|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 17, 2008 15:20:19 GMT -4
Apparently the theory is that Webb left because he knew a lunar orbital Apollo 8 wasn't possible, tried to oppose it, and was ousted by ... somebody. Then the new leadership went ahead and hoaxed Apollos 8 through 17. Although I'd have to ask what Webb thought he was doing in the first place. Sooner or later Webb (and everyone else) knew that they'd have to create the impression of a successful Moon landing. What would it matter which mission number was the first hoax? Webb shouldn't have suddenly grown a conscience over Apollo 8 if he knew Apollo 11 was coming anyway and would have to be hoaxed.
I may be wrong in that characterization. I simply can't see where Webb's behavior and Apollo 8's change of plans fits into a hoax scenario -- let alone that there's any evidence for it.
Or I guess we could flip-flop it and say that Webb believed Apollo was possible all along, and then someone finally told him that all the Apollo missions would have to be hoaxed if they purported to go beyond low Earth orbit. But then we're back to the pre-announcement meetings where Kennedy and Johnson grilled NASA in relative private to see whether they had the know-how to go to the Moon.
All in all I agree: the alleged connection between Apollo 8 and Webb doesn't seem to go anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 18, 2008 0:03:07 GMT -4
OK, so if that's the case, what was all the work up to and including Apollo 7 in aid of? To progress - improve and expand our understanding of the space environment(s), further develop field-related technologies, etc. - as much as possible, towards the ultimate goal (of landing men on the Moon before 1970). Just as Gemini picked up from where Mercury left off, Apollo picked up from where Gemini left off. But it ended with Apollo 7 - that mission was the culmination of our progress in the field(s) of space exploration / manned spaceflight during this era. Apollo 8's illusion picked up from where Apollo 7's reality left off.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Apr 18, 2008 0:06:24 GMT -4
Apollo 8's illusion picked up from where Apollo 7's reality left off. Still waiting for you to produce anything resembling proof or some form of evidence beyond your misinformed opinion and beliefs... Cz
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 18, 2008 0:18:49 GMT -4
Apollo 8's illusion picked up from where Apollo 7's reality left off.
Where's the part where you prove Apollo 8 was fake?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 18, 2008 0:29:51 GMT -4
Turbonium, why couldn't Apollo 8 leave low Earth orbit?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 18, 2008 3:07:27 GMT -4
Apollo 8's illusion picked up from where Apollo 7's reality left off. What about Apollo 9? Does the fact it never left LEO mean you are prepared to accept that one was real too?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 18, 2008 3:42:33 GMT -4
"[W]eren't capable of" meaning simply "it hadn't been done it before," or do you actually have evidence of the technical inability to send men to lunar orbit? I think the best evidence is only now starting to filter out. As a by-product of our efforts to "return" men to the Moon in 2020. Current and planned projects and studies leading up to 2020 are exposing numerous holes in the official Apollo account. Example 1... VA Radiation Belts - big bucks are being spent on new VA Belt studies to "make space exploration safer for humans and satellites."www.bu.edu/csp/RBSP-ECT/News/mediLexicon.pdf Satellites aren't used as vehicles for space exploration, first of all. They are used in various applications related to space (and its exploration), but they certainly don't "explore" space. That's also evident in the very term - "satellite" - describing an object in orbit. The primary reason they're spending $millions is to make it "safer" for humans. period. It's not to make it "safer" for both humans and satellites. It's more of a side benefit of the studies. Example 2... The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon: Final ReportReleased in 2007, this paper questions several of Apollo's key "findings" regarding the lunar environment... Based on returned Apollo 12 samples, which were collected on one of the rays of Copernicus crater, the crater formed about 800 Ma to 850 Ma ago. While radiometric ages of Apollo 12 samples suggest a narrowly constrained age of 800 Ma to 850 Ma for Copernicus, crater counts on the ejecta blanket of Copernicus indicate a significantly older age, of up to 1.5 Ga. This could mean that material from Copernicus was not collected or that the samples do not represent the surface material dated with crater counts. The timing of Tycho was inferred from a landslide on the slopes of the South Massif and the “Central Cluster” craters at the Apollo 17 landing site, interpreted as secondary craters from Tycho. Based on this interpretation, an age of ~100 Ma was proposed for Tycho. However, the geological evidence for the South Massif landslide and the Central Cluster craters being formed by distant ejecta from Tycho remains somewhat equivocal. The exact ages of Copernicus and Tycho are important because they provide important calibration points for the lunar chronology at young ages.books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309109191&page=24In bold above - the Apollo 12 samples are so much younger in age than the actual material from Copernicus, that they even doubt the samples were collected from that region! In another example, isotopic ages of Apollo samples that are understood to be the earliest crustal rocks show significant overlap in ages, inconsistent with a traditional lunar magma ocean view of a primary anorthositic crust later intruded by plutonic rocks. Furthermore, ages of some ferroan anorthosites postdate the age estimates for crystallization of the lunar magma ocean. However, because of the small size and low abundance of radiogenic elements in these rocks, it may be that researchers have not yet sampled a true piece of the pristine lunar crust. More magnesian anorthosite than exists in our sample collection is identified by remote sensing (e.g., in the rings of the Orientale basin) and may represent the primary lunar crust, more tightly bounding researchers’ calculations of the magma ocean process and lunar bulk composition.
