50 years later -- what happened with USA aerospace technology ??
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
Has anyone wondered how it was possible for NASA to allegedly put 12 men on the moon in 1969 and the early 1970ies and - all of a sudden - has not been able to do so again since???
Was NASA technology so advanced that the often spoken of rapid advance in electronic and computer technology over the last few decades, the advances in aerospace technology, etc actually has not been an advancement but rather a steady or sudden decline?
I found a quote by Wernher von Braun (the leading person of the NASA programs then) in which he spoke of his perspective on landing a man on the moon :
“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”—Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon
Was he just terribly depressed when he wrote that? or was the mighty Saturn V rocket (which in light of his statement above was rather minuscle in comparison to what von Braun claimed would be needed) actually not really able to achieve the goal of a man on the moon but served a different purpose?
NASA engineers must have had some rather secret anad very advanced technologies available to achieve what is claimed to have been achieved with the Apollo program ... seeing that nothing even close has been achieved for several decades of rapid technical advances in various fields of expertise involved in the process.
I would think the rather simple answer the Apollo "open mystery" is this: The moon landings were faked, a hoax.
Comments
-
Consider this in followup on the post above:
What will people make of the stories about men on the moon in the late 1960ies and early 1970ies when they watch old films from that time? Will they not greatly wonder at the rather laughably primitive technology of that era with which NASA supposedly sent men to the moon?
What about this fact: Consider this peculiar fact: The Apollo astronauts supposedly flew about 240,000 miles distance between earth and moon. The total travel distance (including earth and moon orbits) during the alleged Apollo missions would have ranged from about 640,000 miles for Apollo 13 to abou 1,400,000 miles for Apollo 17 ... and all without mid-air refueling.
Now, ever since the last supposed Apollo flight returned from the moon in 1972, the furthest any astronaut has traveled away from the earth is about 400 miles. Actually, there have only been a very few who have gone that far. Most of current and other manned space programs (e.g. the space shuttles, the ISS space station, etc) have an orbit altitude of about 200 miles.
Nearly five decades later, and with far more advanced and cutting-edge technologies used, the best manned space vehicles built (in any country) only bring humans to an altitude of about 200 miles. However, in the 1960ies the USA supposedly built and flew more than a half dozen rockets and Apollo capsules more than 1000 times further into space ... plus flew them back to earth. They did all that with far less advanced technologies and the Saturn V rockets which had a weight if about 3,000 tons, only a minuscule of the size and weight (actually about 0.005%) of what Werher von Braun, who designed the Saturn V rockets, wrote previously (compare quote in previous post).
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Has anyone wondered how it was possible for NASA to allegedly put 12 men on the moon in 1969 and the early 1970ies and - all of a sudden - has not been able to do so again since???
Wolfgang, your assertion that NASA "all of a sudden has not been able" to return to the moon is false. The decision to end the Apollo program had nothing to do with the agency's ability. Instead, the decision had to do with changing social and financial priorities. There wasn't the national or fiscal will for more lunar exploration, so NASA turned to lesser magnitude projects such as Skylab, then the space shuttle, and, of late, the International Space Station. Currently, we're exploring an eventual trip to Mars, but that's decades away yet.
What about this fact: Consider this peculiar fact: The Apollo astronauts supposedly flew about 240,000 miles distance between earth and moon. The total travel distance (including earth and moon orbits) during the alleged Apollo missions would have ranged from about 640,000 miles for Apollo 13 to abou 1,400,000 miles for Apollo 17 ... and all without mid-air refueling.
I won't engage your unfounded speculations about what you claim were faked Apollo missions (FWIW, they weren't faked) but I will make a note about the science of motion here. The fuel needs of a trip to the moon and back are not as great as one might think. The VAST majority of the fuel an Apollo flight used was spent simply getting the Saturn V rocket off the ground and liberating the spacecraft from earth orbit. Once to the moon, additional fuel was needed to enter lunar orbit, and then take off from the lunar surface. But the period between those two phases - that is, when on the way to the moon - there was little fuel consumed because in space, there is no atmosphere to stop or slow down a spacecraft, so it moves in whatever direction it is headed until another force changes its velocity. Why do you think the earth is moving? Does our planet need to refuel during its endless flight through space? No. At its formation, the earth was set in motion, and since then there has been nothing in space to stop it, so it keeps moving. (Google Newton's first lawn of motion for more)
They did all that with far less advanced technologies and the Saturn V rockets which had a weight if about 3,000 tons, only a minuscule of the size and weight (actually about 0.005%) of what Werher von Braun, who designed the Saturn V rockets, wrote previously (compare quote in previous post).
Von Braun obviously evolved his view of what was possible. How do I know? This is a picture of Von Braun (the man with the binoculars) with his team at the Apollo 11 launch in July 1969.
