Moon Hoax at the British interplanetary Society

[Colin Robinson]

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

The connection is -- when they abandoned their fast-track-to-the-moon program, they returned to the path of working on space station technology. Which is probably a more logical and efficient path for human expansion into space; even if it isn't the fastest path.

For instance, the Apollo missions carried parachutes and other re-entry gear, they carried all this paraphernalia from Earth to lunar orbit and then all the way back to Earth again. Surely it would be more cost-effective (if people are visit the Moon in future) to leave your parachutes etc in the luggage department of a space station in low earth orbit?

The astronauts or cosmonauts could go to the Moon in a more specialized craft, perhaps assembled in orbit, designed only for travel between low Earth orbit and the Moon.

[Colin Robinson]

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.

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.

Many thanks for these references. I'm definitely interested in thoughtful views of the history of space travel, be they from Russia, the USA, Bulgaria or Australia...

[moog]

For instance, the Apollo missions carried parachutes and other re-entry gear, they carried all this paraphernalia from Earth to lunar orbit and then all the way back to Earth again. Surely it would be more cost-effective (if people are visit the Moon in future) to leave your parachutes etc in the luggage department of a space station in low earth orbit?

Not really, because then they would need extra fuel to slow down into LEO then rendezvous with the space station.

Such a requirement would also have meant the death of the Apollo 13 crew.

[Peter B]

...[the Soviets] returned to the path of working on space station technology. Which is probably a more logical and efficient path for human expansion into space; even if it isn't the fastest path.

Possibly so. IIRC that was the path von Braun was considering back in the 1950s when it was all still science fiction.

For instance, the Apollo missions carried parachutes and other re-entry gear, they carried all this paraphernalia from Earth to lunar orbit and then all the way back to Earth again. Surely it would be more cost-effective (if people are visit the Moon in future) to leave your parachutes etc in the luggage department of a space station in low earth orbit?

The problem with that is that your speed on return to Earth is much higher than orbital velocity. To slow down to Earth orbit speed you'd need (a) a lot of fuel or (b) a heat shield to allow you to aerobrake in the Earth's atmosphere. I suspect either would weigh a bit more than a parachute (although I acknowledge a heat shield would be handy in addition to parachutes, but I think you get my point).

The astronauts or cosmonauts could go to the Moon in a more specialized craft, perhaps assembled in orbit, designed only for travel between low Earth orbit and the Moon.

I like the idea of specialised craft, and I think NASA had plans for something similar to what you describe as part of their grandest post-Apollo plans.

However, I'm not sure how practical space-based assembly would be. Spacecraft are complex things and I think there's a fairly low limit of complexity when it comes to construction in space. In other words, most of the work would have to be done on Earth anyway. Consider the trickiness of the construction techniques for the Saturn V fuel tanks. Or the piping. Or the wiring. I suspect even (re)fueling would be hard, especially considering the fuel would probably still have to be brought up from Earth anyway. And how about pressurising fuel tanks with helium? How easy would it be to replace a dodgy retro-rocket? As an alternative, consider how much work goes into the maintenance of a commercial aircraft like a Boeing 747, and imagine trying to do that in zero-G in a spacesuit.

[R.A.F.]

The connection is -- when they abandoned their fast-track-to-the-moon program, they returned to the path of working on space station technology. Which is probably a more logical and efficient path for human expansion into space; even if it isn't the fastest path.

That isn't a rational "connection".

...the Apollo missions carried parachutes and other re-entry gear, they carried all this paraphernalia from Earth to lunar orbit and then all the way back to Earth again. Surely it would be more cost-effective (if people are visit the Moon in future) to leave your parachutes etc in the luggage department of a space station in low earth orbit?

As Peter B points out, returning from the Moon is not the same as simple de-orbiting because of the difference in velocity. It simply would not be cost efficient to do it your "way"

[NEOWatcher]

I fail to see the "connection" between Soviet participation in the ISS and the reason they abandoned their Moon program.
No connection at all...

The connection is -- when they abandoned their fast-track-to-the-moon program, they returned to the path of working on space station technology.

There was no "return" to space station technology.

Space station technology was being developed in parallel to the moon program.
The idea of a US space station goes back to 1959.
Skylab studies started in 1965 and contracts already started before A-11.
MOL was announced in 1963.

And from the soviet side, Almaz was a response to MOL, and Mir was a followup.

So; not only was space station development in parallel to the moon programs, but each country was well along thier own path of space station activities without needing participation.

Soviet participation is only because NASA decided they could share the cost of Space Station Freedom by opening it up to an international effort. Thus; changing the name of the space station.

