“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
If you got to listen to the interview that I had the link to, this will tie in nicely!!
Yahoo! As much as I like Laurel Canyon, it was just yesterday that I was thinking how much I miss Dave's old desultory approach.
ReplyDeletePen, do you get many multi-millionaires on your blog? If there was one guy who deserved literary sponsorship it's Dave McGowan I reckon. Hmm... I was about to write a clever missive to encourage them to pony up and sponsor Dave, when I realised that that English show The Young Ones had already been there. So I'll just write that.
"Darling fascist bully-boys,
Give Dave lots money, you bastards.
May the seed of your loins be fruitful in the belly of your woman,
Nobody"
That should work a treat. Now Dave should be free to write all day every day. Yay!
nobody, multi-millionaires on my blog?
ReplyDeletenot likely.
I was a little surprised to see Dave comment on getting warning e-mails from Meria listeners about going down this path.
Meria has always been good about bringing a broad range of guests on, on a load of different topics.
I would think the listeners would be used to the diversity.
Not so long ago, she had Jim Marrs on, discussing his latest book, and even he made a comment about the moon landings, and how he had believed it to be true, but upon presentation of information, he was up in the air, but hopeful.
So, I have to assume that if Dave makes a good arguement, people are fearful of having their illusions shattered? I don't know?
All five parts are there, so I have much reading to do.
Thanks Pen, I'll go read it.
ReplyDeleteThe interview was eye opening to say the least. I have not really paid alot of attention to the moon landings, tin foil hat territory you know, and often used to make folk look dumb.
Still, though, Dave makes alot of valid arguments as to why these landings simply could not have taken place.
My friend yesterday, simply said: Why haven't we been back?
Gosh, cuz we can't??
:(
Very sad.
When dave put forth that question, I thought, yah, why haven't we gone back? I mean, it has been forty years.
ReplyDeleteTechnology is way more advanced and with the previous experience you would think that NASA would have continued to visit the moon.
The arguement of cost is bogus.
The US war machine is affordable, why not moon exploration.
The reason for not going back is simply because there is no point. I find it strange that no one ever talks about the real reasons for the Apollo missions in the first place, and those reasons had very little to do with landing on the moon but rather to perfect the guidance systems on ICBMs. Prior to the Apollo missions both American and Russian ICBMs were little more than unguided rockets that would have been very lucky to hit a target even as large as a city. The moon landings whether they happened or not were just a smoke screen as the American people would never have rallied up the bazillion bucks to perfect just another device for mass murder.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise why didn't the Russians continue after the Americans had supposedly landed? The reason again simple they didn't need to land, they had orbited the moon and brought their men back to exactly were they wanted them to land so they had all of the data that they needed, no reason to land.
Hi Silv: In the first part of McGowans piece he does mention the whole weapons/military angle of NASA.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually you have just given me an idea something I should have put up long ago.....
Have you read any of the article or will you? And btw are you back from the intolerable lake and all that horrid sailing and fishing ;)
Hey Penny, do you remember Space: 1999??
ReplyDeleteMore mind control from hollywood?
Well, yes...this is all re-warmed "conspiracy" soufflee' that is now going to have it's category shifted to "uncannily accurate predictive hippie paranoia journalism." Yawn. Von Braun was rocketry dood in the Homeland (security). They had one big one almost ready to go on Manhattan. Detente' taken to the skies. Checkmate.
ReplyDeleteRoger (back at ya!)
ReplyDeleteI was wondering where you had gotten too??
Glad to see you around still.
What wonderful journeys have you taken as of late??
Meaning hit any good sites, read any good stuff, etc., etc.,
I'll take it you don't think too much of Daves journey to the moon.
I haven't read all the parts yet myself...but, I will, I will,
:)
Maggie, no I don't remember that Space 1999? was that a tv show?
