Moon Hoax at the British interplanetary Society

[Colin Robinson]

After the Amundsen and Scott expeditions reached the South Pole in 1911 it was 46 years before anyone ventured there overland again (with considerable air support) As far as I can tell no one in the intervening years questioned that men had reached the South Pole even though it wasn't broadcast worldwide on TV. That would have been a far easier event to hoax too.

Interesting point. One difference between the 1911 polar missions and the moon landings, is that the Amundsen and Scott teams came from two different countries. Whereas the astronauts who visited the moon all worked for the same government.

A simple and sound argument against the moon hoax CT is mentioned in the BIS site in the OP: the landing of Apollo 11 was acknowledged the same day by the Soviet Union. It is the principle of peer review: the best people to confirm the work of a team of specialists is a separate team of specialists in the same area.

[molesworth]

Interesting point. One difference between the 1911 polar missions and the moon landings, is that the Amundsen and Scott teams came from two different countries. Whereas the astronauts who visited the moon all worked for the same government.

Although, to continue the analogy, there were two countries "racing" to the moon...

In fact there are a lot of parallels between polar and space exploration, from the vast amounts of scientific work done, to the drive to develop new technologies (with lots of spin-offs back to the public). Even Kennedy's 1961 speech had strong echoes of Sir Clemence Markham's 19th century speech for Antarctic exploration, which even contained "by the end of this century".

The public were as enthusiastic about polar exploration as they were about the space race. People raised money to help fund the expeditions, and came in huge numbers to see them set off and return, and there was national mourning when news of Scott's party's deaths eventually reached home.

And Scott didn't see it as a race - he wasn't set up for a fast journey to the pole, and his diaries show that he thought the scientific work far more important than national or presonal glory.

A previous post said "they didn't have the internet", but although there wasn't instant access and communications, there was very efficient and effective news and information distribution. Anyone who had thought to claim the expeditions were hoaxes could easily have broadcast their ideas. I think however the public were less gullible then, and possibly better educated in what was involved in Antarctic exploration. There was also a different attitude to those who went - they were perceived as "gentlemen" (in the old sense of the word) who wouldn't have lied about their achievements, or failures.

A simple and sound argument against the moon hoax CT is mentioned in the BIS site in the OP: the landing of Apollo 11 was acknowledged the same day by the Soviet Union. It is the principle of peer review: the best people to confirm the work of a team of specialists is a separate team of specialists in the same area.

An argument I often use, and not just mentioning Russia, but other countries who tracked and listened in to the missions. Unfortunately the conspiracists have a response to that - it was a world-wide cover-up organised by the secret world government who really run the planet...

[HenrikOlsen]

Although, to continue the analogy, there were two countries "racing" to the moon...

In fact there are a lot of parallels between polar and space exploration, from the vast amounts of scientific work done, to the drive to develop new technologies (with lots of spin-offs back to the public). Even Kennedy's 1961 speech had strong echoes of Sir Clemence Markham's 19th century speech for Antarctic exploration, which even contained "by the end of this century".

The public were as enthusiastic about polar exploration as they were about the space race. People raised money to help fund the expeditions, and came in huge numbers to see them set off and return, and there was national mourning when news of Scott's party's deaths eventually reached home.

And Scott didn't see it as a race - he wasn't set up for a fast journey to the pole, and his diaries show that he thought the scientific work far more important than national or presonal glory.

A previous post said "they didn't have the internet", but although there wasn't instant access and communications, there was very efficient and effective news and information distribution. Anyone who had thought to claim the expeditions were hoaxes could easily have broadcast their ideas. I think however the public were less gullible then, and possibly better educated in what was involved in Antarctic exploration. There was also a different attitude to those who went - they were perceived as "gentlemen" (in the old sense of the word) who wouldn't have lied about their achievements, or failures.

Let me re-mention Cook and the north pole.

A fairly large part of why Amundsen and Scott were so meticulous with the science was the recent travesty about the north pole expeditions, they were well aware that they needed very good records of what they did in order to avoid risking any suspicion of fraud.