[Van Rijn]

The connection is -- when they abandoned their fast-track-to-the-moon program, they returned to the path of working on space station technology. Which is probably a more logical and efficient path for human expansion into space; even if it isn't the fastest path.

Space stations were also part of the race, and they got some bragging rights about being first with their stations.

[Colin Robinson]

Possibly so. IIRC that was the path von Braun was considering back in the 1950s when it was all still science fiction.

Yes, I'm sure he was. Even before the days of von Braun, the orbiting space station was one of the concepts written about (in the German language) by Herman Potočnik (1892 to 1929).

The problem with that is that your speed on return to Earth is much higher than orbital velocity. To slow down to Earth orbit speed you'd need (a) a lot of fuel or (b) a heat shield to allow you to aerobrake in the Earth's atmosphere. I suspect either would weigh a bit more than a parachute (although I acknowledge a heat shield would be handy in addition to parachutes, but I think you get my point).

OK, you've convinced me that there is a case for using aerobraking for decelerating from return-from-the-moon velocity to low Earth orbit velocity. The point remains that you've got substantially less decelerating to do (whether by aerobraking or rockets) than if you want to land or splash down directly on Earth after returning from the Moon. Plus you don't have to carry things like wheels (as used in the space shuttle) or flotation devices (as used by Apollo).

I like the idea of specialised craft, and I think NASA had plans for something similar to what you describe as part of their grandest post-Apollo plans.

However, I'm not sure how practical space-based assembly would be. Spacecraft are complex things and I think there's a fairly low limit of complexity when it comes to construction in space. In other words, most of the work would have to be done on Earth anyway.

True. Fitting a number of modules together, the way the ISS was built, is probably more practical than trying to construct something in orbit out of little bits of metal and plastic.

[Abaddon]

Yes, I'm sure he was. Even before the days of von Braun, the orbiting space station was one of the concepts written about (in the German language) by Herman Potočnik (1892 to 1929).

Many concepts are written up and considered. Many are discarded. Some survive the inferno of critical review and those are the ones which are adopted as realistic.

OK, you've convinced me that there is a case for using aerobraking for decelerating from return-from-the-moon velocity to low Earth orbit velocity. The point remains that you've got substantially less decelerating to do (whether by aerobraking or rockets) than if you want to land or splash down directly on Earth after returning from the Moon. Plus you don't have to carry things like wheels (as used in the space shuttle) or flotation devices (as used by Apollo).

Ablative heat shield. Look it up.
Your point reinforces the methodologies that were actually used.
They had no need to tote the weight of fuel if they could simply hit the atmosphere and let friction do the job, thus reducing the weight requirements. Where is the problem?

True. Fitting a number of modules together, the way the ISS was built, is probably more practical than trying to construct something in orbit out of little bits of metal and plastic.

Apollo was engineering elegance, no more, no less.

[Swift]

OK, you've convinced me that there is a case for using aerobraking for decelerating from return-from-the-moon velocity to low Earth orbit velocity. The point remains that you've got substantially less decelerating to do (whether by aerobraking or rockets) than if you want to land or splash down directly on Earth after returning from the Moon. Plus you don't have to carry things like wheels (as used in the space shuttle) or flotation devices (as used by Apollo).

The Shuttle wasn't designed to go beyond Earth orbit, and was designed for much bigger payloads (including the ability to return those payloads from orbit), so I'm not sure it is comparable.

I don't suspect the parachutes, floats, and similar systems that the Apollo capsule carried for returning directly from lunar orbit weighed more than the amount of fuel that would have been necessary to slow it to orbital speed, but I haven't done the calculations. It also requires the added complication of not only slowing to orbital speed, but docking with whatever system you've left in Earth orbit for the return to Earth.

I know very early on, NASA did look at concepts such as a single spacecraft to launch from Earth, go to lunar orbit, land on the Moon, return to Earth and land. They ultimately settled on the system they did, with a separate craft (the LM) to land on the Moon. I don't know if they looked at other variants, such as three crafts (one for Earth to Earth orbit, one for transit to the Moon, one for Moon landing) or a two-craft variant combining steps 2 and 3 (not steps 1 and 2).

I suspect that the system that you developed would depend on lots of things, including if you were planning to do it once, or six times, or one hundred times.

And I'm not sure anyone had looked at aerobraking as a viable technology by the mid 1960s. According to wikipedia, it was a science-fiction idea in 1948, but the first test of it wasn't until 1991. And even aerobraking requires some added equipment. Parachutes and heat-shields were tested back to the Mercury program.

I have to admit that I'm unsure how the discussion worked around to this, and what this has to do with either the Moon Hoax or the Russian space program.

