|
Post by graham2001 on Feb 26, 2008 7:57:13 GMT -4
No doubt you've heard of the Orbiter Space Flight simulator, I've got a copy on my hard drive which I use to run simulated Apollo Missions (I still haven't left Earth orbit yet ). A Moon Hoax thread has started up and someone is now claiming that only Apollo 11 was faked (to beat the Soviets) but that the other missions were real. This is one version of the Hoax Claim I've never heard before. Anyone else seen this one, and what are the best counter arguements?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 26, 2008 8:21:39 GMT -4
I've seen it before. It's usually based on the video from Apollo 11 being the worst quality of the lot. However, the simplest counter-argument is to ask why they faked that one and not the others? Why not wait a couple of months? Their intelligence on the Soviet space program by that time must have been good enough to know that they hadn't a hope of getting there in July.
By the time Apollo 11 launched, there had been two test flights of the Russian N-1 rocket and both had ended catastrophically. By the time Apollo 11 was rolling out onto the pad there had been only one test flight. Interestingly, sources from before the end of the Cold War suggest that American intelligence actually missed it entirely, so the Americans believed either that the USSR had made one failed test flight or no test flight at all of their manned Moon rocket. Given that, why would they rush to fake Apollo 11 when they can see they have breathing room?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 26, 2008 12:02:10 GMT -4
Also Apollo 10 did everything except actually land. If it wasn't fake, then we had the capability to land with 11. Why fake it then?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 26, 2008 12:37:48 GMT -4
Quite true, Jason. By the time of Apollo 11 the Saturn V, the Apollo spacecraft, the LM, the PLSS and spacesuit had all been tested in space up to and including a descent to 50,000 feet above the Moon. As you say, why fake it when you have working, tested hardware?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 26, 2008 13:03:46 GMT -4
A variant of that theory appeared in a previous version of this board. Was it Carrot Cruncher who proposed it?
The hypothesis was that all the missions prior to Apollo 14 were faked; that Apollo 14 was the first mission to go to and land on the Moon. It was proposed as a fallback from the insufficient technology argument; it says that Apollo technology was eventually able to reach the Moon and land on it, but not in time for the "decade is out" deadline.
The generally progressive nature of the Apollo missions is the best counterargument. Each mission and mission type built upon the successes of the previous ones, so any discontinuity renders subsequent successes suspicious.
Another good argument is the consistency among surface imaging. If Apollo 11 was faked and Apollo 12 was not, why do the photographs from Apollo 12 look remarkably consistent with those from Apollo 11? Apollo 11's photographs would have had to be convincingly faked without much of a reference.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 26, 2008 21:13:08 GMT -4
The threadstarter says: I know all the facts guys ( believe me I've read every book there is to read on this) but PERSONALLY there is something that doesn't quitte feel right to me with Apollo 11. And like I said that's just a personal "feeling". Oh, oh, it's that 'feeling' thing again...
Don't you have to admit that the actual landing and takeoff from the moon by the LM were the most worrisome part of Apollo 11? Except for Neil's exceptional piloting skills and instincts, they might have landed a bit short on the rim of a crater. But, hey, that's what they were trained to do - sometimes they had to outthink the computers. They LM's landing and takeoffs were both major achievements that were not done before, and separates the Apollo 11 missions from any of the earlier ones.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 26, 2008 21:48:27 GMT -4
Right: we shouldn't short-change Apollo 11. The nature of flight test -- and of many other kinds of testing -- means you can't fully isolate each phase of testing and mitigate its risk. Once the airplane takes off for the first time, success depends on it also being able to land for the first time.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 26, 2008 22:32:21 GMT -4
I've been learning a lot of tidbits here and there from the Neil Armstrong book. I guess some of it is actually being retained in my brain, at least for now. Indeed, regarding the LM - Neil actually found it easier to maneuver it in its proper environment - space, rather than the business he had in LM testing on earth. Every HB should take the time to read it. I don't know how anyone could say Apollo 11 was faked after reading the minute by minute travelogue of the landing - and what the astronauts were thinking, why they did certain things, comments by mission control people, the computer warnings (from overload), and retrospectives from the astronauts plus much more. It all just fits together too good to have been faked. Wonderful book.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Feb 27, 2008 4:36:54 GMT -4
No doubt you've heard of the Orbiter Space Flight simulator, I've got a copy on my hard drive which I use to run simulated Apollo Missions (I still haven't left Earth orbit yet ). I have managed to get to the moon and make a very rough landing - but using the Delta Flyer and the Eagle from Space:1999. With Apollo, I've got as far as the TLI burn, then retrieving the LM from the adapter. Very tricky manoeuvre that is too!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 27, 2008 8:46:34 GMT -4
you can't fully isolate each phase of testing and mitigate its risk. Once the airplane takes off for the first time, success depends on it also being able to land for the first time. And of course you can't test its ability to land without taking off.... (OK, mostly: Enterprise did landing tests without a conventional launch, before anyone brings it up because you're all pedantic swines... ) This applies even more to Apollo 11. Had they not been able to get back again, I can't see NASA's PR machine managing to convince the world that it was a partial success because they landed and walked around, and the next flight should iron out the take-off problems.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 27, 2008 13:29:56 GMT -4
[pedant mode]
The plural of "swine" is "swine."
[/pedant mode]
|
|
|
Post by svector on Feb 27, 2008 16:00:16 GMT -4
Is this actually possible with you?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 28, 2008 0:35:59 GMT -4
Is this actually possible with you? Hey, I can be just as wacky and fun-loving as the rest of you; that post, as I'm sure you noticed, was clearly a joke. I wouldn't've brought it up if he hadn't made the opening so obvious! I've been told, actually, that I have no sense of humour. This came as a great surprise to those friends of mine who track me across grocery stores by listening for my laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 28, 2008 5:29:46 GMT -4
@ gillian. I took it as a joke, but an educational one. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Feb 28, 2008 12:43:45 GMT -4
"Unhand that swine, you swain!"
|
|