BTW, Amundsen was not considered a gentleman by the British but rather as a cheat, because he planned the expedition with dogs pulling the equipment, and then ate them, as planned, to not need to carry food for them for the last part of the trip.

[Colin Robinson]

Although, to continue the analogy, there were two countries "racing" to the moon...

In fact there are a lot of parallels between polar and space exploration, from the vast amounts of scientific work done, to the drive to develop new technologies (with lots of spin-offs back to the public). Even Kennedy's 1961 speech had strong echoes of Sir Clemence Markham's 19th century speech for Antarctic exploration, which even contained "by the end of this century". The public were as enthusiastic about polar exploration as they were about the space race.

To what extent did the Soviets share the concept of moon landing as the big goal of "the space race"? Did any Soviet leader make a speech comparable to Kennedy's 1961 statement?

The Soviet Union accomplished a series of firsts -- first artificial satellite, first human being in orbit, first space walk. Not to mention the first photographs of moon's far side. And did have plans for a human landing, but never actually sent a human being beyond low Earth orbit. They seem to have had a concern that it wouldn't work -- that they might end up being the first nation to lose a life on a moon mission.

In Kennedy's statement, as I remember it, the goal that was set was to put a man on the moon, and bring him back to Earth again, before 1970. Would NASA have abandoned this mission, if another country had put a man on the moon in 1967 or 1968?

[Glom]

I should point out that this isn't the first time the Moon hoax has come to Britain. The first time was in the 60s when they were faking it at Shepperton Studios.

At least that's what the HBers imply when they keep trying to drag Stanley Kubrick into it.

[Gillianren]

They seem to have had a concern that it wouldn't work -- that they might end up being the first nation to lose a life on a moon mission.

Incorrect. They just didn't have a rocket that would do the job without exploding on the launchpad.

[Nowhere Man]

Oh, not quite. A couple of the N-1s exploded quite a way downrange.

They "lost" the "race" due to a combination of a late start, political in-fighting, and Sergei Korolyev's death.

And more than a few of their firsts were achieved at considerable risk to the crews.

Fred

[Colin Robinson]

And more than a few of their firsts were achieved at considerable risk to the crews.
Fred

I don't doubt that. And indeed the Soviets were first to actually lose someone on reentry. I still think that the inherent risks, as well as the expense, are likely reasons no humans except the Apollo teams have been sent as far out as the Moon. It is not that I buy the moon-hoax idea, that anyone who tries to go there will be killed by the Van Allen belt, or by cranky extraterrestrials on the moon itself! But the real dangers are shown by what Apollo 13 went through.

[R.A.F.]

I still think that the inherent risks, as well as the expense, are likely reasons no humans except the Apollo teams have been sent as far out as the Moon.

I've seen no evidence that would cause me to thing that risk was/is in any way a deciding factor regarding returning to the Moon....it really is all about the money.

[Colin Robinson]

Incorrect. They just didn't have a rocket that would do the job without exploding on the launchpad.

It's true (as I understand it) that their plan for a landing required the N1 booster, the one that blew up on the pad. However, they also had a plan for a crewed flight around the moon, using a Proton booster and a Soyuz spacecraft. Why didn't that go ahead? As cosmonaut Aleksey Leonov said in a recent interview: "Our engineers didn't like the risk."

[Colin Robinson]

They "lost" the "race" due to a combination of a late start, political in-fighting, and Sergei Korolyev's death.

According to the Wikipedia article about the Soviet manned lunar programs, Sergei Korolyov himself was less interested in going to the moon than in building orbiting space stations, and eventual trips to Mars or Venus. Maybe that's why the Soviet moon program started late and didn't continue.

[R.A.F.]

As cosmonaut Aleksey Leonov said in a recent interview: "Our engineers didn't like the risk."

Sounds like sour grapes.

[R.A.F.]

The Soviet Union accomplished a series of firsts -- first artificial satellite, first human being in orbit, first space walk.

