Moon Landings were Hoaxed
Discussion
cinqster said:
Whilst I'm no conspiracy theorist, one aspect of the Moon landings has always bugged me...how did they get the footage of the first rocket stage releasing and falling back to Earth?
They did it the "hard" way. A film camera, in an armoured shell, with a quartz window. Triggered by the separation of the stage. Yes, they lost quite a few cameras that way. The camera was ejected from the adaptor ring, with its own parachute. The reason for fitting it was to monitor the condition of the various technical bits on the early unmanned missions rather than for the spectacular footage. I don't think it is a particularly high speed camera, just that you can't appreciate how big the structure is, and how fast it is actually moving.
There is quite a lot of info on this in the Usenet archives (use Google Groups search).
cinqster said:
I've also always wondered how the camera left on the Moon managed to tilt, track and pan the Lunar Module as it took off - with such supposedly small compute for the landing I'm sure they wouldn't have had the power to set up a remote control or infra red guided camera system?
No idea. I can't bring that footage to mind. However, it wouldnt be difficult to get the camera to tilt at a fixed rate. Knowing the ascent rate of the LEM it wouldnt be difficult to place the camera at a certain distance, and tilt at a predetermined rate. Triggering wouldn't be "rocket science".
Stealth aircraft aren't difficult either, the Germans had prototypes before the end of WW2. One method is to coat the skin of the aircraft with a compound which has a resistance of 377 ohms per square (no, I didn't miss a unit out there). 377 Ohms is the characteristic impedance of free space, any signal that hit it would effectively be absorbed with no or very little reflection. The problem comes when it gets dirty, or it rains...
The second method is to make your aircraft from surfaces which look like flat radio "mirrors". This bounces radio waves off in a precise direction rather than diffusing them. Think of this like a mirror in a dark room. The only way you can see the mirror is if your torch beam reflects right back at you, which is highly unlikely if your mirror is miles away. However, if you have lots and lots of powerful transmitters all over the place (say cellular base stations) then you are much more likely to detect a scattered signal.
Mike
Lots of different cameras were used during the Apollo missions. As explained above, 8mm and 16mm film cameras were used to record various aspects of the missions for future analysis. Almost a dozen movie cameras were arranged around the launch pad to record the moment of lift off. Cameras were attached to the booster iself and recovered after the various sections of the Saturn V fell back into the Atlantic. The technology to do this was very well established by the late 1960s. Robert Goddard had attached cameras to his rockets in the 1920s and the US Army had attached movie cameras to the V2s it launched in the 1940s. In 1948, one V2 reached an altitude of 800 miles - and filmed shots from space.
The astronauts also used 35mm SLR cameras, the famous 70mm Hasselblad cameras, hand held 8mm movie cameras and specially designed miniature (for the time)TV cameras. These TV cameras actually broadcast colour images (in US NTSC format - unfortunately). The TV images of the Apollo 11 moonwalk were transmitted in black and white due to limited bandwith. All subsequent moonwalks were shown in colour - live. Due to real time computer enhancement the images from Apllos 16 and 17 are particularly impressive. I often wonder would the TV pictures have been even better if they had used the European PAL TV system rather than NTSC.
The lift off of the Lunar Module from the moon's surface was recorded by a TV camera (not a movie camera) attached to the front of the electrically driven "moon car" (the Lunar Rover Vehicle or LRV). The camera was powered by the car's batteries and was remotely controlled by an operator working a joystick at Mission Control, Houston. These shots of the lift off were only posible in Apollos 15,16 and 17 as they were the only missions which carried the LRVs. Apollo 15's LRV suffered battery problems which meant that, by the end of the moon walks, there was insufficient power left in the batteries to allow the camera to pan and tilt - although the lunar lift off itself was transmitted. 16 and 17 had no such problems.
The astronauts also used 35mm SLR cameras, the famous 70mm Hasselblad cameras, hand held 8mm movie cameras and specially designed miniature (for the time)TV cameras. These TV cameras actually broadcast colour images (in US NTSC format - unfortunately). The TV images of the Apollo 11 moonwalk were transmitted in black and white due to limited bandwith. All subsequent moonwalks were shown in colour - live. Due to real time computer enhancement the images from Apllos 16 and 17 are particularly impressive. I often wonder would the TV pictures have been even better if they had used the European PAL TV system rather than NTSC.
The lift off of the Lunar Module from the moon's surface was recorded by a TV camera (not a movie camera) attached to the front of the electrically driven "moon car" (the Lunar Rover Vehicle or LRV). The camera was powered by the car's batteries and was remotely controlled by an operator working a joystick at Mission Control, Houston. These shots of the lift off were only posible in Apollos 15,16 and 17 as they were the only missions which carried the LRVs. Apollo 15's LRV suffered battery problems which meant that, by the end of the moon walks, there was insufficient power left in the batteries to allow the camera to pan and tilt - although the lunar lift off itself was transmitted. 16 and 17 had no such problems.