ReplyDeleteThese new McGowan articles are, to say it gently, really bad. He acknowledges that it is a risky path to go on the moon hoax and what he has shown, in the 2 first installments of this serie is that he should learn some maths and physics. Some arguments he makes are really ridiculous, the gas tank analogy is one of them. He never heard of Newton and the conservation of impulse and gravitation or what? Once you have lifted your shit in earths orbit you've done the biggest part of the job. You only have to accelerate a bit and aim right (as Silv already pointed out). No fuel needed for the 700 000km of travel.
ReplyDeleteIt's only rocket science. If you look, the deep space exploration probes Voyagers/Pioneers/Cassini don't take a lot of fuel for their trip (just to remember Cassini has the size of a bus).
The hard part is the rocket engineering and that's where the difficulty is and the Russians know that. They tried to go to the moon but failed because of the explosion of the overcomplicated N1 rocket. The comparison between the Russian and the US moon missions are imho a good argument againt the hoax hypotheses. I've seen the real Russian lunar landing module and a 1:1 model of the LEM side by side and was fascinated by the differences (the LEM is twice as big) and by the similarities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_Lander
(they were on display in Eurodisneyland in september 1995)
Another ridiculous claim of Part 1.
ReplyDeleteHe asks himself why the guys on the moon seem to walk with such difficulties, they should be moving with ease as there is only 1/6th of gravity. What he forgets, the space suit weighted 180 pound and was composed of 11 layers. He should try next winter to work outside with that many layers of cloth and a rucksack filled with 30 pounds of stones and we should see how easy it is to walk with that.
http://history.nasa.gov/spacesuits.pdf
Hey gallier;
ReplyDeletethanks for those comments. Interesting. Have you read all 5 parts? And what did you think of some of the issues he brings up in those?
What about the Van Allen Belt?
That is the part that get's to me.
The fuel required to lift off from the moon? Was the capacity of fuel available to the astronauts to take off from the moon.
I also found odd the size of that rover? vs the size of what they landed in , sorry can't remember the name?
I haven't read the whole 5 parts yet, but, I will take the time to e-mail your comments to him.
What if anything did you think was valid?
Gallier, I was thinking about the space suit weight, and 30 lbs spread out over the entire space of ones body, isn't really that huge of a deal.
ReplyDeleteMany moms carry their kids around who weigh that much. And that is either up front or on their backs, but all in one are, but the equivalent of 30 lbs carried around your entire body, I don't see it impeding your ability to walk to a great amount.
An aside, I was watching a show the other night on the repair of the hubble telescope and they were saying the space suit now used weighs 300 lbs.
Which get's me thinking about the space suits on the moon weighing substantially less vs the ones now.
I also found this interesting site, which I must book mark, I dunno why, just gonna!
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/weight/
Granted, the weight of the suite is not very high (in my mind it was at first 30kg old European that I am, but had to correct then). But the problem is elsewhere, we should not forget, as anyone having done physics at school, that 1/6th of gravity does not change the mass of the object but only its weight. This means that the force one has to apply horizontally (for instance moving the leg forward) is the same on the moon and on the earth.
ReplyDeleteThe formula is F=mv. The mass of the suite is 180lb (or better 90kg) imagine the force you need to push a cart of this mass, on the moon will have to apply the exact same force to accelerate that cart at the same rate. Only difference, the one who pushes has only 1/6th of the friction holding him on ground. It's as if you had to push your 180lb cart on an oily surface.
You may now understand why they had such a clumsy walk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#conservation_of_linear_momentum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction
Just for info, I've read only the 1 and half part of McGowans article and don't know if he makes better arguments in the other pages, but it was really disappointing to see him making such weak claims in these parts ( there are more and maybe I will try to make a better case this week-end and posting my first blog entry).
Just a beautiful link comparing the sizes of different rockets, it's in German but the picture is nice.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/traegerraketen.shtml
thanks gallier!
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking more about the space suits, and I also wondered about the mass vs weight thing, and that does help to clarify that a bit, anyway, it is weird to understand, the concept of it.
