|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 19, 2010 18:10:41 GMT -4
Hi all, I'm new here, so forgive me if this is under the wrong heading. I have a lot of questions, so instead of posting a lot of threads, I'll post all my questions here. 1) With what instruments did the USSR track Apollo 11? I've heard the argument made that the USSR never disputed the moon landings, therefore they believe they happened. But what did the Soviets use to track? 2) What was sample-return technology of the 1960s and sample-return technology of today? If the Apollo missions were indeed real, they collected roughly 800 pounds of moon rock, and there were 6 missions. That figures out to 120 pounds per mission. Would it have been possible for 6 robots to retrieve that amount of moon rocks? If not, why not. 3) Why can we believe the scientists that have examined the moon rocks when they say "These are moon rocks". Could they be in on the alleged hoax? 4) Could Apollo 11 have remained in Low Earth Orbit for 8 days while NASA was filming the mission on the ground? If not, why not? 5) This really isn't a HB question but... Does Apollo 13 prove the moon missions were real? I ask this because: a) Apollo 13 was 3 days into their mission when they had to turn around. If they were simply orbiting around the earth, it is highly unlikely NASA would have risked their lives to keep the secret; b) it took the crew 6(?) days to get back to earth, therefore they really were many miles away in space. That's all I have for now on that subject. Answer as many questions as you can (or want)  Please bear in mind that I'm not trying to troll. In fact, I don't know what to believe yet- NASA or the hoaxers. I'm just looking for answers. Thanks for the help! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 19, 2010 18:19:26 GMT -4
I'll take 5.
The reason they took 6 days to get back was, as you susprected, that the explosion occurred during the trans-lunar phase of the Project, i.e. they were already out of earth orbit and on the way to the moon.
They could have turned round and returned quickly, but there was a fear that the explosion may have damaged the CM rocket and therefore firing it may have blown the whole ship to pieces.
So they adopted a slingshot trajectory, by continuing on their current trajectory to the moon, and using the moons gravity to return the ship to earth without having to burn the CM engines.
I beleive they are arguing to this day whether they made the right decision, but the outcome was a success so there you go.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 19, 2010 18:35:46 GMT -4
4) Could Apollo 11 have remained in Low Earth Orbit for 8 days while NASA was filming the mission on the ground? If not, why not? How would NASA have kept people from seeing it? There's a quote in the "Humour in Space" thread about people seeing Gemini 7 at night over the Rose Knot Victor tracking ship; it was a bright naked eye object. A larger Apollo spacecraft would have been highly visible to people on Earth also. apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=apollo&thread=2020&page=1#60149 |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 19, 2010 18:42:10 GMT -4
1) With what instruments did the USSR track Apollo 11? I've heard the argument made that the USSR never disputed the moon landings, therefore they believe they happened. But what did the Soviets use to track? The Soviets/Russians have a deep space tracking network like NASA, though I can't quote off the top of my head exactly what equipment is used. Don't forget that the Soviets had been sending their own robotic missions to the Moon, Venus and Mars for a decade prior to Apollo, for which they required deep space tracking capability. There has only been three successful missions that landed on another solar system body and returned samples to Earth. These where USSR's Luna 16 (1970), 20 (1972) and 24 (1976). Together these missions returned about 300 grams of lunar soil. No other nation has returned even a pebble much less 800 pounds of rocks. The Apollo samples also consisted of core drills extracted from several feet into the surface. Do you really believe that every scientist from every country that has ever examined an Apollo lunar sample is part of some 40+ year old worldwide conspiracy? Believing that seems like quite a stretch to me. Not without being seen. The Apollo spacecraft were easy naked eye objects to observe in the sky. Furthermore, there are people who observed the spacecraft leaving Earth orbit along paths consistent with a trajectory to the Moon. |
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 19, 2010 18:48:32 GMT -4
4) Could Apollo 11 have remained in Low Earth Orbit for 8 days while NASA was filming the mission on the ground? If not, why not? How would NASA have kept people from seeing it? There's a quote in the "Humour in Space" thread about people seeing Gemini 7 at night over the Rose Knot Victor tracking ship; it was a bright naked eye object. A larger Apollo spacecraft would have been highly visible to people on Earth also. apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=apollo&thread=2020&page=1#60149Could they have said it's merely a satellite? I'm sure that by 1969 there were some satellites up there, but not a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 19, 2010 19:01:23 GMT -4
Were they going to do this with all nine manned flights to the Moon? Keep them in Earth orbit for the duration and try to pull off a lie like this nine times? And rely on everyone in the Manned Spaceflight Network (MSFN) to go along with the bogus satellite story? That's a lot of people.
Also, I'm just curious, but why single out Apollo 11 in your question? What about the other eight Apollo Moon flights?
