Rocks from the Moon

[JayUtah]

Megamatix, you say you don't read those conspiracy theorist sites uncritically, yet you're just going down Bart Sibrel's list of objections -- his top ten or fifteen. Bart Sibrel obviously flunked U.S. history, but that doesn't mean you have to. If you really want us to believe you're thinking about what you write, then avoid the obvious and embarrassing mistakes that your authors commit.

And this may save some time: www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

[JayUtah]

Perhaps you should change your screen name to Tarquin Wim-bim-lim-tim F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuit Barrel

Yes, it's looking very much like a Silly Party landslide.

[Jason Thompson]

I do see your point Jason and it's a very good one, but I'm sure you would agree that neither Concorde nor the Space Shuttle represented quite such a forward leap in technology as Apollo supposedly did.

Doesn't matter. The point is that unmanned testing of vehicles designed to be manned is a very unusual thing. However, if you want to go down the new technology route, consider the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. It leaked when on the ground, and the design of the engine meant that in theory the only upper limit to its speed was the structural strength of the airframe; in other words a pilot could potentially keep accelerating until the aeroplane fell apart around him. Tremendously dangerous, and yet people voluntarily got into it and flew it in deliberately extreme ways to test it to and probably beyond its limits.

In order to modify something that is designed to be flown by a person so that it can be fully tested unmanned you have to make such modifications to it that it becomes a completely different machine from the one that a pilot would fly. As I said, the best way to test any machine designed to have a pilot or crew is to fly it with a pilot or crew.

[JayUtah]

The concept, in a nutshell, is that if a system is intended by design to be manned (or womaned) then automated, unwomaned testing tells you nothing you need to know about it. At best it's a waste of time and money. At worst it gives you a false sense of security.

[Enterprise]

margamatix said:

jayutah said:

As I said, the goal was to put a man on the moon.

The goal was to divert the public's mind from VietNam.

I believe the ultimate goal was to beat the Russians, this was the height of the cold war.

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix said:

We have the technology to send unmanned vessels to the moon. Although it would have been extremely difficult to do in 1969, it falls within the realms of possibility that such a vessel could have collected rocks and returned to Earth with them at this time.

Hogwash! Apart from the Ranger, the US sent the 5 Lunar Orbiters and 3 Explorers into Lunar Orbit. NASA was extremely proficent at sending rockets to the Moon by 1969. What would have been difficult is hiding the program. We have thousands of documents, photos, film, TV footage, eye wittness reports, engineers who worked on the project, private companies who built all the components and spacecraft and so on, all saying they sent a manned mission. There is no evidence that any of the unmanned missions which could collect samples, nor is there any evidence of any covert sample retreival missions. You are creating a possiblity and trying to install it by default without a scrap of proof, but just by stating that "it was possible". It doesn't work like that. Not only that but it's a theory that doesn't fit the evidence anyways. The samples returned included core samples, trench samples and even a special orange coloured soil sample that was discovered as well as rocks. Random automatic sampling does allow that sort of material.

It's worth pointing out here though, that the USSR did not find it possible to do this until the Luna 20 project in 1972.

Dizzzzt! Wrong, thank you for playing.The first Luna sample return attempt was Luna 15 launched on the 13 July 1969. The first successful one was Luna 16 which was launched on Sept 12, 1970.

Also as noted previously, the 3 successful Luna returns (16, 20, and 24) produced a total of 300 grams of soil. Apollo produced 380 kg, over 1,000 times as much!

If it had all really happened, don't you think we would have landed and returned an unmanned craft before trying with a manned one?

Why? Did the Wright Brothers do an unmanned flight first? Look at the latest AirBus, was its first flight done with automations? Heck name one plane that has been flown using atomation prior to being flown by a pilot.

Sending an unmanned probe is far more difficult that sending a manned one. While it does require more fuel, you don't have to worry about time delays for commands as you have a pilot who can make decisions on the spot. You don't have to worry about the automtion failing and ruining any test, and nor do you have to worry about installing all the automation into the craft, things that can go wrong later.

If you are building a craft for a pilot, test it with a pilot, it's a simple principle.

As to sending one just to return it, it's just a waste of time. Apollo had to do certain things.

1) Launch.

All Mercury and Gemini had been successful.

2) Enter Earth Orbit

From Mercurcy 3 on and all Gemini flights, orbit had been achieved.

3) Docking with LM

The Gemini missions did a number of dockings that were harder because the module they were docking with was launched into a different orbit and the craft had to make its way to dock with the stage. The LM and CSM were launched on the some craft and so were next to each other for docking.

4) Trans Lunar Burn

Gemini had down smaller versions of this and all Ranger, Surveyor and Lunar Obiters had done this.

5) Lunar Orbit Insertion.

Already done with Surveyor and Lunar Obiters nd several Explorers, also the first Apollo missions (8,10,11,12) were on free return tragectories. ie if the insertion burn had failed they would have been slingshot about the moon and returned to Earth.

6) Docking seperation.

