NationStates Jolt Archive


who's holding the camera

Cannot think of a name
18-05-2004, 08:02
Alright, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't think the moon landing was faked, but a friend asked me this and it has been bugging me. So I come to you all-
who the hell is holding the camera? Wouldn't that be the first man on the moon?
Buggin' me. Bail me out folks.
http://www.biblehelp.org/moon%20landing%201.jpg
sorry the image comes from a bible site, it was the smallest image on the first google page...
Colodia
18-05-2004, 08:04
Thats Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, second man on the moon. Neil Armstrong would be holding the camera.

and the easiest to forget (exception being Michael Collins)

you gotta blow up these "there was no moon landing" theories before they grow...

(oh, and they did place cameras on the landing site I believe, before the moon landing)
Tactical Grace
18-05-2004, 08:04
That is almost certainly not Neil Armstrong. And by that I don't mean it is an actor, I mean it is probably an entirely different mission.
Henry Kissenger
18-05-2004, 08:04
i think they did land on moon because if they didn't. i don'y really think they can kake the footprints.
Tactical Grace
18-05-2004, 08:06
I always thought the most compelling evidence for the Moon landings was the 300kg+ of rock they returned.
Goshawkian
18-05-2004, 08:07
Once Russia finishes construction of the biggest telescope with the current tech available, it should only be a matter of time before the flag and \ or footprints can be seen from earth. Its taking alittle longer than expected though.
Colodia
18-05-2004, 08:07
That is almost certainly not Neil Armstrong. And by that I don't mean it is an actor, I mean it is probably an entirely different mission.
no, it's not Armstrong

it is Apollo 11

surprise! like I said, it was Buzz Aldrin
Cannot think of a name
18-05-2004, 08:07
(oh, and they did place cameras on the landing site I believe, before the moon landing)
This is what I'm looking for, how they got the camera there (not in that 'it doesn't make any sense' kinda way, more a 'man, how'd they do that?')
Colodia
18-05-2004, 08:08
(oh, and they did place cameras on the landing site I believe, before the moon landing)
This is what I'm looking for, how they got the camera there (not in that 'it doesn't make any sense' kinda way, more a 'man, how'd they do that?')

Probes and stuff. I would guess stuff somewhat similar to the Viking Mission.
Goshawkian
18-05-2004, 08:11
After the camera's are in place, its real easy to get the craft to land in the exact spot so the guys can see their best side in the photo's. :roll:
Colodia
18-05-2004, 08:13
After the camera's are in place, its real easy to get the craft to land in the exact spot so the guys can see their best side in the photo's. :roll:
Didn't you read what I said? Neil Armstrong took the photos!

And I think I made a mistake, the cameras were on the Eagle (lunar lander)

If you watch the videos of the Eagle landing on the moon, you'll see how its not the perfect image you say it is.
Smeagol-Gollum
18-05-2004, 09:34
Who do you think holds the camera in the unmanned space flights?
It was probably the same guy.
Colodia
18-05-2004, 09:35
Who do you think holds the camera in the unmanned space flights?
It was probably the same guy.

:roll: wtf are you talking about? I'd like to see this picture you have.
Smeagol-Gollum
18-05-2004, 09:49
Who do you think holds the camera in the unmanned space flights?
It was probably the same guy.

:roll: wtf are you talking about? I'd like to see this picture you have.

We have photos from the Mars landings.
We have photos of Jupiter, Saturn etc. Remote cameras can be, and are, moved, focused and take photos without having to be held by any human.
Its not really a new concept.
Where have you been?
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 09:52
Once Russia finishes construction of the biggest telescope with the current tech available, it should only be a matter of time before the flag and \ or footprints can be seen from earth. Its taking alittle longer than expected though.

The fact that there is a mirror, detectible from Earth, on the surface of the moon has escaped your notice, then?

