Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax by jfb.

@Canadian Light:

Why haven’t we sent anyone back to the Moon?

1. It’s expensive. Really, really expensive. The total Apollo program cost is estimated in the range of $170 billion in 2005 dollars (yes, not much compared to what the government spends in total, but it’s still a hefty price tag for any single program). Any modern manned lunar program would cost *at least* that much, and probably a good deal more (hence why Constellation was nixed). That’s because…

2. It’s *hard*. The physics are pretty straightforward, but the engineering is not. Building and launching spacecraft capable of keeping people alive in the vaccuum of space for days or weeks at a time is still a formidable challenge, even with the advances made in the last 40 years. More than half the battle is simply getting off the ground (delta-v from the surface to LEO is between 9.3 and 10 m/s; delta-v from there to the lunar surface is like 6.4 m/s). The more massive the spacecraft, the bigger the booster required to get it there. Think about how big the Saturn V was relative to the size of the spacecraft (CM and LM). The first two stages were spent just getting the lunar stack (S-IVB booster, CSM, and LM) into Earth orbit. We’ve squeezed about as much performance out of liquid-fueled rockets as we’re going to get; now it’s all about managing costs.

3. There’s no point. We’re not going to be doing much beyond basic exploration for the next several decades at least, and unmanned probes provide much more bang for the buck as far as that’s concerned. Look at the phenomenal success of the Mars exploration program (Pathfinder, Global Surveyor, MERs, etc.). We’ve learned far more about Mars from those programs than we did about the Moon from Apollo. For the cost of a single manned mission, would could pepper the surface of the Moon with rovers and sample return vehicles and get a far more comprehensive view of the Moon for far less effort. Unmanned systems are lower mass (no need to carry along air, food, or water) and so don’t require such huge boosters, they can be built to withstand the harsh environment, and they don’t have to come home. They can stay on site until their power gives out. The only real reason to send *people* anywhere is to establish a permanent settlement. That’s not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

More Comments on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax by jfb


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

I would love to watch you space walk at higher altitude than the space station orbit cause its electronics fail at higher altitudes

So what about unmanned probes like the Mariners, Pioneers, or Voyagers? What about the Messenger mission …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

If you’re talking about the LM, you’re absolutely right that it was not designed the survive the kinds of pressure and thermal loads that launch and re-entry would have subjected it to.

Therefore, during launch, it was kept in a protective …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

@Arindam:

“1) The onus is on NASA to refute each and every argument challenging the moon landings.”

That is exactly backwards. NASA has already presented all the evidence it needs to: physical samples from the lunar surface, data from the science …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

Baratacus:

“The lunar orbitor that recently took photos of the landing sites was only able to take low resolution pictures where the craft appeared as 6 pixel^2 blob and could not be readily identified. The fact that you can see a …


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 …