Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

originally posted by: FoosM
Video evidence, and transcripts from the astronauts contradict your assertions

Throttleable Descent Engine

DESCENT STAGE
Height: 3.8 m
Maximum diameter: 4.3 m / 9.4 m (diagonally across landing legs)
Total mass: 10,465 kg for H-series (J-series: 11,665 kg)
Propellant mass: 8,355 kg (8,873 kg)
Descent engine
thrust: throttleable 4.67-43.90 kN
propellant: NTO/Aerozine-50
specific impulse: 311 s
delta v: 2,470 m/s
Power: Ag-Zn batteries; 4 × 415 Ah each, 28 V DC; 48 kWh for H-series (5 × 415 Ah, 60 kWh J-series)
Descent trajectory (min:s)
00:00 - start descent; altitude 15.2 km, velocity 1,700 m/s, thrust 100%
06:00 - throttle down; thrust 55%
08:30 - pitchover; altitude 2.3 km
12:30 - landing; velocity at touchdown 1 m/s

Contact Probes/Contact Light

When touching down on the lunar surface, the Apollo lunar module could be damaged from the descent propulsion system engine exhaust gases, either because they would blow debris from the surface or simply from the blast bouncing off the surface and back at the LM. Thus, they needed to stop the engine when they were still several feet off of the lunar surface. There were concerns (which turned out to be well-founded) that dust blown up might obscure the astronauts' sight during the final moments before touchdown.

The solution to this dilemma was the use of lunar surface sensing probes. Mounted on the bottom of the landing gear's foot pad, they were essentially five-foot-long "feelers": Once one touched the lunar surface, a lunar surface "contact light" lit, indicating to the crew that they were in close proximity to the surface and that they should cut the DPS engine.

Lunar Surface Sensing Probe -- Source 1

Lunar Surface Sensing Probe -- Source 2, With images


Contact Light Engine Cutoff Written Procedures

In considering the control of the landing, emphasis has been placed on the method of timing of shutting off the descent engine. Because of possible unsymmetrical nozzle failure due to shock ingestion and a desire to limit erosion of the landing surface, an operating constraint of having the descent engine off at touchdown has been accepted. Probable errors in altitude information from either the inertial system or from the landing radar preclude the use of this information for the engine cutoff function, even though the accuracy may be of the order of five feet, because of the deleterious effect on touchdown vertical velocities. The need for an accurate, discrete indication of the proper altitude to cut the descent engine off led to the adoption of probes extending beneath the landing pads rigged to cause a light in the cockpit to turn on upon probe contact with the lunar surface. The light-on signal informs the pilot that the proper altitude has been reached for engine cutoff. The probe length must be determined from a consideration of delay times in pilot response, descent engine shutoff valve closures, and tail-off and the nominal descent velocities. The sequence of events is shown in figure 52.

Source:
Apollo Lunar Module Landing Strategy (Info taken From NASA Publications)


[running out of space -- continued in the post below...]

[Continued from post above]


Actual Procedures Used at landings

For all landings except for Apollo 11, the engines were cut prior to landing (cut when the contact probes indicated lunar contact). For Apollo 11, Armstrong did not hear Aldrin call out "Contact Light"; therefore the engines were not shut down until they landed (or very close to landing):

From the Apollo 11 Surface Journal:

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light.

[At least one of the probes hanging from three of the footpads has touched the surface. Each of them is 67 inches (1.73 meters) long.]

[Apollo 11 photograph AS11-40-5921 shows the area under the Descent Stage. A gouge mark made by the probe hanging down from the minus-Y (south) footpad is directly under the engine bell, a graphic demonstration that the spacecraft was drifitng left during the final seconds.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "We continued to touchdown with a slight left translation. I couldn't precisely determine (the moment of) touchdown. Buzz called lunar contact, but I never saw the lunar contact lights."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I called contact light."]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I'm sure you did, but I didn't hear it, nor did I see it."]

102:45:43 Armstrong (onboard): Shutdown

102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Engine Stop.

[Neil had planned to shut the engine down when the contact light came on, but didn't manage to do it.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I heard Buzz say something about contact, and I was spring-loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don't know...whether the engine-off signal was before (footpad) contact. In any event, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface."]

[Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."]

[Aldrin - "You wouldn't describe it as 'rock' (as in, 'dropping like a rock'). It was a sensation of settling."]

[Some of the other crews shut down 'in the air' (meaning 'prior to touchdown') and had a noticeable bump when they hit.]

[Aldrin - (Joking) "Well, they didn't want to jump so far to the ladder."]