-
The "men on the moon" missions were a hoax and faked ... the very simple reason is that it would have been technically impossible to achieve with the technologies and materials available at the time (and even to this day has not been possible to do). There are certain considerations concerning space travel beyond close earth orbit which even NASA (and other space agencies in other countries as well), such as, for example - regarding necessary shielding against radiation, have not been able to sufficiently solve even with far more advanced technologies available nowadays. It has not much to do with fiscal considerations ...
Time frame for the life of this "men on the moon" hoax is running out ... IF someone in the days of early automobiles, when fastest cars had a maximum speed of 50 mph, would come up with news about a passenger car that drove at 500 mph and shown some pics of the automobile and a speed measuring devise with a handle at a 500 mark, and all news had reported it, many folks would perhaps have believed the story to be true. If after 3, 4 or more decades of technical development top speed passenger cars leveled out at 180 mph and nobody ever anywhere even came close to the 500mph figure, the story about that 500 mph passenger car of "automobile antiquity" would more or less quickly reveal itself to have been a hoax.
Same really applies to what was going on with the "men on the moon" Apollo missions .... they wee a hoax, and what actually helped the matter was the fact that it was at a time of only early TV technology, etc ... reaching masses of people with pictures that the folks believed to be true without much thinking "because they saw it with their own eyes live on screen". Earth orbit flights live pictures from various stages at take off and after landing were mixed with fiction movie in between ....
-
@Wolfgang posted:
The "men on the moon" missions were a hoax and faked ...
There isn't anything for us to discuss further here, Wolfgang. You make claims for which you provide no proof. There's simply no reason to continue the discussion until you demonstrate the truth of your claims... which in my view, you can 't do because your claims are false.
For the moment and for the next two weeks, I'll be in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado hiking and taking thousands of pictures. Hence, I will be away from the forums until I return.
Blessings.
-
There isn't anything for us to discuss further here, Wolfgang. You make claims for which you provide no proof. There's simply no reason to continue the discussion until you demonstrate the truth of your claims... which in my view, you can 't do because your claims are false.
hmn ... what is false about the fact that far more advanced technology has not been able to continue / redo what supposedly was done with computer technology of 50 years ago??
what is false in NASA folks over the last few years and even now are acknowledging that the radiation problem for out of earth orbit manned space missions hs not been solved and no sufficiently safe solution is currently available? And yet the same NASA agency folks were able to conduct all those Apollos missions 8 - 17 safely without problem 4 decades ago with materials that are now considered totally insufficient??
According to your earlier reply, you seem to think that Wernher von Braun's knowledge concerning building rockets etc EVOLVED ... within only a few years (!!!) from an estimate written down in a publication to a functioning result that only uses 0.005% of that initial model??
You know, proof is not only found in things written in newspapers or other publications one could quote ... proof of what is a lie and what is true is found in logical and reasonable thinking while comparing statements and things presented !!!
-
Did anyone perhaps own a camera in the 1960s/70s when "auto focus" was not really in use and one was busy looking through the view finder and manually turning wheels to adjust focus, shutter speed needed, etc? Did you ever try to just set those values at a certain figure and then hold the camera in front of your chest and take pictures of different scenes with people at different angles, distances, light of different intensity coming from different directions? How did such photographs turn out?
Well, if you were as talented as the Apollo moon walkers, ALL of them would have been just perfect ... correct focus, correct frame position with object of desire at the center of the pic, etc .... 😉
-
Let me guess, the earth is also flat....
-
@reformed wrote
Let me guess, the earth is also flat....
hmn ... you may of course guess all you want ... would you have some facts on which you base your guess?
For what it's worth, I do not guess that planet earth is flat, but in general has the form of a globe (ball) with a circumference of approx 40000 km at the equator, thus having a radius of approx 6337 km.
I do know however that in places the earth can be rather flat 😉
-
I encourage you to read the interview with Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins, which appears in the July 2019 issue of Astronomy magazine. Collins says he was given simple camera setting instructions that anyone (he cites a baboon) could have followed:
- focus: infinity
- f-stop: f11
- shutter speed: 1/250th of a second
We can infer that astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin were given similarly simple instructions.
-
Bill and I don't agree on much of anything, but the moon landings DID happen. There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence to prove it. The conspiracy whacks are EASILY debunked.
-
@reformed wrote
Bill and I don't agree on much of anything, but the moon landings DID happen. There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence to prove it. The conspiracy whacks are EASILY debunked.
Let's see ...
Already some of what has been called "conspiracy theory" by official government and its mainstream propaganda has turned out to be conspiracy reality as the lifetime of the lies has simply run out and evidence has come to light that the "official story/report" was nothing but a cover up and lie.