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

Also, why would you trust the Russian mission if it claims that it finds traces on the moon, but not the American one that claims to have left them there?
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 09:59
Thats Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, second man on the moon. Neil Armstrong would be holding the camera.

and the easiest to forget (exception being Michael Collins)


...gor blimey, now he had a busy life - one moment he is leading the Easter Rising, the next he is manning the Command Module on Apollo 11... :wink:
Cannot think of a name
18-05-2004, 10:00
. Remote cameras can be, and are, moved, focused and take photos without having to be held by any human.

This obviously makes the most amount of sense, I'm just curious as to how it works (in the same way that I spent an hour with a roommate watching Jason & the Argonauts frame by frame trying to figure out how Jason got the spear out of that skeleton's hands. not conspiracy, curiousity)
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 10:02
Thats Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, second man on the moon. Neil Armstrong would be holding the camera.


Nope. Incorrect. That is Neil Armstrong. The film was taken by a camera on an arm which was swung out and deployed shortly before he exited the vehicle.
Dragons Bay
18-05-2004, 10:04
Until somebody else we trust enough lands on the Moon, we will never be able to verify the truth in the account. Therefore, all we have to do is wait. If the astronauts were proved NOT to have been on the moon, it's going to cause a HUGE sensation, and will blow the cover to the US' deceiving techniques. And when will the cover be blown? The month before a US presidential election. :wink:
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 10:05
Until somebody else we trust enough lands on the Moon, we will never be able to verify the truth in the account.

Who exactly would you trust?
Mutant Dogs
18-05-2004, 10:07
I always thought the most compelling evidence for the Moon landings was the 300kg+ of rock they returned.

and then

That is almost certainly not Neil Armstrong. And by that I don't mean it is an actor, I mean it is probably an entirely different mission.

Short but sweet :)
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 10:08
That is almost certainly not Neil Armstrong. And by that I don't mean it is an actor, I mean it is probably an entirely different mission.

Short but sweet :)

Yeah, TG, why do you believe that this is a different mission?
Cannot think of a name
18-05-2004, 10:08
Thats Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, second man on the moon. Neil Armstrong would be holding the camera.


Nope. Incorrect. That is Neil Armstrong. The film was taken by a camera on an arm which was swung out and deployed shortly before he exited the vehicle.
Okay, now this makes a whole lot of sense....

C'mon-there's gotta be someone whos been to Florida and taken the tour...how's this work (although it seems pretty simple)
Cannot think of a name
18-05-2004, 10:11
That is almost certainly not Neil Armstrong. And by that I don't mean it is an actor, I mean it is probably an entirely different mission.

Short but sweet :)

Yeah, TG, why do you believe that this is a different mission?
I just googled 'moon landing' and picked the smallest resonable image on the first page. It could very well be any mission. It was a question spurred for by my friend, I was hoping that there was a clear explination that I just didn't happen to know.
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 10:12
Thats Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, second man on the moon. Neil Armstrong would be holding the camera.


Nope. Incorrect. That is Neil Armstrong. The film was taken by a camera on an arm which was swung out and deployed shortly before he exited the vehicle.
Okay, now this makes a whole lot of sense....

C'mon-there's gotta be someone whos been to Florida and taken the tour...how's this work (although it seems pretty simple)

You are surely not doubting that the US was capable of remote control closed-circuit camera technology in the late 60s, are you?
Slap Happy Lunatics
18-05-2004, 10:12
Thats Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, second man on the moon. Neil Armstrong would be holding the camera.


Nope. Incorrect. That is Neil Armstrong. The film was taken by a camera on an arm which was swung out and deployed shortly before he exited the vehicle.

Now, Now kids. I was 16 YO and watched it on TV. Here is the straight poop. (http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/Science/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.htm)

On July 20, 1969, Commander Neil Armstrong became the first man on the moon. He said the historic words, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
A camera in the Lunar Module provided live television coverage as Neil Armstrong climbed down the ladder to the surface of the moon.

That's what they said then and that's what they say now. Me? I wasn't there. I was working on getting a cute 14 YO girls attention.