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 19, 2010 19:05:13 GMT -4
5) This really isn't a HB question but... Does Apollo 13 prove the moon missions were real? I ask this because: a) Apollo 13 was 3 days into their mission when they had to turn around. If they were simply orbiting around the earth, it is highly unlikely NASA would have risked their lives to keep the secret; b) it took the crew 6(?) days to get back to earth, therefore they really were many miles away in space. That's all I have for now on that subject. A13 didn't prove anything more in having an accident than going to the moon would have. Any speculation about NASA's response in a counter factual situation, like the CSM being in low earth orbit, is just speculation. It does make for an interesting intellectual exercise to examine other options or conditions, but it remains speculation. Although there is always more and less informed speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 19, 2010 19:59:29 GMT -4
With what instruments did the USSR track Apollo 11?In 1969 the Soviets had a half dozen ground stations and about a dozen tracking ships. During their missions they also employed airborne tracking equipment. The Soviet deep-space network was not as capable as the U.S. network and did not provide as extensive a coverage, but was capable of tracking Apollo 11 over most of the Earth's rotation. The Soviet tracking system was not too different from the NASA MSFN, and had a central coordination facility northwest of Moscow. Modern Russian astronomy journals have reported on their early attempts to intercept and interpret Apollo 11 signals, including television. The Soviets were able independently to decode and watch U.S. television signals originating from Apollo 11 on the lunar surface, without the knowledge of NASA. The Soviets were well-equipped to observe Apollo operations. What was sample-return technology of the 1960s and sample-return technology of today?The total amount retrieved by unmanned sample-return spacecraft is substantially less than 1 kilogram of undifferentiated lunar surface material. No other sample-return technology has been maintained or developed. In order for 350 or more kilograms of lunar surface material to be returned by the known sample-return methods of the 1960s and 1970s, a successful sample-return mission would have to be launched approximately every 3 days for a number of years. There is no technological evidence supporting an unmanned sample-return capability as the explanation for 350 kg of lunar material. Why can we believe the scientists that have examined the moon rocks...Because in 40 years of relevant peer-reviewed scientific inquiry, the only grounds upon which to dispute their findings has been the unsubstantiated disbelief on the part of a very small number of unqualified people. Could they be in on the alleged hoax?No one has been able to prove that there is a hoax, much less that legions of trained and otherwise disinterested professionals are party to it. Collusion seems very unlikely since a substantial fraction of the relevant scientists have no ideological motivation to support a hoax. In short, there is no demonstrated hoax and no reason to suppose that everyone would agree with it if there were. Could Apollo 11 have remained in Low Earth Orbit for 8 days while NASA was filming the mission on the ground?No. It would be visible to the naked eye over most of the Earth's surface, and it would be out of contact with the tracking stations worldwide that are known to have tracked it. Does Apollo 13 prove the moon missions were real?Hoax advocates accommodate Apollo 13 into their hoax scenarios by various means. The Apollo 13 accident doesn't affect an argument for authenticity or an argument for a hoax. However, any scenario postulated as history must account for the observations. If they were simply orbiting around the earth, it is highly unlikely NASA would have risked their lives to keep the secret...Remaining on orbit is not especially risky compared to launch and re-entry. The mere fact of getting a crew out of the atmosphere and committing to recover them alive later establishes a significant baseline risk. Each day spent in the stable state of a parking orbit presents only a small nominal risk on top of that. If a hoax scenario incorporates the notion that the crew may have been days away from an abortive return when the accident occurred, then keeping them in orbit that number of days in order to make the hoax seem more plausible does not present a substantially greater risk to life. However, as mentioned above, the CSM/LM stack would have been a significant naked-eye object while in orbit. Therefore to keep a crew in Earth orbit that's supposed to be enduring a life-or-death drama in translunar orbit presents a significant risk of detection.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 19, 2010 20:22:27 GMT -4
Could they have said it's merely a satellite? I'm sure that by 1969 there were some satellites up there, but not a lot. Regular satellites are no where near as bright as Apollo was. I've probably seen hundreds of them and most satellites are hardly noticeable unless you're looking for them. On the other hand, when the Space Shuttle or the International Space Station passes overhead, it is very bright and obvious. Satellite observing is a hobby with some people, and these experienced folks would never be fooled by a cover story alleging that Apollo was really some other satellite. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 19, 2010 20:55:37 GMT -4
Could they have said it's merely a satellite? I'm sure that by 1969 there were some satellites up there, but not a lot. Regular satellites are no where near as bright as Apollo was. I've probably seen hundreds of them and most satellites are hardly noticeable unless you're looking for them. On the other hand, when the Space Shuttle or the International Space Station passes overhead, it is very bright and obvious. Satellite observing is a hobby with some people, and these experienced folks would never be fooled by a cover story alleging that Apollo was really some other satellite. I'm also pretty sure that they had invented telescopes by the time of the missions.  www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html |
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 19, 2010 21:40:47 GMT -4
Also, I'm just curious, but why single out Apollo 11 in your question? What about the other eight Apollo Moon flights? I figure that if Apollo 11 is proved, the other missions are validated as well. |