[Communications shown in white; commentary highlighted in color]


But there still would not necessarily be a blast crater nor piles of dust on the pads. As mentioned, the descent engine was throttled back at landing, so the full force of the plume was not digging into the soil. Plus, the sub-surfce is generally hard-pack, and not loose material. In addition, the loose dust was blown clear.

Armstrong mentions the dust being thrown clear, and mentions how odd it was to see the dust simply drop when then engines were shut down. He knew logically that the dust particles would behave this way in the absence of an atmosphere, but he was still surprised when actually seeing it:

[On a final note about engine shutdown, Ken Glover calls attention to the following from an interview done with Neil on 19 September 2001 by historians Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley at NASA Johnson.]

[Brinkley: "Was there anything about your Moon walk and collecting of rocks and the like that surprised you at that time when you were on the Moon, like, 'I did not expect to encounter this,' or, 'I did not expect it to look like this'? Or included in that, the view of the rest of space from the Moon must have been quite an awesome thing to experience."]

[Armstrong: "I was surprised by a number of things, and I'm not sure (I can) recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon. I was surprised by the trajectory of dust that you kicked up with your boot, and I was surprised that even though logic would have told me that there shouldn't be any, there was no dust when you kicked. You never had a cloud of dust there. That's a product of having an atmosphere, and when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust."

I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised."]

Source:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Youtubes videos of various landings indicating that the "contact" or "contact light" call out was made:

Apollo 11; "contact light" callout at the 8:49 mark:


Apollo12' "contact light" callout at the 5:07 mark:



[More on Apollo 12 and the contact light/engine shutdown in the next post...]

[More on Apollo 12 and the contact light/engine shutdown, continued from the previous post...]

Transcript from the Apollo 12 landing:

[110:32:29 Bean: 18 feet, coming down at 2. He's got it made! Come on in there. 24 feet.

110:32:35 Bean: Contact Light.

110:32:36 Carr: Roger. Copy Contact.

[The Mission Report gives the time of contact as 110:32:36, which is 06:54:36 UTC on 19 November 1969.]

[Jones - "I gather from the tech debrief that you actually dropped the last two or three feet."]

[Conrad - "You're supposed to."]

[Jones - "And the theory on that was?"]

[Conrad - "Lunar contact light came on and the probes were six feet below the gear. We were supposed to shut the engine off right then because they did worry about the bell mouth too close to the ground."]

[Bean - "Or hitting a rock and denting the bell mouth."]

[Conrad - "And I said, always, 'I'll never do that; who wants to shut off a good engine when you're still in the air?' But we had to train to shut it off. Neil landed with his (engine still) on. And, so, I was going to do the same thing. And, whoever said 'lunar contact light', I went 'bamm' and shut it down. (Laugh) Somewhere in there, I think there's an 'Oh #'. Or there almost was. But about that time we were on (the Moon), and I didn't have to get it (the 'oh #') the rest of the way out. I remember that."]

[What Pete is saying is that he intended to keep the engine running until they were down, just as Neil had done. During training, he was a good boy and always shut the engine off immediately after the contact light came on. By the time they were actually landing, shutting the engine off promptly had become so ingrained that he had shut it down before he remembered that he'd wanted to leave it on.]

[Bean - "Probably didn't get the VOX (triggered). Sort of like Neil saying 'A small step' or whatever it is that didn't get out."]

[Conrad, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I had my head in the cockpit when the Lunar Contact light came on and I instinctively hit the Stop button and that's how we got shut off in the air. We were, I'd estimate, 2 or 3 feet in the air still when I shut down the engine and it dropped right on in. We landed on a slight slope; therefore, the right, plus-Y (north) gear pad touched first and tipped the vehicle to my left. The vehicle plopped on (to the surface) on all four gear at that point, with no skid marks that we could determine (when examining the footpads during the first EVA), other than the first pad touchdown. ...]

[Communications shown in white; commentary highlighted in color]

Source:
history.nasa.gov...

More on the contact light/engine shutdown procedure (continued)

Apollo 15 Landing Transcript:

104:42:14 Irwin: 15 at 1. Minus 1, minus 1; six percent fuel.

104:42:22 Irwin: 10 feet. Minus 1.

104:42:27 Irwin: 8 feet. Minus 1.

104:42:29 Irwin: Contact. (Pause) Bam!

[Irwin - "We did hit harder than any of the other flights! And I was startled, obviously, when I said, 'Bam!' (Laughing) And I think Dave didn't particularly appreciate my comment, that he made a hard landing on the Moon!"]

[I have been able to find estimates of the vertical speed at touchdown on five of the six landings. Neil Armstrong's was the lowest at 1.7 feet/second because he didn't get the engine shutdown until after the footpads were on the surface. On Apollo 12, 14, and 17, the landing speeds were all between 3.0 and 3.5 feet/second. Dave's was by far the highest at 6.8 fps, most likely because he was the fastest to hit the engine stop button and, therefore, fell the farthest.]