[Jason Thompson]

OK, you've convinced me that there is a case for using aerobraking for decelerating from return-from-the-moon velocity to low Earth orbit velocity. The point remains that you've got substantially less decelerating to do (whether by aerobraking or rockets) than if you want to land or splash down directly on Earth after returning from the Moon. Plus you don't have to carry things like wheels (as used in the space shuttle) or flotation devices (as used by Apollo).

But presumably you'll still have to incorporate that somewhere, as you will surely want to bring your astronauts back to Earth at some point. So all the deceleration you don't have to do with your lunar ship, and all the parachutes or other landing paraphernalia, gets put on a whole other craft instead. And how many times can you use the ablative shield for aerobraking before it needs replacing anyway?

I can imagine it might offer a saving for interplanetary craft, which will of necessity be bigger and heavier as they have to support a crew for months at a time, but for a lunar craft I can't see it offering much of a saving when you need to add a whole extra crew transfer vehicle for the LEO-Earth section of the trip.

[Colin Robinson]

I suspect that the system that you developed would depend on lots of things, including if you were planning to do it once, or six times, or one hundred times.

Yes, that's what I suspect too. For what it was intended to do – a short series of moon landings as soon as possible –- the Apollo approach was excellent. That is why it worked.

However, if you wanted to make a greater number of Moon trips, e.g. to establish an Antartica-style base there -- or if you want to go not only to the Moon, but to Mars as well, then establishing space stations first probably makes more sense.

I have to admit that I'm unsure how the discussion worked around to this, and what this has to do with either the Moon Hoax or the Russian space program.

I think I was the one who suggested that, however unconvincing Moon Hoax CTs may be, they have gained a certain currency for a serious reason – people don't understand how come the moon landings happened between 1969 and 1972, but since then no human being has gone beyond low Earth orbit.

[Colin Robinson]

But presumably you'll still have to incorporate that somewhere, as you will surely want to bring your astronauts back to Earth at some point. So all the deceleration you don't have to do with your lunar ship, and all the parachutes or other landing paraphernalia, gets put on a whole other craft instead.

True. But the fuel and equipment that gets put on that other craft only have to be lifted as far as low earth orbit. It does not have to be lugged all the way to the Moon and back. That is the difference...

[slang]

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?

May I ask how old you are? ish? Because frankly I'm surprised how anyone could question the concept of the "race". Then again, I grew up with the Cold War in full swing (and was trained to fight in it if it came to that), and more and more people pop up on the planet who did not.

That aside, I've also read about Nixon being very eager to cancel Apollo 18 through 20. Considering that the Vietnam War was also happening at the time, and the waning enthousiasm* of the general public about the moon landings (been there, done that, yawn), I'm sad but not surprised that manned lunar exploration ended when it did.

*) which I understand had already started after Apollo 12, and terrible as it was, Apollo 13 did rekindle public interest.

[Colin Robinson]

May I ask how old you are? ish? Because frankly I'm surprised how anyone could question the concept of the "race". Then again, I grew up with the Cold War in full swing (and was trained to fight in it if it came to that), and more and more people pop up on the planet who did not.

You are asking me how I could raise questions about the space race and the cold war, and whether I lived through them? Actually, yes, I am old enough to have lived through some of that history. And my parents were in Britain during the Second World War, when the first suborbital rockets -- I mean Germany's V2s -- were coming down on Britain.

Does that mean I shouldn't be raising questions about the relation between world politics and space programs, because it should all be more or less self-evident to me?

That aside, I've also read about Nixon being very eager to cancel Apollo 18 through 20. Considering that the Vietnam War was also happening at the time, and the waning enthousiasm* of the general public about the moon landings (been there, done that, yawn), I'm sad but not surprised that manned lunar exploration ended when it did.

I understand Ho Chi Minh sent Richard Nixon a message congratulating the USA on Apollo 11, even though North Vietnam and the USA were at war then. Apparently Ho wasn't aware that it was all actually a hoax.

[stutefish]

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?

I don't think it's a "theory". More like, "interpretation of the facts". Whether or not it's a valid interpretation is another question.

Hoax theories seek to dispute the facts. RAF's interpretation seeks to dispute the characterization of the facts.

[Gillianren]

You are asking me how I could raise questions about the space race and the cold war, and whether I lived through them? Actually, yes, I am old enough to have lived through some of that history. And my parents were in Britain during the Second World War, when the first suborbital rockets -- I mean Germany's V2s -- were coming down on Britain.

