JFK, NASA and the NRO

Anders Lindman said:
Anders Lindman
Click to expand...

NASA could easily have done most of their research and engineering for military purposes.

No. The money spent and research and development carried out for Apollo and its precursors is thoroughly accounted for, with a clear development path for manned space operations up through manned lunar landings.

The technology is basically the same for sending up satellites into orbit and a moon rocket for carrying a few astronauts.

While launch vehicle technology is similar for getting things into space, the technology for lunar exploration is not "basically the same". Certainly, work done up through Apollo benefitted the technology for all space applications. But the same is true for aircraft, or automobiles, or boats. There's nothing sinister about that.

The lunar module on the other hand looks like some cheap mockup from a B-movie.

Really? I am a practicing space engineer, and I think the LM is an elegant example of engineering perfectly suited to its application - man's first pure spaceship. I've also seen a number of claims disparaging the LM along the lines of your characterization above, and every one of them betrayed a fundamental ignorance of the engineering principles involved.

ETA: I changed "true" to "pure" in the last paragraph. The LM was the first manned spaceship designed to function exclusively in space.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
If the sun is behind the lunar module in the photo, would it really look that this?

[qimg]http://i54.tinypic.com/b9giaf.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Yes. You are forgetting that right behind the cameraman is a very large, (many square miles in size) reflective surface. While it has a low albedo, the amount of light hitting it is huge, meaning that there is a lot of reflected light heading back towards the sun, thus hitting the back of the LM at the same time. Try going outside away from street lights on the night of a full moon and see how light it is outside.

Added to this, the camera has been set up to take images in the shadow of the LM, so Armstrong has opened up the f-stop meaning everything will appear brighter than they would to the naked eye as more light is getting to the film. This means that backlit parts of the LM, like the edges, will appear even bright, just as they do in the photo. It is very clear that the light on the LM is diffuse, not sharp like a spotlight would produce, and that is a classic sign of reflected light.

Get a camera, go outside and take pictures, then you might start to understand the way light and photography works.
 
Last edited:
Here is half of that reflector:

AS11-39-5749.jpg
 
dropzone said:
So the thousands of people who gathered to view every launch were really watching TV? A really big and loud TV?
Click to expand...

The Saturn V rocket was pretty big, but maybe not as big as they claim it was. If it was used for military purposes it would have to big enough to be able to carry big clunky early days satellites.
 
Craig4 said:
How is showing a picture of a lunar lander on the moon evidence that we didn't go to the moon?
Click to expand...

If the photo can be shown to have been taken in a studio and not on the moon, then that is evidence for possible hoax.
 
sts60 said:
The lunar module on the other hand looks like some cheap mockup from a B-movie.

Really? I am a practicing space engineer, and I think the LM is an elegant example of engineering perfectly suited to its application - man's first pure spaceship. I've also seen a number of claims disparaging the LM along the lines of your characterization above, and every one of them betrayed a fundamental ignorance of the engineering principles involved.
Click to expand...

Looks like something from a Flash Gordon movie to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw
 
PhantomWolf said:
Yes. You are forgetting that right behind the cameraman is a very large, (many square miles in size) reflective surface. While it has a low albedo, the amount of light hitting it is huge, meaning that there is a lot of reflected light heading back towards the sun, thus hitting the back of the LM at the same time. Try going outside away from street lights on the night of a full moon and see how light it is outside.

Added to this, the camera has been set up to take images in the shadow of the LM, so Armstrong has opened up the f-stop meaning everything will appear brighter than they would to the naked eye as more light is getting to the film. This means that backlit parts of the LM, like the edges, will appear even bright, just as they do in the photo. It is very clear that the light on the LM is diffuse, not sharp like a spotlight would produce, and that is a classic sign of reflected light.

Get a camera, go outside and take pictures, then you might start to understand the way light and photography works.
Click to expand...

But that's my point! If you claim that a lot of sunlight was reflected from the moon's surface, then why is the top of the lunar module so dim? http://i54.tinypic.com/2qu0iol.jpg
 
PhantomWolf said:
Because different areas and materials have different colours and reflective properties, just like when you look about the world about you not everything reflects light at the same level.
Click to expand...