I wouldn't call them "accomplishments"...I'd call them "stunts". For instance, for their first 3 man flight, engineers took equipment out of a 2 manned capsule in order to "fit" a third man into it.

There wasn't even enough room for the cosmonauts to wear pressure suits....talk about unnecessary risk.

[Colin Robinson]

Sounds like sour grapes.

Have you actually read the Leonov interview, R.A.F.??

While he says that the Soviet engineers at the time didn't like the risk of sending someone round the moon, he is very certainly not saying that no-one wanted to go...

He is also quite scathing about believers in the hoax CT, and also about the Soviet authorities, for not showing the Apollo landing live to the public on TV. (Although it apparently was watched lived by cosmonauts such as himself.)

Anyway, if you think Leonov is not telling the truth about why the Soviets didn't try to send someone around the Moon in a Soyuz, would you like to tell us what the real reason was?

Clearly not lack of a booster -- they had the Protons. Nor does expense seem a likely reason, when you consider that they carried out more than one trial flight, where the Soyuz was uncrewed and called a Zond. Would a crewed flight have cost more?

[R.A.F.]

Have you actually read the Leonov interview, R.A.F.??

Years ago...

While he says that the Soviet engineers at the time didn't like the risk of sending someone round the moon, he is very certainly not saying that no-one wanted to go...

Nor am I "saying" that...

if you think Leonov is not telling the truth about why the Soviets didn't try to send someone around the Moon in a Soyuz...

Sorry if you misunderstood what I said...which certainly wasn't that I thought Leonov was lying.

...would you like to tell us what the real reason was?

It all goes back to sour grapes....once they realized they wouldn't be "first", they decided they didn't want to go in the first place. (pun intentional)

Clearly not lack of a booster -- they had the Protons.

So they had the booster....

Nor does expense seem a likely reason...

....and they had the money...


What's left?....oh yeah, it was too risky.



Nope...not buying it....

[mercatormac]

Clearly not lack of a booster -- they had the Protons. Nor does expense seem a likely reason, when you consider that they carried out more than one trial flight, where the Soyuz was uncrewed and called a Zond. Would a crewed flight have cost more?

Of the Zond missions, only one if manned would have returned its crew successfully. All the others would have been fatal to their crews.
But the main reason is clearly that Apollo 8 had already achieved this first.

[R.A.F.]

But the main reason is clearly that Apollo 8 had already achieved this first.

Yep...once A8 made Lunar orbit, only a landing would "out first" the US, and they realized it wasn't going to happen before A11.

So they basically gave up...

[Colin Robinson]

I wouldn't call them "accomplishments"...I'd call them "stunts". For instance, for their first 3 man flight, engineers took equipment out of a 2 manned capsule in order to "fit" a third man into it.

Well, calling something a "stunt" is safer than calling it a "hoax". Hoax theories can in principle be falsified – one can present evidence for why something was not a hoax.

But what sort of evidence can falsify a stunt theory?

Yep...once A8 made Lunar orbit, only a landing would "out first" the US, and they realized it wasn't going to happen before A11. So they basically gave up...

True... they gave up the idea of sending people on trips to the moon, and then their space program went back to Korolyov's original plan of constructing orbiting space stations, such as Salyut and Mir. Work that continues with the Russian Federation's contribution to the ISS.

Is that all a stunt too, R.A.F.?

[Colin Robinson]

Of the Zond missions, only one if manned would have returned its crew successfully. All the others would have been fatal to their crews.

So, the engineers mentioned by Leonov were quite right to conclude that for them to send a crew at that time would have been too great a risk?

[Gillianren]

So, the engineers mentioned by Leonov were quite right to conclude that for them to send a crew at that time would have been too great a risk?

Yes, but going to the Moon wasn't. The problem was with the faulty technology. The Soviet space program was obviously willing to take all kinds of risks in order to be the first to do something, but taking those risks to come in second? What was the point?

[R.A.F.]

Is that all a stunt too, R.A.F.?