The whole of the men on the moon missions is becoming more and more of "a Hollywood movie" combined with some real earth orbit space travel ... simple logic and reasonable thinking on a number of aspects are turning out to be true, no matter how elaborate the "debunking" efforts become
As for the photographs and films of the men on the moon ... someone familiar with the technology available at the time in the 1960s will readily admit that quite many of the NASA published pics could not have been taken as has been claimed they were taken. Just that interview of Michael Collins and his claims about photography are dubious and make no sense ... starting with the fact that he claims he was given those instructions when he did not even have anything to do with the pic supposedly taken on the surface of the moon ... There have been reports that a search for the actual originals of the photos and films etc a few decades after the events brought to light that NASA apparently destroyed these (which normally should have been regarded and treated as invaluable historical documents !!) in order to supposedly re-use material ..... HELLO ?? Anyone AWAKE ??
-
What evidence?
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Already some of what has been called "conspiracy theory" by official government and its mainstream propaganda has turned out to be conspiracy reality as the lifetime of the lies has simply run out and evidence has come to light that the "official story/report" was nothing but a cover up and lie.
The whole of the men on the moon missions is becoming more and more of "a Hollywood movie" combined with some real earth orbit space travel ... simple logic and reasonable thinking on a number of aspects are turning out to be true, no matter how elaborate the "debunking" efforts become.
In THIS POST in another thread, I offered the following assessment of the content of what I called your "analysis of political/governmental matters over the years" in light of your claim to what you called "an advantage of more objectivity" as "'an outsider'": (emphasis added)
"With all due respect, Wolfgang, in the content of your CD posts that have offered your analysis of political/governmental matters over the years, I have seen no evidence of the "advantage" that you claim. I think you have proven yourself quite adept at making claims and judgments about systems, events, policies, and political leaders. I have seen little if any evidence of your willingness/ability to support your claims and theories with factual evidence."
The two paragraphs of your latest post in this thread provide prima facie evidence of the accuracy of my assessment. By my count, in those paragraphs you make eight unsupported assertions of fact, accusations and declarations for which you provide absolutely no evidence. It's a point I have tried to make to you for months, even years, Wolfgang, always without much effect, but it's worth another presentation: Simply claiming something is true - e.g. "... the lifetime of the lies has simply run out and evidence has come to light that the "official story/report" was nothing but a cover up and lie" - does NOT make that something true. Factually accurate assertions, by definition, can be supported by factual evidence. Their truth is NOT demonstrated by dramatic headlines, troubling insinuations, or wild-eyed conspiracy theories, the likes of which often comprise the substance of your posts on political/governmental matters.
The fact that you include in your posts on such matters so many unsupported claims to me strongly suggests that you have no factual evidence for them, for if you had factual evidence, I'm confident you would offer it. In place of supportive facts, it seems to me you hope/expect your claims to serve as both accusation and evidence, something they do not and cannot do.
As for the photographs and films of the men on the moon ... someone familiar with the technology available at the time in the 1960s will readily admit that quite many of the NASA published pics could not have been taken as has been claimed they were taken. Just that interview of Michael Collins and his claims about photography are dubious and make no sense ... starting with the fact that he claims he was given those instructions when he did not even have anything to do with the pic supposedly taken on the surface of the moon ... There have been reports that a search for the actual originals of the photos and films etc a few decades after the events brought to light that NASA apparently destroyed these (which normally should have been regarded and treated as invaluable historical documents !!) in order to supposedly re-use material ..... HELLO ?? Anyone AWAKE ??
More unsupported claims.
- As a photography enthusiast, I can assure you, Wolfgang, that in 1969, focus, f/stop, and shutter speed settings ALL very much existed and were available to the Apollo astronauts.
- The pictures Collins took indeed COULD HAVE BEEN, and in fact WERE, taken, the unsupported misgivings of an anonymous "someone familiar with the technology at the time in the 1960's" to the contrary notwithstanding.
- As for the instructions Collins received and the fact that he did not take pictures on the surface of the moon, revisit my initial post on the matter and you will see that I concluded with this: "We can infer that astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin [the astronauts on the lunar surface] were given similarly simple instructions."
- The light shining on the surface of the moon is sunlight. In 1969 (and well before that!) people knew how to take pictures in sunlight. The images the astronauts captured on the moon were products of basic and long-standing photography know how, NOT some hard sought technological achievement.
- The original photos were ALMOST but NOT destroyed thanks to a test process that revealed a chemical leak which would have destroyed them had they been exposed to it. The original videos were in fact apparently destroyed for use in other recordings. Fortunately, we have the content of those videos in the very much still extant tapes of the live broadcast media coverage of Apollo 11's landing.