Also I'd like to comment on this modern fixation with the so called "lack of computing power". You don't NEED computer to operate lots of things. The fact that powerful, small and handy computers exist TODAY doesn't mean that they are ESSENTIAL. We use them because they exist. If they didn't exist, we would still be able to do lots of things (as we once did).
Remote control operation is not dependent on computing power so that is a total non-issue for the working of the TV cammera on the LRV. In fact, in 1966 and 1967, NASA landed a number of unmanned Surveyor probes on the moon. Some of these probes had remotely operated TV cameras and some of them had remotely operated soil scoops.
Remote control operation is not dependent on computing power so that is a total non-issue for the working of the TV cammera on the LRV. In fact, in 1966 and 1967, NASA landed a number of unmanned Surveyor probes on the moon. Some of these probes had remotely operated TV cameras and some of them had remotely operated soil scoops.
los angeles said:
My god, Eric, the doubters are not still at it?
They'd be better using brain power to investigate and debate the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, rather than waste millions of grey cells discussing whether old black and white film proves a few Americans Astronauts did or did not walk on the moon.
I might add that in common with all astronauts in training, those chosen for the history books were paid $8 dollars a day, plus free board and lodgings, and free working clothes, a space suit. Now, if they were being asked to take part in some mad conspiracy to give the American government soaring status over the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics and their noisy little Sputnik, you'd think they'd hold out for a few extra bucks to keep their mouths shut for eternity and a bit more, wouldn't you?
So what's wrong with being sceptical. I'd of thought in your profession it was important to have an enquiring mind?
Scepticism where it's due. There was nothing "secret" or "closet" about the moon landings. On the contrary, it was one of the most open government funded projects ever undertaken.
NASA was set up in 1958 with the express intention of carrying out space exploration in the glare of full public scrutiny. President Eisenhower was adamant that the exploration of space was not going to be some "top secret" military project undertaken by the US Air Force, Navy or Army.
He was also fearful of creating a "space race" and extending the Cold War into space. On that score, the setting up of a separate civilian body (i.e. NASA) failed miserably. If Richard Nixon (Eisenhower's protegy) had won the Presidential election in 1960, the Apollo project would never have happened. Jack Kennedy had made space and the "missile gap" an election issue and felt that America had to be seen to be doing "something" to counter the Soviet successes of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Once he won the election, and the Soviets continued their run of successes, he had to stick to his election policy.
NASA was set up in 1958 with the express intention of carrying out space exploration in the glare of full public scrutiny. President Eisenhower was adamant that the exploration of space was not going to be some "top secret" military project undertaken by the US Air Force, Navy or Army.
He was also fearful of creating a "space race" and extending the Cold War into space. On that score, the setting up of a separate civilian body (i.e. NASA) failed miserably. If Richard Nixon (Eisenhower's protegy) had won the Presidential election in 1960, the Apollo project would never have happened. Jack Kennedy had made space and the "missile gap" an election issue and felt that America had to be seen to be doing "something" to counter the Soviet successes of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Once he won the election, and the Soviets continued their run of successes, he had to stick to his election policy.
They mentioned in the programme last night that NASA "employed" 400,000 people on Apollo. That's not really true. NASA has never had that number of employees. However, as virtually the entire US aerospace and computing industry was heavily involved in Apollo, the real total of people involved in the whole project is more like 750,000.
I still can't fathom why someone would think that it is prepostrous to think man has been to the moon. Why do people have such a problem getting their heads around the concept that sometimes, a technology is abandoned even though the knowledge to utilise or re-invigorate the technology has not been lost.
The science and engineering required to do the job was well and truly in place by the mid 1960s.
I can see the situation in thirty years time when some child says: "Daddy, is it true that once upon a time ordinary people could fly across the Atlantic in 3 1/2 hours".
Just because we aren't doing something now doesn't mean we couldn't do it in the past.
The science and engineering required to do the job was well and truly in place by the mid 1960s.
I can see the situation in thirty years time when some child says: "Daddy, is it true that once upon a time ordinary people could fly across the Atlantic in 3 1/2 hours".
Just because we aren't doing something now doesn't mean we couldn't do it in the past.
satch said:
To me it sounds as proposterous to suggest it was faked - given evidence, and equally so to suggest that they went too. I'm undecided.
Are equally ambivalent in your belief of the existence of communications and GPS satelites, ballistic missiles, stealth technology and the Space Shuttle?
satch said:
I still can't fathom why someone would think that it is prepostrous to think man has been to the moon. Why do people have such a problem getting their heads around the concept that sometimes, a technology is abandoned even though the knowledge to utilise or re-invigorate the technology has not been lost.
The science and engineering required to do the job was well and truly in place by the mid 1960s.
I can see the situation in thirty years time when some child says: "Daddy, is it true that once upon a time ordinary people could fly across the Atlantic in 3 1/2 hours".
Just because we aren't doing something now doesn't mean we couldn't do it in the past.
I agree, but why haven't we applied that progress and gone further ? Mars say ? or gone back to the moon ?
if we were so accomplished why not push the boundaries ? It can't be purely cost alone ? I would have to ask the question that why did NASA go for renewablr spacecraft versus further exploration using"conventional" rocket systems ? surely the shuttle could go to the moon, deploy, collect and return ?