It looks like a studio spotlight is shining on the the bright edges: http://i54.tinypic.com/b9giaf.jpg

The top of the lunar module should be much brighter in the above photo. At least something like this: http://images.travelpod.com/users/emmafox/1.1281831055.apollo-11-lunar-module.jpg
 
Anders Lindman said:
The Saturn V rocket was pretty big, but maybe not as big as they claim it was.
Click to expand...
No. The specifications for the launch vehicle were, and have been, freely available. Any deviations from said specifications would have been instantly recognized at the major contractor level, and in most cases at the subcontractor level. Moreover, the launch vehicle spent considerable amounts of time sitting in the open, where hundreds of thousands of people for each launch could directly observe it. You can go look at one yourself in several places in the United States. There is simply no credibility, let alone any evidence, for such a claim; you might as well say that the battleship Missouri, or a Concorde, or an S3 Diesel Electric Locomotive is "maybe not as big as they claim it was".
Anders Lindman said:
If it was used for military purposes it would have to big enough to be able to carry big clunky early days satellites.
Click to expand...
This doesn't make sense. First you say that the S5 wasn't as big as advertised, then you say it had to be big enough to carry "big clunky" payloads.

You also have it exactly backward. The relatively large Corona reconaissance satellites of the '50s and '60s were much smaller than the massive reconnaissance and SIGINT satellites of today, and were launched on Thor-Agenas which were themselves based on intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) applications. The Saturn V was a purpose-built, man-rated, heavy-lift launch vehicle designed to launch very large payloads on Earth escape trajectories.
 
sts60 said:
No. The specifications for the launch vehicle were, and have been, freely available. Any deviations from said specifications would have been instantly recognized at the major contractor level, and in most cases at the subcontractor level. Moreover, the launch vehicle spent considerable amounts of time sitting in the open, where hundreds of thousands of people for each launch could directly observe it. You can go look at one yourself in several places in the United States. There is simply no credibility, let alone any evidence, for such a claim; you might as well say that the battleship Missouri, or a Concorde, or an S3 Diesel Electric Locomotive is "maybe not as big as they claim it was".

This doesn't make sense. First you say that the S5 wasn't as big as advertised, then you say it had to be big enough to carry "big clunky" payloads.

You also have it exactly backward. The relatively large Corona reconaissance satellites of the '50s and '60s were much smaller than the massive reconnaissance and SIGINT satellites of today, and were launched on Thor-Agenas which were themselves based on intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) applications. The Saturn V was a purpose-built, man-rated, heavy-lift launch vehicle designed to launch very large payloads on Earth escape trajectories.
Click to expand...

Hmm... Good point about the specifications for Saturn V being public. But were they public during the 60s? Maybe they changed the specifications when they made them public, such as altering basic dimensions.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Hmm... Good point about the specifications for Saturn V being public. But were they public during the 60s?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course they were. The Saturn V configuration was largely set by 1962.0,1
Anders Lindman said:
Maybe they changed the specifications when they made them public, such as altering basic dimensions.
Click to expand...
Good heavens, no. Aside from the fact that the specifications preceded the functional launch vehicle - as is always the case - why in the world would they do such a thing? Saturn, while it evolved from a military booster program, was transferred to the newly-created civilian agency NASA in 1959.

And besides, the engineers and technicians would know, and in any case people could see it, both in pieces when the big stages left the factories (see below for an example), when it was being stacked in the VAB, assembled when it rolled out of the VAB, and by hundreds of thousands of people while sitting on the pad.

The proposition is neither true nor does it make any sense.

But here, at no extra charge, is a little empirical exercise, showing the design evolution and comparison of figures, some of which were (originally) confidential and some which were always in the public domain. The mass estimate variation over years of design evolution is nothing special. The actual liftoff weight of the entire stack on lunar landing missions varied up to ~50,000 lbs (~23,000 kg) due to changes to payloads, propellant loading, and design modifications.

Code: 
              ----  Length (ft) ----     --- Dia (ft) ---   Total stack launch
Ref  Year   S-1C   S-II   S-IVB  Stack   S-1C/S-II   S-IVB   weight (*10[sup]6[/sup] lbs)
 1   1963   138    81.5   58.5    330*      33       21.7      6 
 2   1967   138    81.5   58.5    365       33       21.7      6.46
 3   1967   138    81.6   58.6    363       33       21.7      6.26
 4   1968   138    81.5   58.6    363       33       21.7      6.22
 5   1969   138    81.5   59.3    363       33       21.7      6.35
 6   1971   138    81.5   59.3    363       33       21.7      6.42
* Does not include launch abort system

References
0. Bilstein, Roger E. NASA SP-4206, Stages to Saturn - A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles, NASA History Office 1996.
1. Bramlet, James B. "Saturn V Launch Vehicle Program", Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) 1963. (Originally Confidential, available via NTRS).
2. "Saturn V - Manned Flight to the Moon", NASA Facts NF-33, MSFC 1967.
3. Saturn V News Reference, NASA Public Affairs Office 1967.
4. Apollo 4 Mission Report, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center 1968 (originally Confidential, automatically declassified after 3 years).
5. Saturn V Flight Manual (SA-507), MSFC 1969.
6. Apollo 17 Press Kit, NASA 1972.