But, then I was thinking... why do the space suits now weigh 3oolbs, vs 180 lbs then, when thinking in terms of all things usually getting lighter, due to better technology etc., Why would they weigh more, and then there is still the van allen belt thing, the radiation, how much, how long???
So much to ponder????
thanks I will check the links out, and when you make a post, let me know?
In the link I gave about the space suits they explain why orbit suits are much heavier than moon walking suits. They are heavier because they can be heavier, on orbit you have no gravity (or better stated the centrifugal force of the rotation annuls the gravital pull) and can afford to be in a 300lb cocoon. Your inertia will be different but it's not really a problem. On the moon, you have to walk, work, move so you go for the strict minimum, enough to protect you from the harsh condition outside, but not to much.
ReplyDeleteIn the paper it is also stated that the moon suits were mainly one time use, so they were not built to handle long time wear. The space orbit suits are reused regulary and have therefor different needs for their material.
Here is a good article on the Van Halen belt problem, judge by yourself
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
Hey boys and girls, I still think he's onto something. For mine just the mere fact that NASA lost all of the footage, all of the telemetry, and all of the plans is... why don't we just say 'impossible'? Keeping in mind that man walking on the moon is arguably the most significant even of the 20th century (hell, maybe ever).
ReplyDeleteDig it, it's like 9/11 - the evidence is not a chain, it's a cable. You can knock down this argument, that argument, and each does not represent a broken link severing the connection. Instead each represents a strand in a cable that is in fact, better off without them.
And dig it, I personally slice two of his strands over at my place, ha ha! See what you think. Ciao Ciao.
gallier, I have seen that article previously,
ReplyDeletewhen Dave first put the moon doggies series up, I wondered about the Van Halen belt, that is cute! :)
and I went off to do some reading, that is when I came across that one.
I have a couple of problems with this article, and i will point them out to you
He says: the astronauts passed through the vanallen belt in a "short time" though he has not gathered the correct data, he however goes on to hypothesize radiation exposure. I am unsure if that is realistic? Or credible?
He assumes an approximate 1 1/2 hour exposure time, but, who really knows, then bases his calculations on possibly incorrect data, possibly.
Then also the part about, us seeing it all on tv? So it must be true.
Including people who saw the rocket launch from the ground?
While that is true, it doesn't mean it made it to the moon?
We all saw the trade towers fall also, but, myself, the planes and the fire could not have made the building collapse in the manner that they did.
I also found the tone of the article, dismissive.
And that makes it very hard to take it seriously.
gallier, if you come back, I put some information up, as the newest post on the van allen belts, which now I have learned there are two of them , so if you want to help me make sense of it, that would be great!!!
ReplyDeleteThe linked article was only a quick answer that I googles, it was clear that it was not perfect and I put it because it was quite decent (a little bit of hand waving as you pointed out granted).
ReplyDeleteI once read a good debunking of the Van Allen belt thing but couldn't find it anymore (it was several years ago, could even have been in French or German). The point was mainly the same as that of this link, the duration of exposure was relatively short, but it acknowledged that if the sun had been on high activity level at that time, the radiation could have reached levels that might have been lethal. The fact was though that at that period radiation were rather normal.
There is in my opinion a big big point talking against the hoax theory. If it was faked, they would have had to fake it 6 times (even faking the near catastrophy of Apollo 13).
If it was a hoax they would have made 1 mission, declaring victory and stopped it. Exposing themselves several times to scrutiny, with each mission more cunning than the other, with an enemy who would have not hesitated to expose it, would have been daft beyond imagination.
The evidence of a hoax is overwhelming. Anyone who still thinks Apollo was real simply hasn't seen the anomalies in the video.
ReplyDeleteA partial summary of the evidence can be seen here.
http://www.brainsturbator.com/forums/viewthread/1335/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Cosmored! Nice to see you here.
ReplyDeleteI will check out the link,
thanks for leaving it.