Moon To Have No-Fly Zones - No Joke

Miscellaneous General
21

Not that it matters, but that part was almost certainly written by Haushoffer, not Hitler.

Since the democratic world is more or less built on two-party (world view) systems, there are usually two big lies. The first is the official story, built up by those currently in charge. The second is the conspiracy theory, started by those seeking power, which is not really meant to explain anything, but to cast doubt on those currently in office. Reality usually bears little resemblance to either, since each side fits the evidence to their world view, instead of the other way around.

All this is going way off topic, however, and I wish some editor will finally delete all this silliness, so I can talk about how the CIA is beaming microwaves into my fillings!

22

Escape velocity on Earth is 11.2 km/s. Escape velocity on the Moon is 2.4 km/s. The speed of sound is .343 km/s.

A launch vehicle built to the 11.2 km/s escape velocity would have to withstand over 32 g’s of force. This is way over the top for rocket designs. To solve this problem you need a longer burn, which means a much larger rocket to carry the propellant. As you leave Earth’s atmosphere, the escape velocity decreases.

A return vehicle built to the 2.4 km/s escape velocity is much more practical, and would be designed to withstand around 7 g’s. That means the lunar vehicle would be more efficient several times over compared to the rocket needed to leave Earth’s atmosphere. It means a much shorter burn, which would make a lunar launch appear almost like a gun shot whereas on Earth you need a constant burn to reach the point where the escape velocity is within the threshold of the rocket design.

Naturally, you would build vehicles to withstand greater g’s than indicated by the physics for safety reasons. However, the amount of fuel would go up exponentially.

As for launch, the Saturn V used liquid Hydrogen as the main propellant. This requires a ground team and propellant farm near the launch facility. Liquid hydrogen dissipates over time, requiring the tank to be cooled and pressurized. Since the vehicles aren’t made to be a thermos bottle (serious weight issue if they did), there is venting of the fuel and a constant resupply from the propellant farm.

The lunar module used Aerozine 50. This is the preferred fuel for spacecraft because they can remain refueled indefinitely. There’s no need for a propellant farm or a ground crew.

23

@KC Farmer: OK, but I specifically noted that scale is not the problem. I believe NASA solved all the relevant technical problems that they knew of and built the Lunar Module according to those specifications. But that doesn’t address my issues: Lack of testing and apparent lack of similar care to precision and fail-safety in the design of the Lunar Module versus similar Earth rocketry (regardless of scale).

Think about it, when we started orbiting the Earth, we were very careful… first we sent up probes, then we sent up test animals to see what happened to them, and so on. After many test launches, we finally put a man in retrograde orbit. However, with the Moon landing, we were so damn sure we had solved every possible technical problem that could arise when landing on and launching from an environment 250,000 miles away, that we didn’t even need to test the full sequence. The Surveyor program (unmanned “soft” landings on the Moon) crashed 2 out of 7 times. But Apollo got it absolutely perfect: six out of six landings and launches, no mistakes, no crashes. So, I guess their gung-ho confidence turned out to have been fully justified.

As an aside, this reminds me of the Fat Man bomb drop - the physicists were so sure the bomb would work they didn’t even test it. Hell, you can accidently reverse a wire no matter how many PhD’s you have. I work in validation engineering… and our motto is: if it isn’t tested, it doesn’t work.

Clayton -

24

I assume the psychoanalysis comes free of charge. Thanks, this will lower my psychiatrist bill.

And, yes, I’m sure that I’m being lied to on many counts. In fact, the government is very explicit that they reserve the right to lie to us for “national security” reasons.

As for precisely who “they” are, I frankly do not know. The police do not know the identity of many perpetrators of crimes but that doesn’t make the crimes themselves disappear.

As for their motives, I think those are fairly obvious: to stay on top. It’s like that schoolyard game King of the Hill. Knowing that this is the motive helps eliminate a lot of suspects - whoever is behind the Big Lies are among the most powerful people in the world.

And note that “means, motive, opportunity” is a criminal defense not a criterion for investigative suspicion. The essence of the legal argument is that “If the prosecution cannot prove that the defendant had means AND motive AND opportunity, then you cannot convict the defendant. Here’s my arguments and evidence showing that the defendant did not have at least one of means, motive or opportunity to commit this crime, therefore, you should find my client not guilty.” Such a line of reasoning has no applicability to investigative suspicion, which is based on all available evidence and must handle all likely hypotheses with equal care.

Clayton -

25
  • Think about it, when we started orbiting the Earth, we were very careful… first we sent up probes, then we sent up test animals to see what happened to them, and so on. After many test launches, we finally put a man in retrograde orbit. However, with the Moon landing, we were so damn sure we had solved every possible technical problem that could arise when landing on and launching from an environment 250,000 miles away, that we didn’t even need to test the full sequence. The Surveyor program (unmanned “soft” landings on the Moon) crashed 2 out of 7 times. But Apollo got it absolutely perfect: six out of six landings and launches, no mistakes, no crashes. So, I guess their gung-ho confidence turned out to have been fully justified.