Researchers base their understanding of the major lunar rock types on Apollo sample knowledge. However, all the Apollo and Luna sample-return sites were within or on the edge of the PKT, and there are no returned samples unequivocally originating from the SPA Basin or FHT (although the lack of KREEP-bearing material in many feldspathic lunar meteorites implies that they come from the Feldspathic Highlands Terrane). books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309109191&page=29Above, they note a few other problems with the Apollo samples - it's inconsistencies with current knowledge, etc. Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) surface station instruments revealed that the mass of the native lunar atmosphere is on the order of 100 tons (3 × 1030 atoms, equivalent to ~1011 cm3 of terrestrial air at sea level [i.e., a cube of terrestrial air roughly 50 × 50 × 50 cubic meters at standard temperature and pressure]). Yet ALSEP total lunar atmosphere mass measurements failed to identify a census of species that comes anywhere close to the total mass of the lunar atmosphere: in fact, over 90 percent of the molecules in the Moon’s atmosphere are currently compositionally unidentified.How damning is this for Apollo? They may as well have guessed what the total mass of the Moon's atmosphere is, right here on Earth! Looks to me like they did, actually. How else could we still not know over 90% of what makes up the lunar atmosphere? As a result of its low mass, the lunar atmosphere is incredibly fragile. A typical lunar surface access module (LSAM) landing will inject some 10 to 20 tons of non-native gas into the atmosphere, severely perturbing it locally for a time that might range from weeks to months. A human outpost might see sufficient traffic and outgassing from landings, lift-offs, and extravehicular activities (EVAs), for example, to completely transform the nature of this pristine environment. For this reason, the committee recommends a strong early emphasis on studies of the native lunar atmosphere. The key scientific questions to address are the following: What is the composition of the lunar atmosphere? How does it vary in time with impacts, diurnal cycles, solar activity, and so on? What are the relative sizes of the sources that create this atmosphere and the sinks (loss processes) that attack it?books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11954&page=43From above, in bold - a lunar landing will inject "some 10 to 20 tons of non-native gas into the atmosphere, severely perturbing it locally for a time that might range from weeks to months." That wouldn't be very nice, which is why they add.... Before extensive human and robotic activity alters the tenuous lunar environment, it is important to understand processes involved with the atmosphere (exosphere) of airless bodies in the inner solar system.[/b] books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309103290&page=16We supposedly landed on the Moon six times. So - didn't anybody seem to realize that we spewed up 10 to 20 tons of non-native gas into the lunar atmosphere every time we landed? Or that we severely perturbed the local atmosphere for weeks or months each time? I can't find any mention of these effects in the Apollo documents. Does anybody know if it was noted at the time, and if so, where to find it? It would seem to me that nothing was ever said about it at the time. The first detection of individual atmospheric species came from the ALSEP and the scientific instrument module (SIM) instruments in the orbiting Apollo service module bay. Among the species discovered by Apollo missions were 40Ar, Po, Pb, Ra, and Rn, all of which emanate from the lunar interior via outgassing. Through the time variability and spatial location of such species, the lunar atmosphere represents a window into the workings and evolution of the lunar interior, including perhaps fractionization and a molten core. After Apollo, ground-based observers detected the alkali tracer species Na and K whose density ratios were close to the lunar surface ratio, suggesting that part of the atmosphere originates from the vaporization of surface minerals by processes such as solar wind sputtering and micrometeorite impact. Na and K are also present in the SBE atmospheres of Mercury, Io, and other Galilean satellites, thereby strengthening the utility of lunar SBE studies for enhancing knowledge of similar atmospheres across the solar system.
Evidence for volatile species, including H2O, CO, CO2, and CH4, was found sporadically by Apollo sensors, but these detections remain unconfirmedbooks.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11954&page=45Apollo data that has yet to be corroborated, although that doesn't necessarily rule it out as invalid. _____________________________________________________ To summarize - The Apollo samples are an inadequate representation of the lunar terrain. The supposed Copernicus samples are worthless. The atmosphere measurements are worthless. A lunar landing and EVA activity will cause severe problems, so it needs to be studied beforehand. What excuse is there for the Apollo landings? There are other examples, and I know many more will be published in the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 18, 2008 6:30:09 GMT -4
And it would seem we are off at a Gish gallop.