SHL

PS - I can't attest to the colors because all we had was a B&W tv at the time. Color was for the rich!
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 10:15
That is almost certainly not Neil Armstrong. And by that I don't mean it is an actor, I mean it is probably an entirely different mission.

Short but sweet :)

Yeah, TG, why do you believe that this is a different mission?
I just googled 'moon landing' and picked the smallest resonable image on the first page. It could very well be any mission. It was a question spurred for by my friend, I was hoping that there was a clear explination that I just didn't happen to know.

Well, certainly whether that particular picture is Neil armstrong descending the ladder for the first time or not is somewhat irrelevant to the general discussion, but it is credited as being him doing that across the web.
Dragons Bay
18-05-2004, 10:16
Until somebody else we trust enough lands on the Moon, we will never be able to verify the truth in the account.

Who exactly would you trust?
Nobody. Therefore they should send a consortium of astronauts there: America, Europe, Russia, China. Then unless they bribe each other, they'll tell the truth.
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 10:18
Now, Now kids. I was 16 YO and watched it on TV. Here is the straight poop. (http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/Science/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.htm)

On July 20, 1969, Commander Neil Armstrong became the first man on the moon. He said the historic words, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
A camera in the Lunar Module provided live television coverage as Neil Armstrong climbed down the ladder to the surface of the moon.


Interestingly, Neil Armstrong himself claims that he said "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind", but that a burst of static covered up the indefinite article.

Certainly the sentence than makes sense if we include the indefinite article, whereas it makes little sense without it, but I am readily inclined to believe that he fluffed his line when it came to the crunch.
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 10:19
Until somebody else we trust enough lands on the Moon, we will never be able to verify the truth in the account.

Who exactly would you trust?
Nobody. Therefore they should send a consortium of astronauts there: America, Europe, Russia, China. Then unless they bribe each other, they'll tell the truth.

That doesn't rule out a conspiracy of the technocrats against the rest of us though, does it?
Cannot think of a name
18-05-2004, 10:23
Now, Now kids. I was 16 YO and watched it on TV. Here is the straight poop. (http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/Science/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.htm)

On July 20, 1969, Commander Neil Armstrong became the first man on the moon. He said the historic words, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
A camera in the Lunar Module provided live television coverage as Neil Armstrong climbed down the ladder to the surface of the moon.


Interestingly, Neil Armstrong himself claims that he said "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind", but that a burst of static covered up the indefinite article.

Certainly the sentence than makes sense if we include the indefinite article, whereas it makes little sense without it, but I am readily inclined to believe that he fluffed his line when it came to the crunch.
To continue the sidetrack, I had a roommate who, along with his father, hated that line becuase they felt it sounded prepared........

I'll give you all a moment to stutter in disbelief as your brain tries to wrap itself around that...

He was going to land on the moon in front of the world, and he's supposed to 'wing it?' It's pretty stupid to get frustrated about that, but I thought about it when I read this post.
Slap Happy Lunatics
18-05-2004, 10:25
Until somebody else we trust enough lands on the Moon, we will never be able to verify the truth in the account.

Who exactly would you trust?
Nobody. Therefore they should send a consortium of astronauts there: America, Europe, Russia, China. Then unless they bribe each other, they'll tell the truth.

That doesn't rule out a conspiracy of the technocrats against the rest of us though, does it?

No, thankfully that is still intact.

SHL
Almighty Sephiroth
18-05-2004, 10:36
Come on, you numbnuts don't really believe the first moonlanding was real, do you? Think for a second (a difficult task, but bear with me). Neil Armstrong left his footprints in the DUST. What dust? Oh, you mean the dust that should have been blown away for miles around after the rocket landed, leaving no blast crater? Yes, that dust.
Dragons Bay
18-05-2004, 10:37
Until somebody else we trust enough lands on the Moon, we will never be able to verify the truth in the account.

Who exactly would you trust?
Nobody. Therefore they should send a consortium of astronauts there: America, Europe, Russia, China. Then unless they bribe each other, they'll tell the truth.