Sure, and my grandfather was an officer at Santa Anita during the Japanese internment. Doesn't mean I would have accepted everything he said as true, had he ever talked to me about anything. But for anyone aware of world events during the Cold War, it's different from being told about them after the fact.

Does that mean I shouldn't be raising questions about the relation between world politics and space programs, because it should all be more or less self-evident to me?

More that it wouldn't be self-evident if you hadn't lived through it. When I was in high school, our freshman history teacher told us how many nuclear missiles were targeted close enough to the school to kill us. (Given our proximity to JPL and downtown Los Angeles, quite a lot.) One of my first political memories is the reference to another nation as an Evil Empire. It's hard to grow up in that environment and not understand how much US policy was shaped by what we thought the Soviets were doing and vice versa.

I understand Ho Chi Minh sent Richard Nixon a message congratulating the USA on Apollo 11, even though North Vietnam and the USA were at war then. Apparently Ho wasn't aware that it was all actually a hoax.

Yeah, that's one HBs tend to miss.

Personally, I tend to think the "Cold War was a hoax" stripe of conspiracy theory is the only Apollo-related belief which is becoming more common as fewer people can actually remember the Apollo landings. It's hard to have experienced those years--and mind, I was -7 when Apollo 11 landed--and come away from it believing that the two powers were never really opposed to one another. The Cold War was a bit more visceral to a people whose childhood contained a completely reasonable fear that their species would be wiped out before they reached adulthood.

[Nowhere Man]

True. But the fuel and equipment that gets put on that other craft only have to be lifted as far as low earth orbit. It does not have to be lugged all the way to the Moon and back. That is the difference...

But that savings in mass not lofted to the Moon is more* than offset by the fuel you would need to slow down to LEO velocity and rendezvous with the Earth-landing craft. Fuel that you would need to take all the way to the Moon and back.

Plus, skipping an Earth-orbit rendezvous at the end makes the mission planning easier, with one less spacecraft to build and launch. (Edit to add: I see that Jason also mentioned the extra craft.)

*I haven't run the numbers (I don't have the skills), but I'm sure the Apollo designers did.

Fred

[Colin Robinson]

Yeah, that's one HBs tend to miss.

I just did a Google to check my memory. The letter I was thinking of was may actually have been from Ho to Lyndon B. Johnson after Apollo 8. http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazi...residents.html

The Cold War was a bit more visceral to a people whose childhood contained a completely reasonable fear that their species would be wiped out before they reached adulthood.

Yes, I remember that fear...

[R.A.F.]

I think I was the one who suggested that, however unconvincing Moon Hoax CTs may be, they have gained a certain currency for a serious reason – people don't understand how come the moon landings happened between 1969 and 1972, but since then no human being has gone beyond low Earth orbit.

I agree that an uninformed populace is a serious problem, however once those unconvincing CT's have been explained to this uninformed populace, what then is the excuse for not understanding?


[church lady voice]Could it beee....willful ignorance??


There is no reason to think that we haven't returned to the Moon based solely on risk factors is all I'm sayin...

[Colin Robinson]

skipping an Earth-orbit rendezvous at the end makes the mission planning easier, with one less spacecraft to build and launch. (Edit to add: I see that Jason also mentioned the extra craft.)

Well, I agree it makes mission planning easier. Plus, when Apollo was being developed, space rendezvous and docking was a very new technology, and naturally the planners would have wanted to complete the mission with as few docking manoevres as possible.

So I'm not saying that the engineers got it wrong, in terms of what they had been trying to do at least since JFK's famous speech -- to get someone to the Moon and back by the end of the decade, and hopefully before the Soviets.

What I am saying, is that there is a logic to the Soviet (and now Russian Federation) work on constructing space stations in orbit – work which goes back at least to the time when they first docked two uncrewed Cosmos satellites in 1967, and then continues with Soyuz docking of January 1969, and then Salyut and Mir and the Russian contribution to the ISS. This work is not just an alternative to going to the Moon or Mars, but will probably help to making travel to those places cheaper and easier in the future.

[R.A.F.]

What I am saying, is that there is a logic to the Soviet (and now Russian Federation) work on constructing space stations in orbit...

Indeed...particularly since they had had their hat handed to them in the race to the Moon...it must have seemed very logical.

[Colin Robinson]

Indeed...particularly since they had had their hat handed to them in the race to the Moon...it must have seemed very logical.

??? In 1967, as far as I know, no-one had been to the Moon.

[R.A.F.]

??? In 1967, as far as I know, no-one had been to the Moon.

....which goes back at least to the time when they first docked two uncrewed Cosmos satellites in 1967, and then continues with Soyuz docking of January 1969, and then Salyut and Mir...

Nuff said...

