|
Post by margamatix on Sept 25, 2005 14:39:01 GMT -4
To my mind, it's a nicely laid out and attractive page. I had a look for typos but couldn't see any, although I would respectfully suggest that describing the moon as 200,000 miles away isn't sufficiently accurate.
Although this page looked very good to me, some sites I have seen with white text on a black background can get tiring on the eyes, especially if they are text-heavy. Images normally relieve this effect, so let's have plenty of them on further pages.
Few computery things are more enjoyable than having your own website, so all the best with it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 25, 2005 14:44:30 GMT -4
Thanks for the offer. I think that since in a way the ApolloHoax name belongs to all that are here, that I'll keep working on the site I have, and then as it take shape, if people want it to represent us here, I'll be glad to transfer it over and set it up as the offical(?) site for ApolloHoax.net
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 25, 2005 15:16:24 GMT -4
No problem, PhantomWolf.
I'm currently working on a PHP script that will allow people to write FAQ articles for the AH site, sort of like posting to the forum but without the ability to reply. I'm hoping that it will allow everyone here to contribute to the site. It's not quite ready though.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Sept 25, 2005 20:54:58 GMT -4
Bob B.s chronology is good, but I have one correction and two suggestions.
The quote says that "the genesis of Apollo was Kennedy's May 1961 speech", whereas his chronology correctly shows that Apollo had already been conceived and named by July, 1960 - before Kennedy became president.
For ths reason (and also to put the Nixon claim into perspective), there should be a political aspect to the chronology; at the very least including JFK's swearing in as president in January, 1961 (his inaugeral speech was about establishing "New Frontiers"), and Nixon's inaugeration in January, 1969.
Also, the chronology should clarify the early groundwork for Apollo, including work starting on the F-1 engine in 1955, von Braun's Saturn plans in 1958, the governments early plans for lunar exploration (such as Project Horizon) and the spacecraft & mode decisions. It's easy to get bogged-down in the last parts, but the important thing is to firmly establish that the idea of going to the Moon was not something Kennedy pulled out of thin air.
Suggestion #3 (of 2) is to lightly touch on certain discoveries that affected planning. I'm thinking specifically about the Van Allen Belts. Explorer I discovered them. When did we determine their strength & composition? Specifically mention that Gemini 10 flew into the Van Allen Belts to confirm man's ability to survive passage.
My $.02
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 25, 2005 23:36:01 GMT -4
The quote says that "the genesis of Apollo was Kennedy's May 1961 speech", whereas his chronology correctly shows that Apollo had already been conceived and named by July, 1960 - before Kennedy became president. I noticed that discrepancy as well. The quote from my Web page was written a couple years ago, while the chronology I just threw together this morning. I think I’ll revise the Web page to indicate work on Apollo had already begun prior to Kennedy’s speech. For ths reason (and also to put the Nixon claim into perspective), there should be a political aspect to the chronology; at the very least including JFK's swearing in as president in January, 1961 (his inaugeral speech was about establishing "New Frontiers"), and Nixon's inaugeration in January, 1969. Also, the chronology should clarify the early groundwork for Apollo, including work starting on the F-1 engine in 1955, von Braun's Saturn plans in 1958, the governments early plans for lunar exploration (such as Project Horizon) and the spacecraft & mode decisions. It's easy to get bogged-down in the last parts, but the important thing is to firmly establish that the idea of going to the Moon was not something Kennedy pulled out of thin air. Suggestion #3 (of 2) is to lightly touch on certain discoveries that affected planning. I'm thinking specifically about the Van Allen Belts. Explorer I discovered them. When did we determine their strength & composition? Specifically mention that Gemini 10 flew into the Van Allen Belts to confirm man's ability to survive passage. I agree. I wrote the chronology pretty quickly with information I could quickly lay my hands on realizing I was leaving some important stuff out. I’m really not very familiar with the timeline of the very early work, such as work on the F-1 starting in 1955. I’m sure PhantomWolf and some of the other people here will be able to fill in the blanks.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 26, 2005 0:14:39 GMT -4
... although I would respectfully suggest that describing the moon as 200,000 miles away isn't sufficiently accurate. If you want accuracy, at the time of the Apollo 11 landing the Moon was about 242,000 miles away (389,450 km).