That doesn't rule out a conspiracy of the technocrats against the rest of us though, does it?
It's still better than just having three Americans tell us they've landed on the moon.
Vitania
18-05-2004, 10:53
If the Russians at any point during the Apollo 11 mission suspected that it was being faked don't you think they would have blown the secret? They wouldn't have kept secret something which would have been a big ego boost for their nation and a reason to revive their manned moon mission program.
Meulmania
18-05-2004, 10:58
Once Russia finishes construction of the biggest telescope with the current tech available, it should only be a matter of time before the flag and \ or footprints can be seen from earth. Its taking alittle longer than expected though.


Are you really that suprised that Russia is running behind schedule. They one of the most unorganised countries (of course still behind Greece :D ). But anyway the moon landing really DID happen, there is just no way that they could have fooled anyone and that evidence (conclusive evidence not a conspiracy theory) hasn't come forward yet.
Bodies Without Organs
18-05-2004, 13:47
Come on, you numbnuts don't really believe the first moonlanding was real, do you? Think for a second (a difficult task, but bear with me). Neil Armstrong left his footprints in the DUST. What dust? Oh, you mean the dust that should have been blown away for miles around after the rocket landed, leaving no blast crater? Yes, that dust.

As there is a neglibly thin atmosphere on the moon, the only dust which is going to be shifted by the rocket of the LEM is the dust which is directly touched by the rocket's exhaust... no atmosphere = no air currents being created to stir up the dust at a distance.

As for the blast crater... you have checked out the facts and discovered that the rocket was delivering pressure of about 1.5 pounds per square inch, haven't you? Also, due to the neglibly thin atmosphere of the moon, the force spreads out more abruptly than would be experienced in Earth's atmosphere. Thus very little pressure... thus no blast crater.
Colodia
18-05-2004, 22:59
Come on, you numbnuts don't really believe the first moonlanding was real, do you? Think for a second (a difficult task, but bear with me). Neil Armstrong left his footprints in the DUST. What dust? Oh, you mean the dust that should have been blown away for miles around after the rocket landed, leaving no blast crater? Yes, that dust.

Kids, this is what happens when you don't think and believe any sort of propaganda you hear.

Neil Armstrong left his footprints in the DUST...*rambles...*...dust that should have been blown away for miles around after the rocket landed

Read this a couple of times (a difficult task for you I'm sure) and you'll see your problem.

Oh, and read what the guy earlier said about the atmosphere conditions. Well said.
Cannot think of a name
18-05-2004, 23:11
I just wanted to know how the camera worked........
Vrak
19-05-2004, 04:05
You guys keep this up and Buzz Aldrin will come to your house and punch you out. :)

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/
Vrak
19-05-2004, 04:06
You guys keep this up and Buzz Aldrin will come to your house and punch you out. :)

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/
Vrak
19-05-2004, 04:09
You guys keep this up and Buzz Aldrin will come to your house and punch you out. :)

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/
Filamai
19-05-2004, 05:27
You guys keep this up and Buzz Aldrin will come to your house and punch you out. :)

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/

Boof! :D
Gaeltach
19-05-2004, 05:31
Once Russia finishes construction of the biggest telescope with the current tech available, it should only be a matter of time before the flag and \ or footprints can be seen from earth. Its taking alittle longer than expected though.

I doubt the flag is still there. Afterall, its been at the mercy of all kinds of debris all this time. But who knows? Time will tell.
Colodia
19-05-2004, 05:42
Once Russia finishes construction of the biggest telescope with the current tech available, it should only be a matter of time before the flag and \ or footprints can be seen from earth. Its taking alittle longer than expected though.

I doubt the flag is still there. Afterall, its been at the mercy of all kinds of debris all this time. But who knows? Time will tell.

It should still be there...in fact, there should be seven flags on the moon.
Almighty Sephiroth
21-05-2004, 15:05
Come on, you numbnuts don't really believe the first moonlanding was real, do you? Think for a second (a difficult task, but bear with me). Neil Armstrong left his footprints in the DUST. What dust? Oh, you mean the dust that should have been blown away for miles around after the rocket landed, leaving no blast crater? Yes, that dust.