Oh yeah, no testing except for all the testing of the Saturn V rocket, the unmanned Apollo 4, 5, and 6 missions. The manned Apollo 7 mission, which only went into Earth oribit. Apollo 8 that went all the way to to moon without landing, two more manned test flights, and then finally Apollo 11 where the landing was attempted. Oh and no mistakes except Apollo 1 where the astronauts burnt to death, and Apollo 13 where the Service Module suffered a catostrophic explosion almost resulting in the death of the crew. But those were just part of the conspiracy, right?

Yeah, lets build all this infrastructure that’s capable of going to the moon, but lets NOT do it, because…conspiracy! I saw a smudge on some lunar photos!

You are aware that the landers have been photographed by more recent lunar orbiters, and you can see the landers, tools, and foot paths from the astronauts, right?

26

If true, I will gladly lay aside my skepticism. Please provide a link.

Clayton -

27
  • If true, I will gladly lay aside my skepticism. Please provide a link.

You can find them right on wikipedia. I’m at work right now and can’t go digging for original source images, so if that’s not good enough for you that’s ok. The better ones are also NASA images, but a Japanese mission has also photographed some of the landing sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Imaging_the_landing_sites

You also have evidence in the geology of the moon rocks, and the fact that the samples can be correlated to Soviet samples obtained from sample-return landers. In order for that to work, there would have had to have been collaboration between the Soviet and US space programs…that’s a big stretch.

Hope this helps put it to rest in your mind

28

I was considering posting those pictures, but one could argue that they’re simply just some crater with some random footsep-like paths around it. Then again, I doubt there are many path-like formations on the moon.

The thing is, we cannot take a good image of the lander with any​​ telescope we currently have. So until then, 100% concrete proof is tough. That is what gave me an idea of a science project: a cheap, gigantic, powerful telescope. Yeah, and while I’m at it I can give pigs some wings.

29

But that doesn’t address my issues: Lack of testing and apparent lack of similar care to precision and fail-safety in the design of the Lunar Module versus similar Earth rocketry (regardless of scale).

Can’t really say “regardless of scale” where rocketry is concerned.

You do realize that Eagle was LM-5. Spider (LM-3) and Snoopy (LM-4) were previously tested; Snoopy was tested operationally (descent stage landed, while ascent stage separated around 14km above the lunar surface and is still out there in solar orbit).

Testing must also balance cost. These spaceflight/operational tests are extremely expensive missions, so you’re not going the see the type of testing you’d see in something like say an automobile or an airplane. BTW, what products do you perform validation engineering on? NASA determined that 4 progressively complicated tests were sufficient, and they even cancelled 1 of them (LM-2) because schedule was also a priority. Even back in the early days of NASA, cost and schedule were king - although they weren’t as seemingly lax with safety as they seem to be these days (but they say they’re all about safety).

The Surveyor program tested the feasability of a “soft” lunar landing. It was designed with an impact trajectory. “Crashing” isn’t a necessarily bad thing in testing, as you learn more about limitations or have opportunities to identify design flaws. Also, Apollo used a Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. These are two totally different trajectories, but Apollo did build upon the successes of the Surveyor program.

Surveyor 2 failed due to an error in the insertion point and a vernier engine failure during a midcourse correction. Surveyor 4 lost radio contact about 2.5 minutes prior to landing. Belief is that a solid fuel retro rocket may have exploded either during or shortly after the radio failure. Neither of these failures point to a “soft” landing as not being feasable.

Apollo was hardly “perfect”. Apollo 1 was a disaster that cost the lives of three astronauts. Apollo 6 didn’t perform well, but NASA was able to identify vibration fixes and man-rated the vehicle. Apollo 11 had navigation errors and computer alarms that were corrected. Apollo 12 had 2 lightning strikes. Apollo 14 had two docking failures, faulty LM abort switch, and a delayed radar landing acquisition. Apollo 13 was also a failure, and took an amazing effort to save the lives of the three astronauts on board. Apollo 16 had a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimble servo loop and a malfunction in the LM ascent stage de-orbit.

As for testing, each flight component was rigorously tested prior to flight. NASA is well known for pushing for double and triple redundancy of components, something that drives the costs up. In fact, the amount of testing done for the Apollo program was well above the level of testing performed by current rocket programs.

As for animal testing, that was done to see whether or not the radiation would kill people.

