Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence by jfb.

This question has been answered several times by myself and others, but it basically boils down to 3 things, mainly:

1. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Everything boils down to money, as in, too goddamned much of. Manned lunar missions are fiendishly expensive because of the mass requirements. You’re not just sending people, you’re also sending all the air, food, and water required to keep them alive for the entire trip. I think the ratio is for every kilogram of payload, you need 9 kilograms of propellant, or something like that. Yes, there have been advances in materials, electronics, and communications that allow us to shave those mass requirements by a couple of hundred kilograms or so, but that’s still a lot of mass to shift. That means big rockets with big engines, which in turn mean big money.

Although, with the development of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy launchers and Dragon spacecraft, it might be possible to jump-start a small manned lunar program at a “reasonable” cost (for suitably loose definitions of “reasonable”; it’s still going to be an obscene amount of money, but less obscene than the SLS, if it ever gets built and flies). It would take multiple launches per mission (the old Earth-Orbit Rendezvous method that was considered for Apollo but ultimately rejected because of the mass requirements), but given the economies of scale SpaceX is hoping to achieve, it may bring the cost down to something that wouldn’t get laughed out of committee.

Provided the Texas delegation in Congress doesn’t kill CCDev or the follow-on programs. SpaceX doesn’t have the financial clout of the established aerospace companies that are angling for the SLS money, and most congresscritters are smart enough to go with the big money.

There are always plans to return to the Moon, but there’s never the money to actually accomplish those plans. See the Constellation program for a stellar example. The Shuttle and the ISS have sucked up so many manned spaceflight dollars for so little return that many in Congress and the general public question the justification for the manned program in the first place.

2. The Apollo program was a child of the Cold War. Hell, the space program as a whole was all about the superpowers showing off their lovely intercontinental ballistic missiles to each other. The Soviets had beaten us with the first satellite and the first manned flights, so beating the Soviets to the moon was a national priority. Once Armstrong and Aldrin successfully landed, support for the program in Congress quickly collapsed because the major goal had been accomplished. We won. Add to that the fact that the Soviet manned lunar program got started late, was poorly managed and badly underfunded, and that the N1 booster had a nasty habit of blowing up almost immediately after liftoff, there was simply no way the Soviets could match us. There was no need to go back again, and Congress managed to cut the last two flights.

3. From a scientific perspective, unmanned missions offer far greater bang for the buck. For the cost of a single manned mission, you could pepper the surface with unmanned rovers similar to what we sent to Mars. Indeed, missions like Clementine, Lunar Prospector, and LCROSS have returned a wealth of data that rival or surpass what we got from Apollo, for far less money, and far less risk to human life. Technology has advanced to the point where we don’t need to send people to do basic exploration; in fact, it’s wastefully expensive to do so. Instead of launching a huge capsule with lots of wasted space, water, food, and air, you build a small spacecraft with as many scientific instruments as it can carry. Much less mass, meaning much smaller rocket, and it doesn’t ever have to come home, meaning you don’t need to send the propellant to get back again.

More Comments on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence by jfb

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

The blueprints *weren’t* destroyed; they’re on file at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Not that it matters; we couldn’t build the Saturn V today if we wanted to, because most of the technology it used is …

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

Now let me prove to NASA how stupid they are.

Ah, proof. Would that more people understood what constituted “proof”. “You can’t explain that” isn’t proof, especially when, yes, we can explain it.

The most powerful telescope on earth can’t …

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

Which tests? Citations, please.

The following report has been discussed elsewhere in the thread:

Here was the conclusion:

The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced
by the high speed (above 400 ASA) flight …

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

However, they show flame even from a large distance. The NASA videos show no flame from a close distance

What do you mean by “large distance” and “close distance”? Are you talking about altitude?

My point with the Falcon …

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

Flame in rocket exhuast varies depending on ambient pressure and fuel type.

Go to SpaceX’s web site ( and check out the launch videos for the Falcon 9. As the booster ascends into the upper atmosphere, the ambient …

More Comments by jfb

Who panned the camera?

His name was Ed Fendell, a controller in Houston in charge the remotely-controlled camera on the LRV.

Yes, he had to take the signal delay into account – he had to anticipate the liftoff and rate of ascent. …

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

It doesn’t have to be pretty to work.

The foil acted as a thermal blanket, reflecting as much of the sunlight as possible to keep the base of the LM from overheating. The foil was only about 125 microns thick, …

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

The blueprints *weren’t* destroyed; they’re on file at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Not that it matters; we couldn’t build the Saturn V today if we wanted to, because most of the technology it used is …

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Proof

Did you know that many of the people involved in the moon landing died from a car crash?

Upwards of 90 people die *every day* in car crashes in the US; it’s not at all surprising that a lot people “involved …

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems

It’s not a C, it’s an O.

And it *looks* like some kind of inclusion (a pebble embedded in a slightly softer matrix rock). It looks like the surrounding matrix has eroded a bit, leaving a small channel around the …