Attached: S-IC leaving Michoud Assembly Facility, 1967.
 
sts60 said:
Yes, of course they were. The Saturn V configuration was largely set by 1962.0,1
Click to expand...

Ok, then my guess is that Saturn V was either used for putting big clunky satellites into orbit or that it was just a larger version of such rocket, or it was not really built and that was shown on television and what people watched from afar was a smaller rocket.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, then my guess is that Saturn V was either used for putting big clunky satellites into orbit or that it was just a larger version of such rocket, or it was not really built and that was shown on television and what people watched from afar was a smaller rocket.
Click to expand...

Nope. Try another guess.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, then my guess is that Saturn V was either used for putting big clunky satellites into orbit or that it was just a larger version of such rocket, or it was not really built and that was shown on television and what people watched from afar was a smaller rocket.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain that fact that we went to the moon?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, then my guess is that Saturn V was either used for putting big clunky satellites into orbit
Click to expand...

You don't need to guess, but I don't think you really read what I wrote.

The Saturn V was purpose-built for manned spacecraft launches. Also, as already indicated, other vehicles were used for satellite launches (including the Thor-Agena for Corona reconaissance satellites).

There were 13 Saturn Vs launched.
The first two were unmanned tests which included some Apollo hardware.
The next ten were manned Apollo missions.
The last was the launch of Skylab, the U.S.'s first space station. I suppose you could call that a "big clunky satellite", but -
(a) you evidently missed the point that the intelligence satellites of today are bigger than those of that era, and
(b) the Saturn flight record does not support your guess.

Anders Lindman said:
or that it was just a larger version of such rocket,
Click to expand...
No. I've already provided data that shows the Saturn's characteristics were both consistent and verifiable.
Anders Lindman said:
or it was not really built and that was shown on television and what people watched from afar was a smaller rocket.
Click to expand...
No, this is absurd. As I've already pointed out, the Saturn V could be seen before, during, and after assembly. Hundreds of thousands of people could view the vehicle directly (quite apart from all the engineers and technicians who worked on the program). I can compare the extensive Saturn V imagery of it in the VAB, on the Crawler, and at Launch Complexes 39A and B with my own direct personal experience inside the VAB, near the Crawler, and at said launch complexes.

Anything else I can help you with?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, then my guess is...
Click to expand...

No one really cares what you "guess" to be real. Will you be presenting actual evidence that the Apollo program did not go to the Moon...yes or no

...that Saturn V was either used for putting big clunky satellites into orbit or that it was just a larger version of such rocket, or it was not really built and that was shown on television and what people watched from afar was a smaller rocket.
Click to expand...

This statement is just too ignorant to respond to...
 
You know Anders, learning about the actual history of space exploration is really far more interesting than wallowing in your made up stories about it. If you gave it a try, you might find that learning about the real world is far more fascinating than the made up dream land you've created.
 
R.A.F. said:
No one really cares what you "guess" to be real. Will you be presenting actual evidence that the Apollo program did not go to the Moon...yes or no
Click to expand...

The image of the lunar lander is enough evidence for me that the moon program could have been faked.
 
Craig4 said:
Then how do you explain that fact that we went to the moon?
Click to expand...

If it was a fact, then it was a fact, sure, but was it a fact? Why would the U.S. government risk a live television broadcast of a risky program that could end up in a a disaster in so many ways? No way they would have accepted such risk for a catastrophic effect on the public during the Cold War.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The image of the lunar lander is enough evidence for me that the moon program could have been faked.
Click to expand...

The key words in that sentence are "for me". Now can you tell us by what criteria you came to that decision? What "expertise" did you employ?

...or is this just a case of "it doesn't look right to me, so the Moon landings must have been faked". Why should anyone listen to an opinion formed out of ignorance?
 
R.A.F. said:
The key words in that sentence are "for me". Now can you tell us by what criteria you came to that decision? What "expertise" did you employ?