Done a number of times during Gemini

7) LM Orbit change to 50,000 feet

Orbit changes were standard during Gemini, Surveyor also followed this.

8) Soft Landing.

Surveyor had achieved this.

9) Take off

Surveyor tested this, otherwise, take off from the moon is a lot easier than from Earth. The principles are exactly the same except that you have 1/6 the gravity, no atmosphere, and only have to get to 60 miles rather than 300! This is why Sibral's claims are so funny. Without the Earth's gravity and air resistance slowing the craft down and only having to achieve an attitude of 1/5 that on Earth, it is WAY easier to launch off the moon that Earth. It also doesn't matter as much what shap you use, because the craft doesn't have to be aerodynamic like a rocket on Earth does.

Once Surveyor had confirmed the ability to leave the surface, the launch of Apollo was easy to determine. The fuel/oxidiser mix used was self igniting and is still used today in rockets. All the crew had to do was open the valve and away they went. The engines had already been tested in lunar space previously (Apollo 10) so why would have this step have presented a problem?

10) Redocking

Again, docking was done with Gemini many times and even if it had failed the crew could have just space walked to the CSM. Space walks were very common on the Gemini missions (I belive the CMP also did a space walk on the Apollo missions to retrieve a film from the SM?)

11) Trans Earth Burn

Principles are exactly the same as Trans Lunar Burn.

12) Re-entry

This had been done already from Mercury 3 onwards

All 12 steps, except a complete lunar launch to full altitude and the Earth return had already been done by either manned missions, unmaned missions or both. Those two steps were just copies of the launch on Earth and the Trans Lunar Burn, so they really had been done as well. If every step (or a close comparison) had been done, why was there a need to do it entirely via an unmanned mission? There wasn't, it would have been a waste of time, money and effort.

Finally on this point, as it is one that is commonly suggested. Just because you think something should have been done doesn't actually mean it should have been done. Unless you have an expertise in engineering testing then what you expect to have happened has nothing to do with what a trained professional actually does do and just because he doesn't think he needs to do steps that you would have liked to see, doesn't mean anything other than he didn't believe that they were necassary at all.

I'll also note here, again, that both the CSM and the LM were in fact tested with automation in Earth Orbit proir to being manned. I have a photo of myself standing next to one of the CM's that was used for that (It's in the Strategic Air and Space Muesem in Oakland, Nebraska which I got to visit on my holiday to the US a few months back) even the Shuttle wasn't tested like that. (at least I don't recall it being launched with automation prior to Columbia's first launch, if it was I'll admit to being wrong though. )

[twinstead]

enterprise said:

margamatix said:

The goal was to divert the public's mind from VietNam.

I believe the ultimate goal was to beat the Russians, this was the height of the cold war.

I would think that an actual mission to the moon would serve the purpose of diverting the public's mind from Vietnam just as well, if that was the case.

[sts60]

Doubtless the first cave man found that his rock hammer could also be a rock grinder.
As the first astronauts to deploy the ALSEP found it could also free up the RTG heat source. My boss was in Bldg. 30 when the Apollo 12 lunar crew was struggling to free the radiosiotope source from its cask. "Tell them to it it with a hammer", he told the controllers. The crew had already done that, and freed the source, before this sophisticated procedure was uplinked.

[LunarOrbit]

Apart from the Ranger, the US sent the 5 Lunar Orbiters and 3 Explorers into Lunar Orbit.

And let me tell you... it hurt like hell!

[Bob B.]

phantomwolf said:

…also the first Apollo missions (8,10,11,12) were on free return tragectories. ie if the insertion burn had failed they would have been slingshot about the moon and returned to Earth.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think all the subsequent missions were initially placed on free-return trajectories. (I know this is at least true of Apollo 13.) While en route to the Moon, an SPS burn was made to change from the free-return to the trajectory needed to achieve the proper lunar orbit to reach the proposed landing site. This way, the maneuver used to take them off the free-return proved that the SPS was working properly. Had the SPS failed they would still be on the free-return trajectory.

phantomwolf said:

The principles are exactly the same except that you have 1/6 the gravity, no atmosphere, and only have to get to 60 miles rather than 300!

Your numbers are off a bit. The LM was typically launched into an elliptical orbit of about 9 X 45 nautical miles (actual numbers varied slightly from mission to mission). Thus the insertion point was at an altitude of only 9 nm or perhaps a little more. The altitudes of the Earth parking orbits were only 100 nm for Apollo 10-14, and 90 nm for Apollo 15-17.

phantomwolf said:

(I belive the CMP also did a space walk on the Apollo missions to retrieve a film from the SM?)

Correct, though this was done on Apollo 15, 16 & 17 only.

[JayUtah]

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think all the subsequent missions were initially placed on free-return trajectories.

That's why it's called a hybrid trajectory. The transfer to the final lunar approach trajectory occurs at MCC-1 or MCC-2 accomplished by the SPS. The initial post-accident burn on Apollo 13 was indeed to "undo" the hybrid transfer and restore the free-return trajectory.