Kids, this is what happens when you don't think and believe any sort of propaganda you hear.

Neil Armstrong left his footprints in the DUST...*rambles...*...dust that should have been blown away for miles around after the rocket landed

Read this a couple of times (a difficult task for you I'm sure) and you'll see your problem.

Oh, and read what the guy earlier said about the atmosphere conditions. Well said.

Whatever, I got more stuff on it. I know it was fake. just try me.
Enerica
21-05-2004, 15:20
I always thought the most compelling evidence for the Moon landings was the 300kg+ of rock they returned.

I'd have thought the flippin' great hunk of metal that came hurtling back through the atmosphere was pretty convincing too. :lol:
Jeldred
21-05-2004, 16:19
Come on, you numbnuts don't really believe the first moonlanding was real, do you? Think for a second (a difficult task, but bear with me). Neil Armstrong left his footprints in the DUST. What dust? Oh, you mean the dust that should have been blown away for miles around after the rocket landed, leaving no blast crater? Yes, that dust.

Kids, this is what happens when you don't think and believe any sort of propaganda you hear.

Neil Armstrong left his footprints in the DUST...*rambles...*...dust that should have been blown away for miles around after the rocket landed

Read this a couple of times (a difficult task for you I'm sure) and you'll see your problem.

Oh, and read what the guy earlier said about the atmosphere conditions. Well said.

Whatever, I got more stuff on it. I know it was fake. just try me.

Oh, go on, please, I have time on my hands. It always ends the same way, with the conspiracy-theorist ranting "well i just don't beleive it its all faked", but it whiles away the hours. What do you want to try first? "No stars"? "Multiple shadows"? "Dust from footprints falling too fast"? "Van Allen belts"? Tell you what: why don't you start off with an explanation of how NASA got 300+ lbs of moon rock, which they were able to hand out to scientists around the world (some of whom would have been delighted to prove that the whole thing was faked). Go on. You might also try and explain why the Soviet Union never claimed the landings were fake, or how such a vast conspiracy could remain undetected all over the world until it was exploded by...

(drumroll)

...a ninny with a website!

(ting!)

And they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for them pesky kids.
Thunderland
21-05-2004, 16:35
If you were going to fake a landing, why not go for Mars? The moon is pretty boring after all. Its just a glorified piece of rock that got caught up in the Earth's gravitational pull. But Mars?

Oh, and to all the conspiracy theorists, didn't you know that picture was actually airbrushed to remove the green thumprint at the top left??? I'm telling you, it was there! My cousin's brother's wife's father's aunt's mother's best friend's college roommate works for NASA and says so!
Bodies Without Organs
21-05-2004, 16:38
Tell you what: why don't you start off with an explanation of how NASA got 300+ lbs of moon rock, which they were able to hand out to scientists around the world (some of whom would have been delighted to prove that the whole thing was faked).

An unmanned probe with a shovel attached.


Obviously.
Jeldred
21-05-2004, 16:43
Tell you what: why don't you start off with an explanation of how NASA got 300+ lbs of moon rock, which they were able to hand out to scientists around the world (some of whom would have been delighted to prove that the whole thing was faked).

An unmanned probe with a shovel attached.


Obviously.

A secretly launched, and covertly retrieved, UMPWaSA, using technology in 1969 which we haven't been able to use on any other probes since -- presumably to avoid blowing the UMPWaSA's cover. As you say, it's obvious. :)
Bodies Without Organs
21-05-2004, 16:48
Tell you what: why don't you start off with an explanation of how NASA got 300+ lbs of moon rock, which they were able to hand out to scientists around the world (some of whom would have been delighted to prove that the whole thing was faked).

An unmanned probe with a shovel attached.


Obviously.