I fail to see the "connection" between Soviet participation in the ISS and the reason they abandoned their Moon program.


No connection at all...

[Colin Robinson]

Yes, but going to the Moon wasn't. The problem was with the faulty technology. The Soviet space program was obviously willing to take all kinds of risks in order to be the first to do something, but taking those risks to come in second? What was the point?

"What was the point?"

Yes, that sums why neither the Soviet Union nor any other state has sent people to the moon since the days of Apollo. Anyone considering such a mission would naturally have to consider what benefits it might bring, e.g. to human knowledge and national prestige, and weight those benefits against the costs and the risks.

Even the USA, having shown that it could get there first, did not see the point of continuing to go there…

[Usher]

"What was the point?"

Yes, that sums why neither the Soviet Union nor any other state has sent people to the moon since the days of Apollo. Anyone considering such a mission would naturally have to consider what benefits it might bring, e.g. to human knowledge and national prestige, and weight those benefits against the costs and the risks.

Even the USA, having shown that it could get there first, did not see the point of continuing to go there…

Oh, but it did, five more times. What is your point?

[R.A.F.]

Even the USA, having shown that it could get there first, did not see the point of continuing to go there…

Because of the expense, not because of the risk factors involved.

[Usher]

Because of the expense, not because of the risk factors involved.

Yep.

[Colin Robinson]

Oh, but it did, five more times. What is your point?

The real question about the moon landings isn't whether they happened, but why they happened, and why they stopped happening after Apollo 17 in December 1972.

It is all very well to say that the landings stopped because the space race was over. When I hear that sort of thing, I want to ask questions like:

How did space exploration come to be thought of as "a race"? Did both "sides" in the race have the same understanding of what the race was about? Why and by whom was the race considered to be "over" at a particular point in the history of space exploration?

[Luckmeister]

The real question about the moon landings isn't whether they happened, but why they happened, and why they stopped happening after Apollo 17 in December 1972.

It is all very well to say that the landings stopped because the space race was over. When I hear that sort of thing, I want to ask questions like:

How did space exploration come to be thought of as "a race"?

How could it not have been thought of as a race? The US and USSR were highly competitive and in the midst of a very frightening arms race. I was 24 when JFK gave his "on the Moon within the decade" speech. I was very aware of the "beat the Russians" mindset that followed, not only with the political leaders but the general public as well. It was in every sense a race.

[Gillianren]

Coincidentally, I have out from our local library John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, by John M. Lodgson, which might answer some of those very questions for you.

[HenrikOlsen]

<snip> When I hear that sort of thing, I want to ask questions like:

How did space exploration come to be thought of as "a race"? Did both "sides" in the race have the same understanding of what the race was about? Why and by whom was the race considered to be "over" at a particular point in the history of space exploration?

Because they were major national accomplishments made during a time of a massive ideological propaganda (and other) war between two political philosophies fighting for control of as much of the world, and by extension of its resources, as possible.

It would be utterly impossible for it not to be a race in those conditions.

The race was about showing whose system was "best", any science was really incidental to the overall goal as seen by those granting the money. That it happened anyway was because of the people spending the money.

That race ended partially because the six moon landings showed that it wasn't "just" a stunt but could be repeated as needed.
Arguments can also be made that when direct US participation in the Vietnam war ended there was no longer a need for as massive a non-militaristic propaganda war to distract attention from it.

[Daggerstab]

According to the Wikipedia article about the Soviet manned lunar programs, Sergei Korolyov himself was less interested in going to the moon than in building orbiting space stations, and eventual trips to Mars or Venus. Maybe that's why the Soviet moon program started late and didn't continue.

The English translation of the fourth volume of Boris Cherok's memoirs, focusing on the Moon Race, came out recently. It's available as a free e-book from NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/r...l4_detail.html
If you are interested in the Russian view on their program, I suggest you read it. It's quite long, but you can skip the boring parts. The previous three volumes are also worth reading. They can be found on NASA's History website.