Your numbers are off a bit. The LM was typically launched into an elliptical orbit of about 9 X 45 nautical miles...

The LM ascent trajectory is unusual in that the insertion point is not at perilune (or pericynthion -- I can never remember which is which) but is actually higher. So the initial orbit is 9x45 nm, but the insertion altitude is something like 10-13 nm. By comparison the insertion point for the space shuttle is something like 30-35 nm.

Most ascents insert at periapsis because it's fuel-optimal to do so.

[sts60]

I do see your point Jason and it's a very good one, but I'm sure you would agree that neither Concorde nor the Space Shuttle represented quite such a forward leap in technology as Apollo supposedly did.

Nope. Maybe this is so for the Concorde, but not for the Shuttle.

On the wall in my office is a lithograph of the original concept drawing for the Mercury capsule, signed by the designer a few years ago. He drew it in 1958. Mercury showed us how to get a man into space and back, and to maneuver in space. Gemini showed us how to get more than one man into space, and how to perform the rendezvous and docking procedures necessary for Apollo. Apollo tested, incrementally, the hardware, techniques, and trajectories necessary to get men around the Moon, then almost onto the Moon, and finally onto the Moon.

The Space Shuttle is the most complex flying thing ever built and absorbs more punishment over more environments than any other spacecraft. The world's first reuseable spacecraft was built on the heels of the tightly focused, popular, and adequately-funded Apollo program. During the 1970s, when the public had grown bored with space travel, political aims for the Shuttle program tugged it in different directions, and program funding was not nearly so easy to come by, engineers designed an imperfect but nontheless amazing flying machine. The SSMEs (main engines) were marvels of high performance in a compact package. The tiles were a brand new form of incredibly lightweight protection. The airframe had to take the loads of a vertical liftoff, thermal cycles in orbit, and the loads of a hypersonic reentry followed by a steep descent through the atmosphere, and finally aircraft-type landing. The Shuttle was a truly unprecedented "leap forward".

The goal was to divert the public's mind from VietNam.

That argument, as others have already pointed out, is ridiculous. The Apollo challenge was issued long before the vast majority of Americans could probably find Vietnam on a map, and the small group in charge of U.S. actions there at the time had no inkling of the difficulty that lay ahead.

Furthermore, also as pointed out, if the goal actually had been to divert attention from Vietnam, a successful program would have worked just as well. And the Russians, who were active participants on the North Vietnamese side, could have scored an incredible propaganda triumph by exposing the hoax. The reason they didn't is that there was no hoax; they understood fully that, whatever its motivations, Apollo succeeded.

[PhantomWolf]

bob said:

Your numbers are off a bit. The LM was typically launched into an elliptical orbit of about 9 X 45 nautical miles (actual numbers varied slightly from mission to mission). Thus the insertion point was at an altitude of only 9 nm or perhaps a little more. The altitudes of the Earth parking orbits were only 100 nm for Apollo 10-14, and 90 nm for Apollo 15-17.

Ahh, thanks for that Bob, I didn't have time to do a really good search for the Apollo altitudes, but the page I had up said LEO was 500km. The 60 I used was the CM altitude from 11, though I guess it was probably nautical miles not miles and I haven't got a clue of the conversions between them.

[PhantomWolf]

sts60 said:

Maybe this is so for the Concorde, but not for the Shuttle.

I'm not sure that the Concorde wasn't far greater jump than Apollo either. A supersonic passanger plane is quite far from virtually anything else we had a the time and with unique parts such as the nose cone as well as more moving parts that the Apollo craft....

I was thinking about it today after I logged off earlier, and honestly I can't think of any part of Apollo that hadn't been used in some way prior to the missions in some form. I'm not saying that things weren't unique, just that they had something that they were disigned from, taking that just a bit further, even the AGC which would have been on of the biggest jumps really was just an extension of early 1960's computer technology.

When looking at the Shuttle, most of it had to be built virtually from first principles because there was nothing to base it on but science fiction space planes. It had no predecessor on which to just extend it here and there as Apollo did.

Now I'm going to admit it right here and now that having said that I'm not an engineer and don't know a lot of the ins and outs of the craft so I could be wrong, but if one of our resident spacecraft engineers want to enlighten us on how close I am....

Other projects that seem to me to likely have been bigger jumps in tech would include such craft as the SR-71, B-2 and F-117A and possibly even the AH-64

[margamatix]

phantomwolf said:

sts60 said:

Maybe this is so for the Concorde, but not for the Shuttle.

I'm not sure that the Concorde wasn't far greater jump than Apollo either. A supersonic passanger plane is quite far from virtually anything else we had a the time

But with all due respect, I disagree. We have been flying supersonically since the 1940's.

Concorde did not go higher, faster or further than planes had travelled before, it was simply larger. This is hardly a major breakthrough in scientific know-how.

The moon is 600 times further away than any other manned flight is ever claimed to have travelled.