A secretly launched, and covertly retrieved, UMPWaSA, using technology in 1969 which we haven't been able to use on any other probes since -- presumably to avoid blowing the UMPWaSA's cover. As you say, it's obvious. :)

Well if the conspriacy theorists are going to argue that the Van Allen radiation belts are the major problem, then all they need to do is suggest that the LEM did in fact land on the moon, but was in fact an UMPWaSA. Thus there is little need for secret launch/covert recovery.
Jeldred
21-05-2004, 17:05
Well if the conspriacy theorists are going to argue that the Van Allen radiation belts are the major problem, then all they need to do is suggest that the LEM did in fact land on the moon, but was in fact an UMPWaSA. Thus there is little need for secret launch/covert recovery.

Ah! Just insert the "astronauts" into the UMPWaSA's returno-pod after splashdown, and then show them "emerging"! Brilliant.

Mind you, I'd love to see the design for a 1969 remote landing/sample collection and return module. This is the problem with this particular conspiracy theory: pretty soon it just becomes easier to send the astronauts.
Bodies Without Organs
21-05-2004, 17:11
Mind you, I'd love to see the design for a 1969 remote landing/sample collection and return module. This is the problem with this particular conspiracy theory: pretty soon it just becomes easier to send the astronauts.

Well, take your generic LEM, use the space which otherwise would be used for life support/human occupancy and fill it with:

1.) a hopper for storage of rocks.
2.) an extending conveyor belt to carry samples into the hull.
3.) an extending arm with a shovel end.
4.) remote control devices for control of items #1-3
5.) remote control device for control of the LEM during landing and takeoff.

Nothing amazingly complex there. Certainly the Viking probe in 1976 was equipped with a sample collecting arm, so that is hardly massively beyond NASA's capabilities a couple of years previously. Remote control from Earth would be hindered only by short delays as the messages are in tranist, so I think it would certainly have been do-able.
Jeldred
21-05-2004, 17:33
Mind you, I'd love to see the design for a 1969 remote landing/sample collection and return module. This is the problem with this particular conspiracy theory: pretty soon it just becomes easier to send the astronauts.

Well, take your generic LEM, use the space which otherwise would be used for life support/human occupancy and fill it with:

1.) a hopper for storage of rocks.
2.) an extending conveyor belt to carry samples into the hull.
3.) an extending arm with a shovel end.
4.) remote control devices for control of items #1-3
5.) remote control device for control of the LEM during landing and takeoff.

Nothing amazingly complex there. Certainly the Viking probe in 1976 was equipped with a sample collecting arm, so that is hardly massively beyond NASA's capabilities a couple of years previously. Remote control from Earth would be hindered only by short delays as the messages are in tranist, so I think it would certainly have been do-able.

Hmm. Well, first of all, the LEM would have to make an automated landing. Viking had parachutes: no such luck on the moon. Successful soft landing by remote would be *very* dodgy with 1969 computers. It's dodgy enough now. Then, after all the various arms, conveyor belts etc. have been successfully deployed and samples gathered (again, under the direction of a computer less powerful than the average 2004 watch, and remembering that Viking's sample collector was a soil scoop on a stick), the LEM has to take off and dock with the return module. That creaky little sub-1K computer is really earning its keep, no? Then all the rocks have to be transferred across, before the return module breaks orbit for return to earth. Simpler and cheaper just to send three guys. Safer, too -- think of the appaling risk to America's international credibility if they got caught. Resignations, impeachments, the USA as a global laughing-stock: why take that risk?

If the Van Allen belts are indeed impossible for people to traverse alive, then the USA would hardly be worried about being beaten to the moon by the Russians, would they? If NASA couldn't send men, but could send a super robot probe decades ahead of its time, then they would have sent the probe, publicly.
Bodies Without Organs
21-05-2004, 17:51
Hmm. Well, first of all, the LEM would have to make an automated landing. Viking had parachutes: no such luck on the moon. Successful soft landing by remote would be *very* dodgy with 1969 computers. It's dodgy enough now.