Given that these are all quite separate issues, how about splitting some of them off into spearate threads?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 18, 2008 6:53:53 GMT -4
A long and interesting post, but it doesn't anser the questions. What was technically unachievable about getting to the Moon with manned spacecraft?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 18, 2008 8:16:22 GMT -4
To summarize - The Apollo samples are an inadequate representation of the lunar terrain. The supposed Copernicus samples are worthless. The atmosphere measurements are worthless. A lunar landing and EVA activity will cause severe problems, so it needs to be studied beforehand. What excuse is there for the Apollo landings? There are other examples, and I know many more will be published in the coming years. But why couldn't Apollo 8 leave low Earth orbit?
|
|
|
Post by chrissyo on Apr 18, 2008 8:35:03 GMT -4
I’m no expert here, but I just read through Turbonium’s post and I’ve got a few quick comments. I’m sure someone will come by and correct any mistakes I’ve made shortly. And please do correct me. VA Radiation Belts - big bucks are being spent on new VA Belt studies to "make space exploration safer for humans and satellites."Yes, safer. Where does it say that the belts are deadly to humans, full stop? In bold above - the Apollo 12 samples are so much younger in age than the actual material from Copernicus, that they even doubt the samples were collected from that region!No, it just says that the samples collected at the area simply may not have actually originated from Copernicus. Note, I don’t see anywhere in that source the suggestion that the Apollo samples were faked. Above, they note a few other problems with the Apollo samples - it's inconsistencies with current knowledge, etc.The article itself presents several possible reasons for these inconsistencies. Again, it never suggests the Apollo samples were faked. How else could we still not know over 90% of what makes up the lunar atmosphere?Just a guess on my part, but I’d assume that the Apollo missions simply weren’t physically able to make a comprehensive measurement of such a thin atmosphere from only a few data sets. Correct me on this, however. Once more, it never makes the suggestion that the Apollo data is fake. We supposedly landed on the Moon six times. So - didn't anybody seem to realize that we spewed up 10 to 20 tons of non-native gas into the lunar atmosphere every time we landed?Again, just a guess on my part, but I’m pretty sure the Apollo LMs didn’t carry “10 to 20 tons” of gas (though, I’d be interested in knowing the actual amount released). Rather, this seems to be referring to future longer duration and/or more frequent lunar missions/outposts. In summary: The Apollo samples are an inadequate representation of the lunar terrain.That’s not what it says. The supposed Copernicus samples are worthlessThat’s not what it says. The atmosphere measurements are worthless.That’s not what it says. What excuse is there for the Apollo landings?Smaller scale, shorter duration missions (as far as I can tell). Like I said a few times, I can’t see anywhere in the articles you’ve posted where they suggest the Apollo data was faked. Rather, it seems to point out that the samples returned by Apollo just aren’t comprehensive. You can’t accurately detail the entire history of a major solar system object on the surface data returned from only a handful of missions. And, like others have said – how do ‘inconsistencies’ in the Apollo surface data prove that it is impossible for spacecraft to leave LEO? Again - please correct any mistakes. I just wrote this on the fly.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 18, 2008 8:47:14 GMT -4
The post that I originally put here has been broken off into another thread. Jason's post below is correct. We should stay on-topic.
To fly Apollo 8, you needed the following:
- A spacecraft that could support 3 men for two weeks. Apollo 7 demonstrated this.
- The spacecraft had to withstand the radiation measured by more than 40 probes prior to the flight. Apollo 4 & 6 demonstrated this.
- The spacecraft had to have a reliable engine to navigate and get home. Apollo 4, 6 & 7 demonstrated this.
- We had to be able to navigate between the Earth and the Moon. Pioneer, Ranger, Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter demonstrated this.
- We needed an upper stage that could propel the spacecraft from Earth orbit to the Moon (Delta-V of 2 miles-per-second). The S-IVB could do this.
- We needed a rocket to put the spacecraft & upper stage into Earth Orbit. The Saturn V had demonstrated this.
By December 1968, all of these things were in place. What was the problem?
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Apr 18, 2008 9:06:04 GMT -4
To summarize - The Apollo samples are an inadequate representation of the lunar terrain. The supposed Copernicus samples are worthless. The atmosphere measurements are worthless. A lunar landing and EVA activity will cause severe problems, so it needs to be studied beforehand. What excuse is there for the Apollo landings? There are other examples, and I know many more will be published in the coming years. And this all relates to your position thatf James Webb retired from NASA because "he knew Apollo was fake" exactly how? How does anything in your post show that Apollo 8 was faked? How does anything in your post show that Man has never left LEO? Cz EDITED for typos
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 18, 2008 9:08:10 GMT -4
May I repsectfully suggest we do not go off on this tangent. Turbonium's entire last post is entirely irrelevant to the questions asked of him. For the purposes of this thread we are not interested in yet more evidence that casts doubt on Apollo. What we are interested in is exactly what Turbonium proposes took place instead of the pubicised version of events, and what evidence led him to that conclusion.
I repeat, just to make it clear, picking holes in the official version is NOT what this thread is for or about. Turboium, we are asking you specifically for an alternative scenario. It is not enough to try to cast doubt on the official version of events here. Do that in other threads if you must. We want to know exactly what you propose took place instead, and what evidence you have for that alternative. That's simple enough, surely?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 18, 2008 9:18:18 GMT -4
I agree as well that we should not be diverted by the "Gish Gallop", and I urge other participants not to respond to these points in this thread. New threads should be started to address them, and I will be happy to participate in them, but first - turbonium, kindly answer the questions that bear directly on your previous claim:
What exactly prevents manned flight beyond low Earth orbit? And when is this supposed to have been discovered? And what do you consider LEO to be - you consider the ISS to be in low Earth orbit, correct?
|
|