...or is this just a case of "it doesn't look right to me, so the Moon landings must have been faked". Why should anyone listen to an opinion formed out of ignorance?
Click to expand...

Even an amateur like me can see that the lighting in this photo was done in a studio: http://i54.tinypic.com/b9giaf.jpg
 
Anders Lindman said:
Why would the U.S. government risk a live television broadcast of a risky program that could end up in a a disaster in so many ways?
Click to expand...

You obviously know very little about the American space program. The government "took" the risk of airing the launches live because we are a free country with nothing to hide.

Interesting concept, huh??
 
Did you watch the video I posted, Anders? Only two minutes long, won't take up too much of your time.
 
R.A.F. said:
You obviously know very little about the American space program. The government "took" the risk of airing the launches live because we are a free country with nothing to hide.

Interesting concept, huh??
Click to expand...

Except the millions of pages of information each year stamped classified in the name of national security. ;)
 
Sledge said:
Did you watch the video I posted, Anders? Only two minutes long, won't take up too much of your time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was the comedy video where they talked about faking an entire rocket just to fool people. That was interesting I thought. Especially since I believe they used the rockets for establishing military preeminence in space, such as spy satellites etc. I didn't watch the end of the video. Will check it again.
 
Were all the APollo Missions faked or just some of them>

If it was faked why risk faking it so many times?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, if you know, how much did JFK know about the NRO?
Click to expand...
Don't know, so I can't help you with that one.

Anders Lindman said:
The image of the lunar lander is enough evidence for me that the moon program could have been faked.
Click to expand...
You have already stated your opinion, but - as noted in posts 41 and 53 - it has been backed up neither by any statement of personal expertise nor by any technical argument. The opinion of the aerospace engineering world, on the other hand, contradicts yours. Therefore your claim must be rejected as unsupported.

If you are interested in challenging yourself a little and learning something about the LM, I suggest
NASA SP-4205, Chariots for Apollo
NASA SM2A-02, Apollo Spacecraft Familiarization
NASA(?) course no. 30005-012, LM Orientation Training Course (1966)
Grumman LMA790-3-LM, Apollo Operations Handbook, Lunar Module, Vol. I and Vol. II (1970/71) (*** warning: ~40 MB PDFs each)
There is much, much more, but you get the idea.

Anders Lindman said:
If it was a fact, then it was a fact, sure, but was it a fact? Why would the U.S. government risk a live television broadcast of a risky program that could end up in a a disaster in so many ways? No way they would have accepted such risk for a catastrophic effect on the public during the Cold War.
Click to expand...

This is the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. No one represented that the Apollo program was not risky; the risk was part of the overall challenge that made Apollo a unique endeavor. The risk was managed by characterizing the relevant environments, building up the necessary technologies and skills through a progression of missions and simulation modes, and a robust test program.

Yes, the Apollo landings were a fact.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Except the millions of pages of information each year stamped classified in the name of national security. ;)
Click to expand...

We're not talking about national security documents now are we.

Anyhow...the televised coverage of the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger makes your argument irrelevant.
 
sts60 said:
it has been backed up neither by any statement of personal expertise nor by any technical argument.
Click to expand...

A technical argument I posted is that if the light is from reflections of the lunar surface, then the top of the lunar module should have been more lit than it was.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Were all the APollo Missions faked or just some of them>

If it was faked why risk faking it so many times?
Click to expand...

One idea I had some time ago was that only the first moon landing was faked, and the others were real. Now I believe all were faked. Those lunar lander modules look way too unbelievable as something that would work for real.
 
Anders Lindman said:
A technical argument I posted is that if the light is from reflections of the lunar surface, then the top of the lunar module should have been more lit than it was.
Click to expand...
If you look at the posts I cited, I was referring to the "cheap mockup" and "Flash Gordon" characterizations. I generally leave photography arguments to others, since (a) I'm not an expert in that field and (b) there are only so many hours in the day.

ETA:

Anders Lindman said:
One idea I had some time ago was that only the first moon landing was faked, and the others were real. Now I believe all were faked. Those lunar lander modules look way too unbelievable as something that would work for real.
Click to expand...
Repeating your opinion is not the same as supporting it. And, again, expert opinion contradicts yours.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
A technical argument I posted is that if the light is from reflections of the lunar surface, then the top of the lunar module should have been more lit than it was.
Click to expand...

What "technical argument"??? All you posted was that it didn't "look right" to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom