on this, and that no one tracked Apollo all the way to the Moon so we can discount the evidence of the HAMs and Jodrell Bank (and other parties). He has no idea about directional nature of such transmissions in the frequency bands used, you pretty much need to be pointing a dish at the Moon. Of course, you can get around this by using pre-recorded transmissions that are broadcast from satellites orbiting the Moon. In fact, I wonder if our BS in astrophysics understands the nature EM spectrum at all, particularly the microwave and radio frequencies.

I also recall that he claimed that the US Government made it illegal to intercept transmissions, there no one could claim that interceptions were proof as it was illegal anyway (something along those lines). Phil Webb dealt with his claim and summed it up most neatly. It's a bit like saying it is illegal to speed on the road, but people still do it anyway.

Hence the movie "The Dish". (The S-band transmissions could also be made in PM, and that's the mode the other two hams received).

Thanks, something to watch this afternoon