another argument to debunk

[jamespi]

In the section about the size of the conspiracy, the authors mention either a tiny conspiracy that is pointless, or a huge one that is unmaintainable.

The tiny conspiracy, consisting of just high ranking NASA bigwigs is dismissed as pointless becuase it would necessitate the contractors actually building a working moon shot system, so why not just launch the thing?

One reason they might have not to launch a working moon shot system is the *possibility* of failure. If they wanted to upstage the Russians, they might have considered it safer to fake a flawless moon landing rather than launch what they had and risk getting egg on their faces. Then they could safely use their working system on subsequent landings that weren't as critical to national pride.

I personally think these consipiracies are absurd, but I point this possible theory out just so the Author of the site can refute it and eliminate it from any arguments.

[grashtel]

jamespi said:

One reason they might have not to launch a working moon shot system is the *possibility* of failure. If they wanted to upstage the Russians, they might have considered it safer to fake a flawless moon landing rather than launch what they had and risk getting egg on their faces. Then they could safely use their working system on subsequent landings that weren't as critical to national pride.

The problem I see with that is that the Russians are probably the ones the most likely to uncover a faked mission, and them doing so would be utterly catastrophic even compared to a complete failure of a real mission.

[Al Johnston]

There's also the fact that with the "Kaputnik" headlines following the abortive attempt to launch the Vanguard satellite in December 1957 and several subsequent explosions of the Atlas launch vehicle, NASA had considerable experience in facial egg-laundering.

[Jason Thompson]

One reason they might have not to launch a working moon shot system is the *possibility* of failure.

If the system works it has no greater possibility of failure than any other flight. NASA had its share of failures, and did not shy awy from them. Trying and failing would be better than faking and being found out.

If they wanted to upstage the Russians, they might have considered it safer to fake a flawless moon landing

Except not one of the lunar landing missions was flawless. Flaws were a common part of NASA flight history, ranging from minor to huge.

Then they could safely use their working system on subsequent landings that weren't as critical to national pride.

If they had working hardware, the best thing to do would be use it first time. If they had proved unable to actually use it having faked one landing then things would look highly suspicious. Apollo 11 was the next logical step in the flight sequence. Had it failed there was still time to give Apollo 12 the chance to make the first landing, and even had the landing drifted out of 1969 they were still in with a chance to make it before the Russians.

[Bob B.]

jasonthompson said:

If they had working hardware, the best thing to do would be use it first time. If they had proved unable to actually use it having faked one landing then things would look highly suspicious. Apollo 11 was the next logical step in the flight sequence. Had it failed there was still time to give Apollo 12 the chance to make the first landing, and even had the landing drifted out of 1969 they were still in with a chance to make it before the Russians.

Also, just like the argument over whether the new millennium started in 2000 or 2001, one can argue the decade didn't end until January 1, 1971. Kennedy didn't say "before the end of the 1960s", he said "before this decade is out". Technically NASA had another whole year to achieve the goal.

[JayUtah]

In our haste let's not forget that Apollo had some powerful enemies such as Sens. Proxmire and Mondale. Every accident or failure at NASA brought these men and their allies down on them. So NASA was not perfectly immune to the political effects of failure. However keep in mind that the sword cuts both ways. The last thing you want to do when you have powerful enemies is to conduct a hoax or otherwise do something that gives your enemies legitimate traction in prosecuting you.

The analogy would be to a crooked cop. He may beat up on you for no apparent reason from time to time, but you don't want to speed by him at 100 mph and give him an excuse to do it with some justification.

[Kiwi]

bob said:

Also, just like the argument over whether the new millennium started in 2000 or 2001, one can argue the decade didn't end until January 1, 1971. Kennedy didn't say "before the end of the 1960s", he said "before this decade is out". Technically NASA had another whole year to achieve the goal.

Exactly. Having followed the space programme since I saw Sputnik 1, in July 1969 I thought it was brilliant that NASA had achieved the goal with 17 months to spare, and used to say "JFK wasn't silly -- he would have known that the decade didn't end until the end of 1970." Now I'm not so sure. Maybe he didn't agree with Bostonites of 1901 and meant by the end of 1969.

(Not intending to sidetrack the thread, so please post any counter-arguments in a new thread in General Discussion, but to me the millennium argument is quite simple. Our current calendar was worked out in the days of Roman numerals, which have no zero. Therefore the first year was I (capital "i"), and the last year of the first millennium was M. Likewise, the second millennium ran from the beginning of MI to the end of MM.)

[PhantomWolf]

Well when you get right too it, NASA told Kennedy that with the funding they could do it by the end of 1970, so it wasn't as if they suddenly had to speed up to make it, they'd always planned to achieve the first mission before the start of 1971, Kennedy's support just got them the money they needed.