There's not much more to gain from going to the moon again, look at what the Space Shuttle has done with Hubble, the ISS and other projects and they are way more use than a few kilos of moon rock. It's all about priority.
Mars will be much more difficult to visit than the Moon, it will take something like 3 years just to get there, think of the problems associated with a space flight of that size. They're huge.
A ha - that is the nub of it all. The main reason why the Moon Hoax myth has grown in recent times is because no one is going to the moon today. Well, as I said, just because no one is doing something now doesn't mean that it wasn't done in the past.
Apollo was a product of the Cold War. For America, for a brief moment in history, getting a man on the moon seemed to be a matter of national survival or, at the very least, an absolute imperative for the nation. The desire to get to the moon was actually beginning to fade even before Apollo 11 achieved the objective in 1969. Over the next three years, the national and political appetite virtually vanished. America had other, now more important, things on its mind - student riots, extraction from the Vietnam War, attempts at detente with the USSR and China etc etc. What had seemed so logical and vital in 1961 now seemed like a vast, expensive "moondoggle". So, the plug was pulled and the last three missions (Apollos 18,19 and 20) were canned.
Man will return to the moon, one day. What is needed is political motivation and popular support. I don't see any developments on the immediate horizon which would bring this about. However, the Chinese have expressed a desire to put a Chinese astronaut on the moon. I cannot see, for one moment, the Americans allowing China to start a manned lunar programme unopposed.
Apollo was a product of the Cold War. For America, for a brief moment in history, getting a man on the moon seemed to be a matter of national survival or, at the very least, an absolute imperative for the nation. The desire to get to the moon was actually beginning to fade even before Apollo 11 achieved the objective in 1969. Over the next three years, the national and political appetite virtually vanished. America had other, now more important, things on its mind - student riots, extraction from the Vietnam War, attempts at detente with the USSR and China etc etc. What had seemed so logical and vital in 1961 now seemed like a vast, expensive "moondoggle". So, the plug was pulled and the last three missions (Apollos 18,19 and 20) were canned.
Man will return to the moon, one day. What is needed is political motivation and popular support. I don't see any developments on the immediate horizon which would bring this about. However, the Chinese have expressed a desire to put a Chinese astronaut on the moon. I cannot see, for one moment, the Americans allowing China to start a manned lunar programme unopposed.
satch said:
I thought that too.
but didn't someone recently write a book about Blechley house (check spelling and accuracy of name), which was a secret service house in the middle of the English countryside, where no-one outside of the house knew what happened there - IIRC nearly thousands of people worked there and kept it a secret.
Indeed.
My stepmum worked there on the codebreaking team...our family knew nothing about this until it was detailed in 1977 on the Beebs Secret War!
AFAIK, she's still not officially allowed to talk about it.
Neil_H said:
There's not much more to gain from going to the moon again, look at what the Space Shuttle has done with Hubble, the ISS and other projects and they are way more use than a few kilos of moon rock. It's all about priority.
Mars will be much more difficult to visit than the Moon, it will take something like 3 years just to get there, think of the problems associated with a space flight of that size. They're huge.
Au contraire,
The moon is mineral rich and a source of massive deposits of materials that can be used in heavy industry and manufacture. Until recently the main barrier to this was a lack of water on the moon, but since massive water reserves were discovered in the lunar crust it makes all of the above possible.
Also, the moon is an ideal place from which to base your exploration and colonisation of the solar system. It takes far less energy to launch a spacecraft from the moon than it does from the Earth.
Secondly, it would not take three years to get to Mars. Using existing rocket technology it coule be done in 6-9 months.
cinqster said:
I thought that too.
but didn't someone recently write a book about Blechley house (check spelling and accuracy of name), which was a secret service house in the middle of the English countryside, where no-one outside of the house knew what happened there - IIRC nearly thousands of people worked there and kept it a secret.
Indeed.
My stepmum worked there on the codebreaking team...our family knew nothing about this until it was detailed in 1977 on the Beebs Secret War!
AFAIK, she's still not officially allowed to talk about it.
I know Bletchley Park very well having long had an interest, visited numerous times and been involved in the making of a documentary about it.
The "secret" of Bletchley or "Station X" as it was often known came out in the late 1970's.
It was and remains a remarkable place where some of the cleverest people in history fought a war that few ever knew about. Churchill called Bletchley "My Goose that laid a golden egg but never cackled". There is little the efforts of the codebreakers there shortened the war by at least two years and saved millions of lives.
The world's first programmable electronic computer, "Collossus" was built there. It was inspired in part by Alan Turing the mathematical genius who worked at the park and was designed and built by Tommy Flowers, a GPO Engineer who died only a couple of years ago.
After the war Churchill, in a bad decision, ordered that all the Collossi at Bletchley be destroyed along with their plans.
In the 1990's a project began to recreate one. This they have done and Tommy Flowers saw it working just before he died.
If you visit the park today you can see it too.
A brilliant and humbling day out.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff