Apollo hoax twist

[FramerDave]

Today I encountered a twist on the whole Apollo hoax story. I had only spoken to one other hoax believer of this variety before now.

Their story goes that in order to meet Kennedy's challenge of getting to the moon before the end of the decade and before the Soviets to the finish line, Apollo 11 was faked. The other missions did happen and we did make it to the moon, but Apollo 11 was a fake.

I got busy and didn't have a chance to pursue it further, but something occurred to me while I was eating dinner. How is it that "they" were able to fake all the photos and footage so well that there is no discernible difference at all between the (fake)footage and photos from Apollo 11 and the later (real) footage from subsequent missions? Even today with technology nearly 40 years advanced it's virtually impossible to create CGI or other special effects that mirror reality to the smallest detail. Even the best never look quite right.

And how is it that the presumably faked rocks and dust samples had characteristics that were identical to those of samples returned later?

I can't wait to ask tomorrow. I'll post replies.

[PhantomWolf]

I have heard similar, often claims being that 14 was the first real one, or that 13 was, and because it nearly killed the crew they went back to faking it for 14-17.

Of course the main question to ask is if all the other missions were real, including Apollo 7-10. If they say yes,then ask why Apollo 11 couldn't have completed the 50,000 foot gap between the Apollo 10 mission's abort point and the landing?

ETA: you know I almost read the title as Apollo Hoax Twit.

[OldTigerCub]

Today I encountered a twist on the whole Apollo hoax story. I had only spoken to one other hoax believer of this variety before now.

Their story goes that in order to meet Kennedy's challenge of getting to the moon before the end of the decade and before the Soviets to the finish line, Apollo 11 was faked. The other missions did happen and we did make it to the moon, but Apollo 11 was a fake.

I got busy and didn't have a chance to pursue it further, but something occurred to me while I was eating dinner. How is it that "they" were able to fake all the photos and footage so well that there is no discernible difference at all between the (fake)footage and photos from Apollo 11 and the later (real) footage from subsequent missions? Even today with technology nearly 40 years advanced it's virtually impossible to create CGI or other special effects that mirror reality to the smallest detail. Even the best never look quite right.

And how is it that the presumably faked rocks and dust samples had characteristics that were identical to those of samples returned later?

I can't wait to ask tomorrow. I'll post replies.

I think you nailed it pretty well. People forget that even though we had the technology to get a rocket to the moon, the computer power that it takes to create CGI and other special video effects did not emerge until more than a decade later. Even the best special effects masters of today still can't create a video that is as good as the real thing, though some are pretty darn good at it.
ETA: Bolding mine

[ConspiRaider]

Kinda weird because Apollo 12 took place in November, 1969, and by my calendar that is still "before this decade is out".

Twoofers. Ya gotta love 'em. Or not.

[OldTigerCub]

It occurred to me there was a post on the forum earlier in the month where I learned of a new probe to be sent to the moon next year. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3088563&postcount=19

Quote:
"We will image the Apollo sites and you will see the descent stages sitting on the surface," Robinson said. LROC will clearly see the overall shape of that landing hardware, but won't be able to resolve such things as the insignia on the side of the descent stage, or see the stripes on astronaut-planted flags, he said.

It will be interesting to hear the CT's reactions to photographs of lunar landers that have been there for almost 40 years, and right where we left them.

[Mangoose]

What was the state of the art of special effects in 1969? 2001: A Space Oddysey? That film looks quite dated now, though it held its own for many years.

[Loss Leader]

Their story goes that in order to meet Kennedy's challenge of getting to the moon before the end of the decade and before the Soviets to the finish line, Apollo 11 was faked. The other missions did happen and we did make it to the moon, but Apollo 11 was a fake.


Well, that makes Pete Conrad one heck of a good sport. Imagine being the first man on the moon and being almost completely forgotten by history while Neil "I Never Left The Studio" Armstrong gets free drinks for the rest of his life.

On second thought, that's probably why they killed him and made it look like a motorcycle accident. They didn't want him to talk. In 1999.

[uruk]

Don't forget to ask him about the Russians. The Russians were in direct competition with the US in the race to the Moon. The russians also had spies in NASA. If we had faked the moon landing the Russian would have known and they wouldn't have thought twice about outting us. It being the cold war and everything.

Also what would have stopped the russians from faking thier own landing?

[OldTigerCub]

Of course if it weren't for the Apollo CTists, we wouldn't have such entertaining videos like this on YouTube:

mQKxAqpjroo

Buzz Aldrin is even more of a hero to me now! :D

[PhantomWolf]

Kinda weird because Apollo 12 took place in November, 1969, and by my calendar that is still "before this decade is out".

Twoofers. Ya gotta love 'em. Or not.

HB's have a thing about Kennedy saying before this decade is out. In reality Apollo was publically announced in July 1960, before Kennedy was even elected, it had been signed off on by Eisenhower in Jan of 1960, and that was after a year and a half of study and work into it (from mid-1958.) NASA already had the date of Dec 1970 as the goal before they went to Kennedy, he was just confirming what they had already told him they could do!

[Alferd_Packer]

Speaking of the moon.

Chek out the latest HDTV images from the Japanese probe.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_kaguya_e.html

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html

[BenBurch]

Speaking of the moon.

Chek out the latest HDTV images from the Japanese probe.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_kaguya_e.html

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html

WOW

[uruk]

I hope we get a chance to send an IMAX camera out there.

[N.Texas]

It must be a fake Japanese probe. No stars are to be seen.:rolleyes:

[timhau]

Of course if it weren't for the Apollo CTists, we wouldn't have such entertaining videos like this on YouTube:

mQKxAqpjroo

Buzz Aldrin is even more of a hero to me now! :D

Yeah! There's nothing quite like being in the prime of your life (such as it is) and getting your ass whupped by a 72-year-old.

[gumboot]

On second thought, that's probably why they killed him and made it look like a motorcycle accident. They didn't want him to talk. In 1999.


Hey come on, those assassinations take time. Do you know how many levels of authorisation you have to go through before you can carry out an op like that? Ack, the red tape! I have nightmares about it to this day. Heck, we sent in our first draft of the JFK shooting plan for approval in the Spring of 1383.

-Gumboot

[SpitfireIX]

Kinda weird because Apollo 12 took place in November, 1969, and by my calendar that is still "before this decade is out".

Twoofers. Ya gotta love 'em. Or not.


Additionally, the last day of the decade in which Kennedy made the speech was December 31, 1970. In common parlance we refer to "The '60s," but in fact all decades begin on January 1, __1, and end on December 31, ___0, just as the first day of the 20th Century was January 1, 1901, and the last day was December 31, 2000. The reason for this is that there is no Year 0 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar; being originally kept with Roman numerals, there couldn't be.

I recall reading somewhere that NASA was planning to emphasize this fact if the first successful landing had occurred in 1970.

[Reality Believer]

Additionally, the last day of the decade in which Kennedy made the speech was December 31, 1970. In common parlance we refer to "The '60s," but in fact all decades begin on January 1, __1, and end on December 31, ___0, just as the first day of the 20th Century was January 1, 1901, and the last day was December 31, 2000. The reason for this is that there is no Year 0 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar; being originally kept with Roman numerals, there couldn't be.

I recall reading somewhere that NASA was planning to emphasize this fact if the first successful landing had occurred in 1970.

Yes, that was Ted Sorenson's ace in the hole / fudge factor.

[Alferd_Packer]

I hope we get a chance to send an IMAX camera out there.

Next year, about this time.

http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html

[petra10]

Great pictures, but I really cant wait till we see the pictures of the landing sites and flags.
Now that is really gonna be something.

[grmcdorman]

Great pictures, but I really cant wait till we see the pictures of the landing sites and flags.
Now that is really gonna be something.The flags won't be there. They were standard (local store) flags; after 40+ years on the Moon exposed to unfiltered UV they'll be dust. Or so I'm told by people who ought to know :D

[Spindrift]

HB's have a thing about Kennedy saying before this decade is out. In reality Apollo was publically announced in July 1960, before Kennedy was even elected, it had been signed off on by Eisenhower in Jan of 1960, and that was after a year and a half of study and work into it (from mid-1958.) NASA already had the date of Dec 1970 as the goal before they went to Kennedy, he was just confirming what they had already told him they could do!
Kennedy's 'before this decade is out' cannot be discounted.

The original Apollo project's goal was not specifically to land on the moon. It was the follow-on to Mercury and was to incrementally increase capabilities so that it might be possible by 1970 to fly a circumlunar mission not a lunar landing.

Kennedy's speech created the deadline for a vastly different Apollo program that what it was originally intended to be.

ETA: The 1960 estimate for getting a man on the moon was 1975.

[PhantomWolf]

Kennedy's 'before this decade is out' cannot be discounted.

The original Apollo project's goal was not specifically to land on the moon. It was the follow-on to Mercury and was to incrementally increase capabilities so that it might be possible by 1970 to fly a circumlunar mission not a lunar landing.

Yes and no. While publically NASA was talking Earth and Cislunar flights leading to a later landing, behind the scenes the heads were pushing for a landing and their research was predominately focused on landing. In fact the objectives of the Apollo Programme were delayed several months in 1960 when the heads refused to sign off on it because they wanted it to be landings.

Kennedy's speech created the deadline for a vastly different Apollo program that what it was originally intended to be.

ETA: The 1960 estimate for getting a man on the moon was 1975.

Again, not entirely true. While the 1959 Ten Year report did focus on looking towards Cislunar flight by 1970 followed by landings in the 70's, by the end of 1960 the NASA STG were working on a a report called "A Plan for Manned Lunar Landing" which was submitting in on the 7th of Feb 1961. In it they stated: "The concurrent development of spacecraft and launch vehicle should lead, if financially supported, almost inevitably to a manned lunar landing in 1968 to 1970."

[Dave Rogers]

The original Apollo project's goal was not specifically to land on the moon. It was the follow-on to Mercury...

I misread that and thought "Why the heck would they want to go there?"

Dave

[Ove]

Nothing is going to convince the hoax believers, trust me. All evidence presented to them is obviously faked just to fool them (and us) into believing this great lie.
It has allways saddened me that THE one thing americans could be really proud of is denied by so many fools. They must live really sad lives.. :(

[Alferd_Packer]

Hmm, that brings up an interesting question. Given Mercury’s lower gravity, would it be easier to put a manned mission there and back than mars? Or would the increased distance, solar gravity and risk from solar flares negate the advantage of a lower gravity to lift off from?

[Spindrift]

Yes and no. While publically NASA was talking Earth and Cislunar flights leading to a later landing, behind the scenes the heads were pushing for a landing and their research was predominately focused on landing. In fact the objectives of the Apollo Programme were delayed several months in 1960 when the heads refused to sign off on it because they wanted it to be landings.

Again, not entirely true. While the 1959 Ten Year report did focus on looking towards Cislunar flight by 1970 followed by landings in the 70's, by the end of 1960 the NASA STG were working on a a report called "A Plan for Manned Lunar Landing" which was submitting in on the 7th of Feb 1961. In it they stated: "The concurrent development of spacecraft and launch vehicle should lead, if financially supported, almost inevitably to a manned lunar landing in 1968 to 1970."

The report you quote was instigated by JFK wanting something big to beat the Soviets with. It advocated changing the parameters of Apollo so the landing could happen. In 1960 the estimate for landing on the Moon without making any radical changes to Apollo was 1975 and even that was a maybe: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report60.html

Landing before the decade was out did not become a real goal until Kennedy made it so. There was discussion on what could be done but if Kennedy did not advocate a concerted effort it wasn't going to happen.

[twinstead]

Oh crap. My bad.

I thought this thread was going to be about some kind of new dance. I'll bet the Apollo Hoax Twist would ROCK!

[Blackadder_no]

Hmm, that brings up an interesting question. Given Mercury’s lower gravity, would it be easier to put a manned mission there and back than mars? Or would the increased distance, solar gravity and risk from solar flares negate the advantage of a lower gravity to lift off from?

I suspect one of the biggest problem would be the heat, as the sunlight is about 6.5 times stronger than on Earth (and the Moon). Also, as you say solar gravity makes accurate orbits very difficult. Although I think solar flares would actually be less of a problem, since Mercury has a significant magnetic field, whereas Mars does not.

[Professor Yaffle]

My favourite is the theory that they did go to the moon, but the cameras broke, so they had to mock it up in a studio at the same time so as not to disappoint everyone watching on TV.

[twinstead]

My favourite is the theory that they did go to the moon, but the cameras broke, so they had to mock it up in a studio at the same time so as not to disappoint everyone watching on TV.

Oh my, that IS a classic, right up there with the Soviets were bribed with wheat to not spill the beans.

[Spindrift]

My favourite is the theory that they did go to the moon, but the cameras broke, so they had to mock it up in a studio at the same time so as not to disappoint everyone watching on TV.

On Apollo 12 the tv camera did break on the moon.

[twinstead]

On Apollo 12 the tv camera did break on the moon.

IIRC they burned it out by accidentally pointing it a the sun or something like that.

[JimBenArm]

IIRC they burned it out by accidentally pointing it a the sun or something like that.
Correct. It was a color camera, NASA decided it would make for better TV than the B&W job used on Apollo 11. However, it was pointed at the sun inadvertently, and burned it out.
Just finished reading "Lost Moon", and there was a section on this in it.

[Cuddles]

How is it that "they" were able to fake all the photos and footage so well that there is no discernible difference at all between the (fake)footage and photos from Apollo 11 and the later (real) footage from subsequent missions?

Obviously they knew that they wouldn't be able to get men on the Moon in time, so they sent a secret mission up earlier to film it so they'd know what it looked like in order to fake it. Duh.

[Dave Rogers]

I thought this thread was going to be about some kind of new dance. I'll bet the Apollo Hoax Twist would ROCK!

No, that's the JFK Time Warp. "It's just a jump back and to the left..."

Dave

[TriskettheKid]

If I remember correctly, when that camera on Apollo 12 didn't work, they tried hitting it with one of their hammers.

Hope that's true. I've always thought it was pretty funny.

[Reality Believer]

If I remember correctly, when that camera on Apollo 12 didn't work, they tried hitting it with one of their hammers.

Hope that's true. I've always thought it was pretty funny.
Yep. Alan Bean attempted "percussive maintenance" on the unit to no avail.

[petra10]

The flags won't be there. They were standard (local store) flags; after 40+ years on the Moon exposed to unfiltered UV they'll be dust. Or so I'm told by people who ought to know :D


What no flags!
mmmm now that is one for the hoax theoryists :D

[Skeptic Guy]

Of course if it weren't for the Apollo CTists, we wouldn't have such entertaining videos like this on YouTube:

mQKxAqpjroo

Buzz Aldrin is even more of a hero to me now! :D

I never tire of watching that one.

Speaking of the moon.

Chek out the latest HDTV images from the Japanese probe.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_kaguya_e.html

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html

Wow!!! That looks very much like the faked video from NASA! Their special effects were much better than I thought.

[sts60]

If I remember correctly, when that camera on Apollo 12 didn't work, they tried hitting it with one of their hammers.

Hope that's true. I've always thought it was pretty funny.Yep. Alan Bean attempted "percussive maintenance" on the unit to no avail.

I never heard that one. I know that Bean did give the ALSEP's RTG cask a whack with a geology hammer to free up the heat source. He did this on his own, just before the same advice was sent up from the ground.

[PhantomWolf]

The report you quote was instigated by JFK wanting something big to beat the Soviets with. It advocated changing the parameters of Apollo so the landing could happen. In 1960 the estimate for landing on the Moon without making any radical changes to Apollo was 1975 and even that was a maybe: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report60.html

Landing before the decade was out did not become a real goal until Kennedy made it so. There was discussion on what could be done but if Kennedy did not advocate a concerted effort it wasn't going to happen.

I think you need to recheck your dates, the paper I referenced was started BEFORE Kennedy was president (He was President Elect though) and well before the failure at the Bay of Pigs and his deciding he needed something big to beat the Soviets. As I said previously, the heads at NASA were pushing for a landing, while publicly stating they weren't, read Chariots for Apollo. Showing the public papers they drafted during this time doesn't change that internally they were pushing for a landing and reseaching towards it. The result of that was the drafting and wrtting of the paper I referenced which was worked on through Janurary of 1961, prior to Kennedy being sworn in as President, and submited just 18 days after he started as President, and several months before he determined that the Bay of Pigs failure mean t he needed something big to challange the Soviets with.

Now, yes it is likely that his becoming President did have something to do with the paper being written as Esienhower was starting to back down on the Apollo programme that NASA had authorised, let alone the one they had been trying to push on him (i.e. landing) thus this paper was very likely an attempt to sway the incoming President that not only was a landing able to be done, it was the best way to go, something that NASA had been wanting for the previous two years, but Kennedy himself did not instigate the report, and nor did he determine the time frame for the mission. NASA did both, Kennedy just confirmed them from what NASA told him they could do.

[PhantomWolf]

I never heard that one. I know that Bean did give the ALSEP's RTG cask a whack with a geology hammer to free up the heat source. He did this on his own, just before the same advice was sent up from the ground.

He hit the camera too, apparently it did actually improve the image a fraction, but not by much. The main issue, other than one of the vidicoms being burnt out, was that the light levels caused the exposure circuit to burn out as well resulting in the part of the camera that was unaffected showing black rather than a nicely exposed image. Back on Earth they disconnected that circuit and the camera worked fine (apart from the area of the image that was lost.) Later cameras were equiped with irises that detected the amount of light and would close to protect the internals, as well as better vidicoms that wouldn't burn out from excess light.

[Spindrift]

I think you need to recheck your dates, the paper I referenced was started BEFORE Kennedy was president (He was President Elect though) and well before the failure at the Bay of Pigs and his deciding he needed something big to beat the Soviets. As I said previously, the heads at NASA were pushing for a landing, while publicly stating they weren't, read Chariots for Apollo. Showing the public papers they drafted during this time doesn't change that internally they were pushing for a landing and reseaching towards it. The result of that was the drafting and wrtting of the paper I referenced which was worked on through Janurary of 1961, prior to Kennedy being sworn in as President, and submited just 18 days after he started as President, and several months before he determined that the Bay of Pigs failure mean t he needed something big to challange the Soviets with.

Now, yes it is likely that his becoming President did have something to do with the paper being written as Esienhower was starting to back down on the Apollo programme that NASA had authorised, let alone the one they had been trying to push on him (i.e. landing) thus this paper was very likely an attempt to sway the incoming President that not only was a landing able to be done, it was the best way to go, something that NASA had been wanting for the previous two years, but Kennedy himself did not instigate the report, and nor did he determine the time frame for the mission. NASA did both, Kennedy just confirmed them from what NASA told him they could do.

Did you read the report I linked to which is dated December 16, 1960?


6. Conclusions
1. The first major goal of the man-in-space program is to orbit a man about the earth. It will cost about 350 million dollars.
2. The next goal, of an intermediate nature, is the manned circumnavigation of the moon. It will cost about 8 billion dollars.
3. The second major goal, landing on the moon, can only be achieved about 1975 after an additional national expenditure in the vicinity of 26 to 38 billion dollars.
4. The Saturn program is a necessary intermediate step toward manned lunar landing but must be followed by a much bigger development before manned lunar landing is possible.
5. The unmanned program is a necessary prerequisite to a manned program. Even if there were no manned program, the unmanned program might yield as much scientific knowledge and on this basis would be justified in its own right.
6. Even if there were no man-in-space program, Saturn C2 is still a minimum vehicle for closeup instrumented study of Venus and Mars, for unmanned trips to more distant planets, and for putting roving vehicles on the surface of the moon.
7. Manned trips to the vicinity of Venus or Mars are not yet foreseeable. . . .


Basically you're talking about what NASA would like to have done and I'm talking about what the stated plan actually was prior to Kennedy's decision to go for the moon landing. NASA would have liked to do a lot of things. Von Braun would have loved to build the Nova, but it never happened because no one such as Kennedy got behind it.

[PhantomWolf]

Did you read the report I linked to which is dated December 16, 1960?

Yes I did, and again I point out that NASA was saying one thing to the Politicians who were very unresponsive to what they wanted to do, and so were pushing ahead very cuatiously on the limited budget they had been given, while back at headquaters they were working towards and figuring out what they could do if they really had the budget. Pointing to reports sent to the politicians doesn't change that fact. NASA had a moon landing in sight from 1958, it was endorsed by the Goett Committee in mid-1959 as their main goal. What stood in their way was Esienhower and the other politicians. Esienhower wanted to see results from Mercury before he started throwing money to NASA, so they were playing down their goals and extending timelines based on their budgets. All you are doing is pointing to a paper that shows exactly that.

Basically you're talking about what NASA would like to have done and I'm talking about what the stated plan actually was prior to Kennedy's decision to go for the moon landing. NASA would have liked to do a lot of things. Von Braun would have loved to build the Nova, but it never happened because no one such as Kennedy got behind it.

But Kennedy only got behind it because NASA pushed it on him. Kennedy didn't call up NASA and say, go to the moon before 1970, he called them in and asked them about the Moon landings they were proposing and if what they had been telling him was realistic. They said yes, with the funding, he said okay here's the money go and do it.

