Lessons of the "Fake Moon Flight" Myth (corrosive media culture alert)

The Skeptical Enquirer ^ | March, 2003 | James Oberg

[Tennessee_Bob]

The government put the Apollo LEM on the moon using captured UFO technology from Area 51. It was all to make the Russians believe we didn't have ultra advanced technology

You weren't supposed to release that information.

They're coming for you now. Don't bother to run.

[discostu]

I hit that later. At that sentence I was thinking along the lines of terminal velocity inside the atmosphere.

[miloklancy]

These people who say we did not go to moon enrage me. They have no idea how the men of the Apollo program risked their lives to get to the moon. Their views are also a slap in the face of human achievement, not to mention human potential.

[Revolting cat!]

As I reported earlier, my second cousin worked on the Hollywood lot where the moon walk was staged. He had interesting stories to tell, before he mysteriously disappeared, either Arkancided or comfortably exiled to Paraguay (his family was strangely unfazed by his disappearance.) There was a thread with a brief video (which is where I first reported this) of a mishap on the set - maybe someone can locate it and re-post it.

Also, read Omon Ra. Fascinating!

[atomic conspiracy]

"So could a person say theoretically, if fuel capacity were no issue, that the shuttle could theoretically fire thrusters in a manner that ceased its orbit, and yet maintained altitude? Then decend at a safe speed?"

Yes. It would start to fall as soon as it slowed below orbital velocity, and additional thrust would be required to resist this. This is theoretically possible, but decelerating from orbital velocity, and maintaining altitude on thrust in the process, would take almost as much fuel as was used to reach orbit in the first place, the difference being the absence of drag, which is actually fairly minor since the Shuttle spends very little time in the atmosphere during ascent.

As an earlier poster indicated, this was possible with the LM because lunar orbit velocity is very much lower than Earth orbit velocity, a little over 3000 mph vs. 18000. With proper controls (which it didn't have, of course), the German V-2 rocket of WW2 could have soft-landed on the moon from a starting point in lunar orbit. The LM did burn a lot of fuel during the descent, between 11 and 33 pounds per second depending on the throttle setting.

[RightWhale]

the shuttle could theoretically fire thrusters in a manner that ceased its orbit, and yet maintained altitude? Then decend at a safe speed?

An entertaining thought: fluttering to the ground like a falling leaf. Spaceflight is unsafe--like Nader's Corvair--at any speed.

[atomic conspiracy]

As I reported earlier, my second cousin worked on the Hollywood lot where the moon walk was staged. He had interesting stories to tell, before he mysteriously disappeared, either Arkancided or comfortably exiled to Paraguay

Balderdash. Everyone knows that it was filmed in the secret facility beneath Love Field in Dallas (so now you know about JFK, too). Your cousin is in Botswana, not Paraguay. He says "hi" and that he is really enjoying the free Elvis concerts.

[Old Professer]

Bob,

Everybody lies to little boys.

Especially "uncles".

[RansomOttawa]

So could a person say theoretically, if fuel capacity were no issue, that the shuttle could theoretically fire thrusters in a manner that ceased its orbit, and yet maintained altitude? Then decend at a safe speed?

In other words, is it theoretically possible for a spacecraft to halt all horizontal motion relative to the surface of the earth, then descend vertically? Yes, theoretically.

Practically, it is absolutely impossible. For example, the shuttle uses up nearly all the fuel in the external tank (nearly 750,000 kg) on the way up. The cargo capacity of the shuttle is a mere 30,000 kg. It simply can't carry enough fuel to pull this off.

[AnalogReigns]

""perhaps 10 percent of the population,"

Yeah, right. Also, 10% of the population is gay, according to some poll or other, way back when.
Maybe it's the same 10 percent?"

Where the 10% gay figure was long ago disproved, it is a good rule of thumb that about 10% of ANY population will go with lunatic fringe ideas. Something like 10%+ will come up as KKK/David Duke sympathizers in Louisiana, or ultra-liberal Democrats in various places...

In Germany consistantly since WWII using anonymous polling around 10% are pro-Nazi for example.

Remember Ross Perot got 18% in a several places....

Just goes to show why the Founders set up a free REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.

[dighton]

Does anybody still believe in that silly stuff? The moon, I mean.

Yes, Virginia, there is a moon. However, it is the property of Satan.

;-)

[Tennessee_Bob]

Ah - you're just a crusty curmudgeon.

[RightWhale]

It simply can't carry enough fuel to pull this off.

There is a technique developed by intercontinental bombers called in-air refuelling. Why not in-orbit refuelling? You could go anywhere, absolutely anywhere. Maybe not real fast, but anywhere.

[Mizzoutiger]

Does anyone remember Buzz Aldrin punching out a conspiracy theorist who called him a "coward" and a "liar"?

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/buzz-aldrin-punch-video.mpg

[Old Professer]

Thanks a lot for sending me to Pop Up Hell.

[RightWhale]

Does anyone remember Buzz Aldrin

Sure. Met him once. He wore a Saturn V tie almost as big as he is.

[Mizzoutiger]

Did he ever show ya his mean left jab? ;-)

[goo goo g'joob]

It may be "hard to believe," but the ignorant are everywhere.

even Shelia Jackson Lee believes we landed on the moon, no - Mars, no - the moon, no...

[Mizzoutiger]

But did Aldrin REALLY throw that punch? Further conspiracy theories ensue...

http://digitaltirade.com/Rants/archives/001205.shtml

[RansomOttawa]

There is a technique developed by intercontinental bombers called in-air refuelling. Why not in-orbit refuelling?

Because there's nowhere in the shuttle to put more than 30,000 kg of fuel. Are you suggesting we refuel the thing, say, half a dozen times on the way down?