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 19, 2010 21:43:22 GMT -4
1) With what instruments did the USSR track Apollo 11? I've heard the argument made that the USSR never disputed the moon landings, therefore they believe they happened. But what did the Soviets use to track? The Soviets/Russians have a deep space tracking network like NASA, though I can't quote off the top of my head exactly what equipment is used. Don't forget that the Soviets had been sending their own robotic missions to the Moon, Venus and Mars for a decade prior to Apollo, for which they required deep space tracking capability. There has only been three successful missions that landed on another solar system body and returned samples to Earth. These where USSR's Luna 16 (1970), 20 (1972) and 24 (1976). Together these missions returned about 300 grams of lunar soil. No other nation has returned even a pebble much less 800 pounds of rocks. The Apollo samples also consisted of core drills extracted from several feet into the surface. Do you really believe that every scientist from every country that has ever examined an Apollo lunar sample is part of some 40+ year old worldwide conspiracy? Believing that seems like quite a stretch to me. Not without being seen. The Apollo spacecraft were easy naked eye objects to observe in the sky. Furthermore, there are people who observed the spacecraft leaving Earth orbit along paths consistent with a trajectory to the Moon.Excellent post all around, but I want to focus on the bolded part. I am tending to believe this is true, but is there documentation of this? (If there is, can it be trusted?) |
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 19, 2010 21:46:21 GMT -4
With what instruments did the USSR track Apollo 11?In 1969 the Soviets had a half dozen ground stations and about a dozen tracking ships. During their missions they also employed airborne tracking equipment. The Soviet deep-space network was not as capable as the U.S. network and did not provide as extensive a coverage, but was capable of tracking Apollo 11 over most of the Earth's rotation. The Soviet tracking system was not too different from the NASA MSFN, and had a central coordination facility northwest of Moscow. Modern Russian astronomy journals have reported on their early attempts to intercept and interpret Apollo 11 signals, including television. The Soviets were able independently to decode and watch U.S. television signals originating from Apollo 11 on the lunar surface, without the knowledge of NASA. The Soviets were well-equipped to observe Apollo operations. What was sample-return technology of the 1960s and sample-return technology of today?The total amount retrieved by unmanned sample-return spacecraft is substantially less than 1 kilogram of undifferentiated lunar surface material. No other sample-return technology has been maintained or developed. In order for 350 or more kilograms of lunar surface material to be returned by the known sample-return methods of the 1960s and 1970s, a successful sample-return mission would have to be launched approximately every 3 days for a number of years. There is no technological evidence supporting an unmanned sample-return capability as the explanation for 350 kg of lunar material. Why can we believe the scientists that have examined the moon rocks...Because in 40 years of relevant peer-reviewed scientific inquiry, the only grounds upon which to dispute their findings has been the unsubstantiated disbelief on the part of a very small number of unqualified people. Could they be in on the alleged hoax?No one has been able to prove that there is a hoax, much less that legions of trained and otherwise disinterested professionals are party to it. Collusion seems very unlikely since a substantial fraction of the relevant scientists have no ideological motivation to support a hoax. In short, there is no demonstrated hoax and no reason to suppose that everyone would agree with it if there were. Could Apollo 11 have remained in Low Earth Orbit for 8 days while NASA was filming the mission on the ground?No. It would be visible to the naked eye over most of the Earth's surface, and it would be out of contact with the tracking stations worldwide that are known to have tracked it. Does Apollo 13 prove the moon missions were real?Hoax advocates accommodate Apollo 13 into their hoax scenarios by various means. The Apollo 13 accident doesn't affect an argument for authenticity or an argument for a hoax. However, any scenario postulated as history must account for the observations. If they were simply orbiting around the earth, it is highly unlikely NASA would have risked their lives to keep the secret...Remaining on orbit is not especially risky compared to launch and re-entry. The mere fact of getting a crew out of the atmosphere and committing to recover them alive later establishes a significant baseline risk. Each day spent in the stable state of a parking orbit presents only a small nominal risk on top of that. If a hoax scenario incorporates the notion that the crew may have been days away from an abortive return when the accident occurred, then keeping them in orbit that number of days in order to make the hoax seem more plausible does not present a substantially greater risk to life. However, as mentioned above, the CSM/LM stack would have been a significant naked-eye object while in orbit. Therefore to keep a crew in Earth orbit that's supposed to be enduring a life-or-death drama in translunar orbit presents a significant risk of detection. Good post, yet I'm still skeptical  |
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 19, 2010 21:47:48 GMT -4
Regular satellites are no where near as bright as Apollo was. I've probably seen hundreds of them and most satellites are hardly noticeable unless you're looking for them. On the other hand, when the Space Shuttle or the International Space Station passes overhead, it is very bright and obvious. Satellite observing is a hobby with some people, and these experienced folks would never be fooled by a cover story alleging that Apollo was really some other satellite. I see... |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 19, 2010 21:50:08 GMT -4
I figure that if Apollo 11 is proved, the other missions are validated as well. Why, exactly? And what about Apollo 7, 8, 9 and 10? Do you consider those to be proved? |
|