104:42:36 Scott: Okay, Houston. The Falcon is on the Plain at Hadley.

104:42:40 Mitchell: (With background applause in Houston) Roger, Roger, Falcon.

104:42:48 Irwin: No denying that. We had contact (that is, it was a hard bump).

[Scott, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "When Jim called a Contact Light, I pushed the Stop button, which had been in the plan. Knowing that the extension on the engine bell was of some concern relative to ground contact (the bell was ten inches longer than those on previous LM's to give improved engine performance and allow them to carry more equipment), it had been my plan to shut the engine down as soon as possible after Jim called the contact and to attempt to be at some very low descent rate, which we felt we were at that time."]

[According to the Apollo 15 Mission Report, their descent rate at Contact was 0.5 feet per second.]

[Scott, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "The next event was the contact with the ground, which I guess was somewhat harder than the 1 foot per second. One of the sensations which helped me prepare (for the actual landing) was contact on the order of 1 foot per second, which feels rather hard with a tightly sprung system like you have on either of those two vehicles (the LM and the LLTV)."]

[At touchdown, their descent rate was 6.8 feet per second and they were drifting north at 1.2 fps and west at 0.6 fps. A quick calculation using descent rates of 0.5 feet per second at contact and 6.8 feet per second at touchdown indicates that Dave got the engine off at an altitude of about 4.3 feet and that they had a free-fall time of about 1.2 seconds.]

[Jones - "Do you remember the landing, itself?"]

[Scott - "Yes. Absolutely. Yeah, we hit firm. And one of the reasons - and Jim and I talked about it after we got down - of course, is that you don't know how it's going to feel when you land on the Moon until you land on the Moon. So I don't know what the other guys...I've never looked at the acceleration on touchdown. I don't know how to compare it. But it was a firm touchdown. One reason was, remember, we had to get the engine off. So, by golly, as soon as we got the contact light, the engine goes off. Another reason is we were the heaviest LM, so we're going to fall harder (but not faster) once we get the engine shut down. And another reason was we landed in that little crater, so when we touched down, we touched down probably one foot and then the other foot into the crater. So it was a firm landing, and Jim was probably surprised, not expecting it. I'm expecting it, because I'm flying it. And it's, again, the guy in the front seat versus the guy in the back seat. The guy in the front seat is tuned to what's going on, and the guy in the back seat isn't. So he'll be somewhat behind in the event. So what Jim was saying was 'Wow, we really had contact'."]

[Jones - "And his 'Bam'...The interval in there is long enough that it was the contact light, then the hit and his 'Bam'."]

[Scott - "And it surprised him. You know, whap, 'Bam'. But I'm in the loop. I know what's going to happen. He's calling these things, but he's not really in the loop. So it's a real surprise to him. Another interesting analogy is, in airplanes, in doing certain tests you do a lot of rolls. Test Pilots School is an example, when you went out and did many, many rolls, you never took anybody in the backseat, because they'd get sick. The guy in the front seat doesn't get sick, because he's doing it. The guy in the back seat gets sick. I don't care who you are. Some guys don't get sick anyway. But some of the real macho kind of guys who tell you 'You can't get me sick in an airplane.' Come along, fellow. I can get you sick; because I can do enough rolls in an airplane that I won't get sick in the front seat because I'm in the loop and I'm doing it, but the guy in the back seat will because he's not in the loop. It's the same kind of thing here. An instance of surprise."]

[They landed right over the northwest rim of a crater about 5 feet deep and 15 to 25 feet across and came to rest with the spacecraft titled back 6.9 degrees and to the left (south) 8.6 degrees. The main reason for shutting off the engine at Contact was to prevent a build up of pressure in the case that the engine bell came into contact with the ground. Because they landed straddling a crater rim, the bell did come into contact with the ground and, according to the Apollo 15 Mission Report, the buckling of the engine bell reported by the crew once they got outside may have been caused by a pressure build up, rather than the impact. The crater rim was quite soft and would have yielded instead of causing buckling of the bell.]

[Communications shown in white; commentary highlighted in color]

Source:
history.nasa.gov...

Apollo 15 landing:

originally posted by: FutureWithoutFuture4
Not that is matters or that anyone important will read this.

The truth is US did put a man on the moon, and the truth is later missions to moon were staged because of what frightened the NASA on the moon when they got there.

I am just showing off here with this post, who cares, moving on.