[slang]

Does that mean I shouldn't be raising questions about the relation between world politics and space programs, because it should all be more or less self-evident to me?

I'm not telling you to do anything, I was asking you a question to try to understand your position better. That's all.

[Glom]

The Shuttle wasn't designed to go beyond Earth orbit, and was designed for much bigger payloads (including the ability to return those payloads from orbit), so I'm not sure it is comparable.

I don't suspect the parachutes, floats, and similar systems that the Apollo capsule carried for returning directly from lunar orbit weighed more than the amount of fuel that would have been necessary to slow it to orbital speed, but I haven't done the calculations. It also requires the added complication of not only slowing to orbital speed, but docking with whatever system you've left in Earth orbit for the return to Earth.

I know very early on, NASA did look at concepts such as a single spacecraft to launch from Earth, go to lunar orbit, land on the Moon, return to Earth and land. They ultimately settled on the system they did, with a separate craft (the LM) to land on the Moon. I don't know if they looked at other variants, such as three crafts (one for Earth to Earth orbit, one for transit to the Moon, one for Moon landing) or a two-craft variant combining steps 2 and 3 (not steps 1 and 2).

I suspect that the system that you developed would depend on lots of things, including if you were planning to do it once, or six times, or one hundred times.

And I'm not sure anyone had looked at aerobraking as a viable technology by the mid 1960s. According to wikipedia, it was a science-fiction idea in 1948, but the first test of it wasn't until 1991. And even aerobraking requires some added equipment. Parachutes and heat-shields were tested back to the Mercury program.

I have to admit that I'm unsure how the discussion worked around to this, and what this has to do with either the Moon Hoax or the Russian space program.

There were three architectures they looked into:

Direct ascent - The all in one spacecraft, launched on a single rocket. It was ruled out on the grounds of requiring a rocket so powerful even Zeus himself would wet his pants.

Earth orbit rendezvous - Launching the all-in-orbit spacecraft dry on one rocket and the propellent for the rest of the mission on another and having the spacecraft rendezvous with its propellent and take it on board in LEO. This would ruled on on the grounds it wasn't insane enough.

Lunar orbit rendezvous - Splitting out the lunar landing capability into a separate spacecraft resulting in two more optimised spacecraft, which together would weigh less than the all-in-one spacecraft. That's obviously what they went with.

[Jason Thompson]

True. But the fuel and equipment that gets put on that other craft only have to be lifted as far as low earth orbit. It does not have to be lugged all the way to the Moon and back. That is the difference...

Yes, I realise this. I am still a long way off being convinced that the saving in the weight and fuel of the lunar craft exceeds the cost of having a whole extra launch involved, at least for a lunar voyage. The hardest and most fuel-intensive part of any lunar or planetary voyage is getting into LEO.

[chrlzs]

the Apollo approach was excellent. That is why it worked.

Yes, it was. Yes, it is.

however unconvincing Moon Hoax CTs may be

Completely unconvincing to anyone who matters, or anyone with a smattering of understanding of the requisite disciplines.

they have gained a certain currency

How much currency do you think they have gained? There was brief flurry around the 40th anniversary, and that brought with it an overwhelming rebuttal and dismissal of all claims of a hoax, most of which was ignorantly parroted old drivel anyway.

With no exceptions - there is not one shred of evidence of a hoax. And as far as I can see - and you'll see me hanging around at all sorts of forums where the topic used to be vigorously 'discussed' like here, ApolloHoax.net, AboveTopSecret, Unexplained Mysteries, even GodlikeProductions (until I could stand it no longer..) etc - interest in the hoax conspiracy has died a well-deserved death - only a tiny few naive (or tinfoilhatted/sockpuppeteering) members of the denial brigade are left.

So I would dispute the implication that there is a notable 'currency' to this topic, and I would strongly argue that it is reducing, if anything.

for a serious reason – people don't understand how come the moon landings happened between 1969 and 1972, but since then no human being has gone beyond low Earth orbit.

After all that has been discussed in regard to economics and politics, do you still think this is a 'serious reason'?

If so, I am staggered.

[Swift]

Direct ascent - The all in one spacecraft, launched on a single rocket. It was ruled out on the grounds of requiring a rocket so powerful even Zeus himself would wet his pants.

And he was a guy that could throw lightning bolts!

[slang]

More that it wouldn't be self-evident if you hadn't lived through it. [...]
The Cold War was a bit more visceral to a people whose childhood contained a completely reasonable fear that their species would be wiped out before they reached adulthood.

Exactly, well put. (Note, I'm not saying, nor even suggesting, that Colin Robinson must belong to that group to have the questions he has).