Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems by jfb.

The main reason we haven’t sent people back to the Moon is $$$$$$$$$$$$, even if we don’t take the pork-barrel nature of the American space program into account. Building and launching spacecraft capable of keeping people alive in deep space is fiendishly expensive. The engineering isn’t trivial. There have been advances in materials and electronics since the 1960s, but that has a minimal effect on the amount of mass you have to shift. We could do it again if we really wanted to; the problem is, when it comes down to it, we (or at least our elected representatives in Congress) don’t really want to. The Constellation program was supposed to be a sequel to Apollo, but it was never funded to the level necessary to be successful; all that survives of the program is the Orion capsule. And, FWIW, I agree that sending people back to the moon is not and should not be a priority.

Note that we have sent a number of unmanned missions back to the moon since Apollo: Clementine, Lunar Prospector, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. LRO has sent back images of the Apollo landing sites with high enough resolution to make out the footpaths the astronauts left behind. Unmanned missions offer much better bang for the buck; they require far less mass, they can stay on site for years at a time, they can perform tests in situ, and they don’t have to come home. For the cost of one manned mission we could pepper the surface with MER-style rovers that could do pretty much the same job.

More Comments on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems by jfb


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems

It’s not a C, it’s an O.

And it *looks* like some kind of inclusion (a pebble embedded in a slightly softer matrix rock). It looks like the surrounding matrix has eroded a bit, leaving a small channel around the …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems

From that same paper:

The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced by the high
speed (above 400 ASA) flight original films. The color films, 7296 and 5030, exhibited an
increase in minimum density and a decrease in …


More Comments by jfb


Who panned the camera?

His name was Ed Fendell, a controller in Houston in charge the remotely-controlled camera on the LRV.

Yes, he had to take the signal delay into account – he had to anticipate the liftoff and rate of ascent. …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

It doesn’t have to be pretty to work.

The foil acted as a thermal blanket, reflecting as much of the sunlight as possible to keep the base of the LM from overheating. The foil was only about 125 microns thick, …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

The blueprints *weren’t* destroyed; they’re on file at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Not that it matters; we couldn’t build the Saturn V today if we wanted to, because most of the technology it used is …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Proof

Did you know that many of the people involved in the moon landing died from a car crash?

Upwards of 90 people die *every day* in car crashes in the US; it’s not at all surprising that a lot people “involved …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems

It’s not a C, it’s an O.

And it *looks* like some kind of inclusion (a pebble embedded in a slightly softer matrix rock). It looks like the surrounding matrix has eroded a bit, leaving a small channel around the …