Yes they required Kennedy to get behind them to meet the goals they were aiming for, but they were the ones setting those goals, not Kennedy, and that is the crux of the argument. The Hoax Believers say that Kennedy dropped the "Before this decade is out" bombshell on NASA in May of 1961 in his speech to Congress, that he was the one that determined that NASA had to do it before 1970 and NASA was shell shocked and couldn't figure it out.

This plain isn't true. NASA knew they could, IF they were funded. They had researched it and submitted papers showing they believed a 1968-1970 landing was entirely feasible. It was NASA that told Kennedy that with the funding a landing before the end of 1970 was entirely possible, not Kennedy dumping the unobtainable onto NASA by surprise.

The Hoax Believer argument that an unprepared NASA only has 7.5 years from Kennedy's May 1961 bombshell to Apollo 8 in Dec 1968 is wrong. NASA was prepared and had been planning how to land for 3 years before they finally managed to convince Kennedy to back them.

[Spindrift]

PhantomWolf -
Sorry it took this long but I do see your point now and I definitely agree that in no way was Kennedy surprising NASA by his announcement. And yes, landing a man on the moon was NASA's idea not Kennedy's. The fact was that Kennedy's primary objective was to beat the Russians at something ( http://history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/apollo1.pdf ) and he wasn't really looking for anything in particular. NASA told him the best bet was landing a man on the moon, so that's what he went with. He probably would have liked something for less money and shorter time, but for anything like that the odds were too good that the Russians could beat them. ( http://history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/apollo3.pdf )

However, up to that point NASA always, publicly at least, stated that a manned moon landing would not happen until the mid-1970's.

[PhantomWolf]

However, up to that point NASA always, publicly at least, stated that a manned moon landing would not happen until the mid-1970's.

Agreed, though this was definately politics at play. It's interesting to compare the politics in the US programme vs the USSR programme. The USSR suffered from losing their "Kennedy" only a few months after backing a lunar programme, and from having too many cooks in the kitchen all wanting to do their own thing. The US had a strong replacement in Johnson when Kennedy was killed, and a united vision in what they wanted. Still had Kennedy not won the 1960 election, or lost the Bay of Pigs invasion, Apollo may have been scrapped and consigned to being a footnote in history.

[Spindrift]

Still had Kennedy not won the 1960 election, or lost the Bay of Pigs invasion, Apollo may have been scrapped and consigned to being a footnote in history.
Not convinced that that would have been a bad thing. If Apollo had been allowed to play out as the research project it was intended to be instead of a race, we might have gone to the moon a lot later, but we may have stayed.

I think the Chinese are following that type of plan. They are in no particular hurry, but they are continually making progress. I think they are the tortoise to our hare.

[PhantomWolf]

Not convinced that that would have been a bad thing. If Apollo had been allowed to play out as the research project it was intended to be instead of a race, we might have gone to the moon a lot later, but we may have stayed.

I think the Chinese are following that type of plan. They are in no particular hurry, but they are continually making progress. I think they are the tortoise to our hare.

It's an interesting thing to consider. The major problem in the US is that things are generally done because of special interest groups lobbying, and occasionally the public will get behind a good lobby to push it further, but the instant that public support vanishes the vultures start to circle the carcass, and Apollo was a very big juicy carcass by the end of 1969 and the camera failure on Apollo 12.

I think I have to agree that too much was made of "It's a race!" That meant that as soon as the finish line was crossed, the public started to lose interest. If it had instead been treated as "it's a new Frontier" they might have been willing to follow it on to having people living there. Of course the whole Soviet line of "We weren't planning to go" help deflate the "victory" even more after the fact, but yes, in the hurry to get there, the science and reasons for going somehow got lost, at least to the general public.

[Corsair 115]

NASA was prepared and had been planning how to land for 3 years before they finally managed to convince Kennedy to back them.But wasn't that landing based on the direct ascent approach? The LOR method of getting to the moon wasn't chosen until a couple of years after Kennedy's backing of the lunar landing goal, yes?

[PhantomWolf]

But wasn't that landing based on the direct ascent approach? The LOR method of getting to the moon wasn't chosen until a couple of years after Kennedy's backing of the lunar landing goal, yes?