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 26, 2005 3:17:08 GMT -4
Re Bob B's chronology, Oct 1968 is the first Soviet manned rendezvous, they'd already carried out two unmanned rendezvous/dockings in Oct 1967 and Apr 1968.
Apollo 8 made 10, not 20, lunar orbits.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 26, 2005 5:10:37 GMT -4
Okay. I've thrown the first page together. Since I'm not linking from the home page yet, it's available hereIt doesn't have images in it yet and basically I'm just looking for people's reactions and for accruacy checks. Anything I should have added, or not added? Anything that's wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 26, 2005 5:19:59 GMT -4
Here's an important little bit of history that I've hardly ever seen mentioned in any books -- the brief take-off and second soft-landing of Surveyor V on the moon. IIRC it was the first. Manawatu Evening Standard, Monday 25 September 1967, page 1 Moondust no problem NZPA-Reuter — Copyright. Washington, Sept. 24.[/center] Space ship exhausts are not likely to raise enough dust on the moon to be a hazard to astronauts, according to tests carried out by America's Surveyor V spacecraft. National Aeronautics and Space Administration officials said no appreciable dust cloud had been created when three small rocket engines under the spacecraft, which landed on the moon earlier this month, were fired. The test was made to observe the effect of the rocket exhaust as it hit the lunar surface. Had a dust cloud been raised, it might have seriously impaired the visibility of astronauts returning to earth after a moon mission. Photographs of the surface immediately under the rocket showed that no craters were made nor any dust raised when the engines were operated. A picture taken before the rocket firing showed four or five "clumps" of lunar soil in the area. After the firing only one remained, and only a small "blob" of dust was detected on the outer surface of the Surveyor. "This information indicates there will be no problem associated with the effects of the rocket exhaust," the officials said. More pictures under different light conditions are still to be taken to see whether a mirror under the spacecraft was fitted or otherwise obscured by scattered lunar soil particles.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 26, 2005 5:38:20 GMT -4
Anything I should have added, or not added? Anything that's wrong? Date of Sputnik 1 was 4 Oct 1957. The S3D and H-1 motors were built by Rocketdyne, with the designs developed from the boost motor for the Navaho cruise missile, similar to the Thor and Atlas motors. In other words, the USAF rather than the US Army missile programme.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 26, 2005 5:46:43 GMT -4
Good stuff, PhantomWolf. The only errors I noticed were a typo, "Kennedy simple gave NASA the resources...", and that you should say "The world (no capital) was a very different place in the 1950's." Also "bomber fleets" (again, no capital).
As this is intended mostly as a primer you probably need to keep jargon to a minimum or at least explain it. Perhaps "flights around the moon" would be much better than "circumlunar flight."
A good aim would be to write for an intelligent 12- to 15-year-old who knows nothing but is keen to learn. I have often bought books written for that age-group when learning new subjects because they are usually far more informative and easier to understand than those written for educated adults.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 26, 2005 5:49:56 GMT -4
I was planning to deal with that when I did the Surveyor section, Kiwi.
Thanks gwiz, I'll have to double check my sources on those.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 26, 2005 6:04:55 GMT -4
Looks good so far.
Another typo I'm afraid: under the Father of Apollo, the sentence
"This dream because an intense interest in rockets"
Should surely read
"This dream became an intense interest in rockets"
Oh and "We choose to go to the Moon" rather than "We choose to go to then Moon"
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 26, 2005 6:16:02 GMT -4
gwiz, this is where I got the information about the S-3D and H-1.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 26, 2005 6:39:49 GMT -4
gwiz, this is where I got the information about the S-3D and H-1. Try this for a summary of the history: www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/SPACEFLIGHT/postwar_rocketry/SP8.htmThe Navaho booster engine, with much higher thrust than the Redstone motor, was developed by Rocketdyne for the USAF. Developments of this engine were used for the USAF Thor and Atlas and the US Army Jupiter and Saturn. The technology was also transferred to Aerojet for the USAF Titan 1 motor and a developed H-1 is still in use as the current RS-27 motor for the Delta II launch vehicle.
|
|