Well, 5 out of 7 of the Surveyor moon probes (1966-1968) managed it succesfully. Moon probes do not seem to fail as often as Mars probes.



Then, after all the various arms, conveyor belts etc. have been successfully deployed and samples gathered (again, under the direction of a computer less powerful than the average 2004 watch, and remembering that Viking's sample collector was a soil scoop on a stick), the LEM has to take off and dock with the return module. That creaky little sub-1K computer is really earning its keep, no?

Deployment of arms and belts should be straightforward enough if controlled by dumb relays from mission control: there is nothing massively time critical going on here.

Take off is similarly unproblemmatic, which leaves the docking procedure with the Lunar Orbiter as the major challenge.

If the Van Allen belts are indeed impossible for people to traverse alive, then the USA would hardly be worried about being beaten to the moon by the Russians, would they?

The Soviet space programme had a different modus operandi to the American one - the Russians were prepared to jsut keep building bigger and bigger hammers to crack the nuts... thus, for all NASA kew, they could have been capable of placing a massively shielded space vessel on route to the moon. Even just after the fall of the USSR western visitors were shocked at just how large the Soviets were prepared to build.
Jeldred
21-05-2004, 18:15
Jeldred
21-05-2004, 18:17
Hmm. Well, first of all, the LEM would have to make an automated landing. Viking had parachutes: no such luck on the moon. Successful soft landing by remote would be *very* dodgy with 1969 computers. It's dodgy enough now.

Well, 5 out of 7 of the Surveyor moon probes (1966-1968) managed it succesfully. Moon probes do not seem to fail as often as Mars probes.

Well, the Surveyor probes were far simpler and smaller than this supposed UMPWaSA would be, but fair enough. Landing is only moderately tricky. 5 out of 7 isn't bad. It raises the stakes again, though, which I would have thought were high enough to begin with.

Then, after all the various arms, conveyor belts etc. have been successfully deployed and samples gathered (again, under the direction of a computer less powerful than the average 2004 watch, and remembering that Viking's sample collector was a soil scoop on a stick), the LEM has to take off and dock with the return module. That creaky little sub-1K computer is really earning its keep, no?

Deployment of arms and belts should be straightforward enough if controlled by dumb relays from mission control: there is nothing massively time critical going on here.

The arms have to select, sample and pick up rocks, not just scoop up soil. This is far, far trickier than you are making out, remote control from earth or not.

Take off is similarly unproblemmatic, which leaves the docking procedure with the Lunar Orbiter as the major challenge.

A major challenge which you haven't explained.

If the Van Allen belts are indeed impossible for people to traverse alive, then the USA would hardly be worried about being beaten to the moon by the Russians, would they?

The Soviet space programme had a different modus operandi to the American one - the Russians were prepared to jsut keep building bigger and bigger hammers to crack the nuts... thus, for all NASA kew, they could have been capable of placing a massively shielded space vessel on route to the moon. Even just after the fall of the USSR western visitors were shocked at just how large the Soviets were prepared to build.

There are such things as The Laws of Physics. Of primary importance here is the one that says if you go through the Van Allen belts -- areas of diffuse radiation -- at the speed of a bullet it's roughly equivalent to getting an X-ray, but there are others. Rockets can only lift certain masses. You can only go so big with certain materials before the extra fuel required would itself require extra fuel to lift. Unless the USA believed the Soviets posessed ultra-light-weight, ultra-strong materials, or has their own working equivalent of Project Orion, they *knew* that they couldn't launch a heavily-shielded vehicle. Not that they needed to, but there you go.

And still, there is no credible reason why the USA should take such an extraordinary political risk. Why would Richard Nixon's government be so desperate to make good on one of Kennedy's promises that they would hazard everything in an insanely expensive and massive conspiracy? If they couldn't do it without the astronauts dying of radiation poisoning, why wouldn't they just say so -- especially if they had a super robot probe which could do everything the astronauts could? And if the Van Allen belts aren't dangerous, then why secretly send a robot probe inside an LEM designed for humans, when you could just send the humans?