The main two that were being considered were Direct flight using the Nova, or EOR, similar to what they intend to do with the Orion Programme, but a direct landing and take off from the moon and back to Earth. LOR was being discussed by a small group at Langley as early as the start of 1959, but they weren't being taken seriously until November 1961, when the main proponent, Dr. John Houbolt, took the unusal step of dropping the issue onto the desk of associate administrator Robert C. Seamans, with a nine page long letter stating the proposal and pointing out that it was being unfairly ignored. Seamans agreed and after that the idea actually took flight pretty quickly.

ETA: LOR was approved in July 1962, so just over one year after Kennedy's backing of the landings.

[Ove]

Yep. Alan Bean attempted "percussive maintenance" on the unit to no avail.

That one episode with "Beano" and the gang is one of the funniest in the Tom Hanks tv-series (From the earth to the moon) and i can only reccomend people watching that series if they want to know about the Apollo Project. The serie is extremely well made and gives a good wiew on the moon project (i had read several books before seeing the series).

[uruk]

That one episode with "Beano" and the gang is one of the funniest in the Tom Hanks tv-series (From the earth to the moon) and i can only reccomend people watching that series if they want to know about the Apollo Project. The serie is extremely well made and gives a good wiew on the moon project (i had read several books before seeing the series).

Have you read "Lunar lander" by Tom Kelly?
It's a great insight to the engineers at Grumman who designed the lunar lander and the design process.

[uruk]

It's an interesting thing to consider. The major problem in the US is that things are generally done because of special interest groups lobbying, and occasionally the public will get behind a good lobby to push it further, but the instant that public support vanishes the vultures start to circle the carcass, and Apollo was a very big juicy carcass by the end of 1969 and the camera failure on Apollo 12.

I think I have to agree that too much was made of "It's a race!" That meant that as soon as the finish line was crossed, the public started to lose interest. If it had instead been treated as "it's a new Frontier" they might have been willing to follow it on to having people living there. Of course the whole Soviet line of "We weren't planning to go" help deflate the "victory" even more after the fact, but yes, in the hurry to get there, the science and reasons for going somehow got lost, at least to the general public.

Apollo was killed just when the project was switching from "the race" to research.
NASA had a plan for long term presence on the moon. The actually built a long stay, roving vehicle based on the Lunar ascent module. The Smithsonian is refurbishing it for display.

As far as the Russian's response was concered. Yea right! they were building and testing the N1 heavylift launcher and the lunnar lander they were devloping is on display right now. You can see pictures of it on the net.

[PhantomWolf]

Apollo was killed just when the project was switching from "the race" to research.
NASA had a plan for long term presence on the moon. The actually built a long stay, roving vehicle based on the Lunar ascent module. The Smithsonian is refurbishing it for display.

Apollo died with the election loss to Nixon in 1968. The first cancellation was Apollo 20 in Jan of 1970 because Nixon was already pushing the post Apollo programme of Skylab. The loss of public interest during Apollo 12 (likely due to the camera loss) and then the accident of Apollo 13 sealed Apollo's fate. Too many senators were looking at Apollo's budget and wanting it for themselves and their own projects, and with a President who wasn't interested in extending the programme any longer than he had too, a new project in the works (two actually as they were starting work on the Shuttle as well) and the sudden and very real prospect of losting America Heros in space, Apollo became a dead duck.

As far as the Russian's response was concered. Yea right! they were building and testing the N1 heavylift launcher and the lunnar lander they were devloping is on display right now. You can see pictures of it on the net.

Yes indeed, I have some on my site, over on AH we refer to it affectionately as the Tea Kettle. In fact the Soviet lander, the LK, was test flown successfully three times. The issue isn't if it happened, but if the Soviets acknowledged that it happened, they didn't. In fact they ordered the records and equipment destroyed, shut down the group responsible for it, then denied all knowledge of ever having a Manned Lunar Programme. This was a lie that many people fell for, including Walter Cronkite when in 1974 he said "It turned out there never had been a race to the Moon." Luckily not all our space journalists were as gullible and some, like James Oberg and Charles Sheldon, believed that Moscow was lying through it's teeth, though the Soviets never admitted it until the early 90's after Russian become more open due to glasnost.

BTW, for those that haven't seen a picture of the LK...

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/images/lk-lander.jpg

[Ove]

Have you read "Lunar lander" by Tom Kelly?
It's a great insight to the engineers at Grumman who designed the lunar lander and the design process.

No but thank you for the hint :) Tom Kelly is IMHO one of the many "unsung heroes" in the Apollo project allthough the TV series did something to correct that.