30

Lack of testing

Since when is the government concerned with costs of human lives? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

31

Yes, you can. I understand that much of the infrastructure required for an Earth-based rocket is the result of its scale, as you noted the constant refueling of the liquid hydrogen until launch is initiated. Nevertheless, the need to have extremely precise orientation of the rocket is the same on the Moon or on the Earth. Even a slight misalignment of the launch platform would send the austronauts into a Moon orbit that would never intersect the Command Module, stranding them forever. And this is just a “for example”, I’m not soliciting a debate on the specific technical problems and how/whether they were/could be solved. The point is that there are innumerable ways to get it wrong, where even slightly wrong is still fatally wrong.

They never even launched an animal into Moon orbit. They did this before launching a man into LEO, why not for Moon orbit? It seems like a reckless act to assume that radiation levels in the 250,000 miles between Earth and the Moon are not deadly. As an aside, 1969 was the peak of the 20th Solar Cycle. Space radiation was at elevated levels during that time.

The motivation and incentives to lie are overwhelming and extremely tempting with no way for anyone with less resources than a government to detect the fraud, at least, not for a very long time. I looked over the photos and I have to say I plan to wait until a third-party (preferably a private third-party) can image an Apollo site in detail before rendering judgment. In the meantime, I suspect fraud and I will continue to look for artifacts of fraud in the available information on Apollo.

Clayton -

32

I think the radiation argument has been countered by saying that 1) the belt has a hole in it which they tried to go through 2) they are only exposed for a small amount of time 3) they are well protected from the radiation.

33

@Wheylous:

  1. Wha?

  2. Well, they spent days above LEO, hardly a “small amount of time” if the radiation levels in open space had turned out to be on an order with Chernobyl

  3. How? The CM’s and LM’s walls were not radiation hardened against any kind of serious radiation. High-energy gamma rays will go right through solid lead like it’s not even there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray#Shielding “Shielding from gamma rays requires large amounts of mass…” Hardly compatible with the weight limitations of a spaceship.

Clayton -

34
- The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to **lessen radiation exposure**. Even Dr [James Van Allen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen), **the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions**.[[68]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-67) Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 [rem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6ntgen_equivalent_man) (10 [mSv](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert)), which is equivalent to the **ambient radiation received by living at [sea level](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level) for three years**.[[69]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-68) The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[[70]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-69)
- The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that **33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage [cataracts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract) that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip**.[[71]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-70) At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.

About the belt having a hole: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/ - Ctrl + F “van allen”

Sorry if you’ve already considered these.

35
- The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to **lessen radiation exposure**. Even Dr [James Van Allen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen), **the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions**.[[68]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-67) Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 [rem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6ntgen_equivalent_man) (10 [mSv](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert)), which is equivalent to the **ambient radiation received by living at [sea level](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level) for three years**.[[69]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-68) The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[[70]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-69)
- The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that **33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage [cataracts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract) that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip**.[[71]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-70) At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.

About the belt having a hole: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/ - Ctrl + F “van allen”

Sorry if you’ve already considered these.

36

@Wheylous: But most of that is circular (assuming we went to the Moon, yada yada yada). What I’m trying to say is that unless we actually went to the Moon or sent some animals out to the Moon we don’t know actually know what the radiation levels out there are. We can guess but we can’t be sure. When the Starfish Prime nuclear test was done in 1958, 150 miles above earth, the electro-magnetic pulse it generated was massively stronger than had been expected and the radiation became trapped in a belt above the Earth - it’s still there. The lingering radiation from Starfish Prime was so intense that it wiped out a third of existing satellites (there were only a small number of satellites at the time but the effect of Starfish Prime was dramatic). This, too, was a surprise. Until someone sent a monkey or something out to the Moon, no one could possibly know for sure what the radiation levels in space are and sending a human out into that is reckless and irrational from the perspective of the goals of the Space Race. What the hell good is a spaceship full of dead astronauts?

Clayton -

37
  • Until someone sent a monkey or something out to the Moon, no one could possibly know for sure what the radiation levels in space are and sending a human out into that is reckless and irrational from the perspective of the goals of the Space Race. What the hell good is a spaceship full of dead astronauts?

Now you’re talking like an FDA bureaucrat! It’s all in the risk factors. You’re just outright wrong that “nobody could possibly know for sure”. NASA had been sending out various probes, such as Pioneer 4, for over a decade before Apollo 11. These probes had radition sensing equipment. Astronomers had a pretty good handle on the possible radition effects, of course there was a risk, but not so much as to make it “reckless”, and certainly not so much as to suspect some kind of conspiracy.

38

After listening to coast to coast for some time now, I believe the people on coast believe this:

  • Nasa and those astronauts did goto the moon.

  • they also shot the fake footage, just in case (not for conspiracy reasons, but probably for the USA vs USSR spacerace reasons)

  • they seemed to have released some of both to the public