Certainly I am unimportant, and whether or not I care is also unimportant. However I have encountered your reply here and been piqued. How have I come across a small reply in a HOAX thread hidden half way through 30 pages of falderall?
Simple enough. It's Xmas morning and my wife is sleeping in. I zip into ATS and find your thread about ATS being infiltrated by the CIA and zippo bango it is shut down in a flash. CIA, matters not? Anyway just for stihs and giggles I checked out your profile and found a new member who has posted a number of threads centered on the CIA. Well sometimes I like to read others take on the CiA as long ago in the late sixties I had my college career run off the rails by Operation Chaos.

Also, sometimes when I have nothing better to do, I like to follow other people here, kinda stalk them, to get some sort of cross referencing to flesh out what kind of characters we are interacting with here. This morning I decided to do this with you. As usual I encountered the very fast, rush through the mandatory 20 replies before the authoring threads threshold and sure enough, found the standard rate of about one reply every three minutes or so. Quite common among folk who have urgent messages to impart.

However, unlike the common "jack threw the ball against the wall, that's all" kind of replies, yours seemed to have some intelligence and evidence of consciousness behind them. Then I came upon this reply. The objective announcement of total unimportance of what most of us have to say, other than to ourselves of course, was refreshing. As you typed "I am just showing off here with this post, who cares, moving on.' I could almost sense your chuckling to yourself at the inanity of it all.

Anyway fwf4, I am through stalking you now but if you want to go a little, not much though, into what you think that NASA found on the moon, I would be interested in hearing, as maybe, just maybe, you might be someone who might actually know something rather than the regular fools who repeat what they read that was written by someone who knows someone who found the truth hidden under a rock in their neighbors back yard.

So there you have it. I"m off now to do something important , like an hour or so of Minesweeper before I take my annual Xmas afternoon nap. Merry Xmas and don't forget. Next Thursday, Rosebowl, be there or be square and GO DUCKS

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think you meant Go Kings...

a reply to: raymundoko Now how in the heck have you ended up way down here at the end of this obscure thread? Also I must admit that your reference to Go Kings is waaaaaay over my head. For those of us up here in Oregon, there is only one game that day. Ducks vrs Seminoles.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: raymundoko Now how in the heck have you ended up way down here at the end of this obscure thread? Also I must admit that your reference to Go Kings is waaaaaay over my head. For those of us up here in Oregon, there is only one game that day. Ducks vrs Seminoles.

Is not all of space obscure - deficient of light?

Yes, that CIA post was closed down quickly - ATS staff are senstitive about that stuff here after the whole ordeal around John Lear back in 2008(?), Google "John Lear ATS CIA" and you will see what it was all about.

-MM

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I thought you were making a Hockey ref In which case I prefer the Kings over the Ducks.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Thanks for that reference. I googled as you suggested and watched the video. He seems an earnest fellow. Sadly, we cannot assume that ANY medium of information exchange is free of 'tainted' intent, be it chaos presented by lone jokers all the way up to those who represent total order, which of course means total control. I remain yours, ever vigilant, I suppose for the bits and pieces that float below the radar. Like in the recesses of hoax threads. Thanks

If the CIA, or some other US alphabet agency, is concerned by people
discussing the topic of the Apollo moon landing being fake, then that is
proof that the moon landing was faked.

originally posted by: Box of Rain
[Continued from post above]


Actual Procedures Used at landings

For all landings except for Apollo 11, the engines were cut prior to landing (cut when the contact probes indicated lunar contact). For Apollo 11, Armstrong did not hear Aldrin call out "Contact Light"; therefore the engines were not shut down until they landed (or very close to landing):

So right there you proved my point.

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The regolith of the moon was said to be powdery and fine to a depth of a couple of inches, with harder and more packed regolith beneath that.

Who claimed that? Apollo astronauts? That's like proving the bible with the bible.
Which missions were used to test the ground, where did they land, and did the craft land on the moon?

edit to add:

Thomas Gold asserted, however, that the apparently smooth areas on the moon were likely to be covered with a layer of fine dust several meters thick, raising the prospect that the lunar module might sink out of sight with only a short-lived dust cloud to mark its disappearance.10 There was the further possibility that the surface might be so cluttered with boulders and pitted with small craters that the lander would find no level spot large enough to land - or if it tried to land, would turn over or come to rest tilted at an angle that made return to orbit difficult.

NASA had been hoping that Ranger's television photographs would shed light on these questions, but by the end of 1963 Ranger had experienced its fifth failure in as many attempts and was undergoing a critical reappraisal. [see Chapter 2] 11 Spacecraft engineers at Houston's Manned Spacecraft Center, meanwhile, in spite of their real need for this information in designing the lunar landing module, had to go ahead without it.12 Lunar Orbiter, still in the early stages, would have to provide the information that mission planners needed for site selection. The spacecraft builders could only hope that data from Surveyor, when they got it, would not force them to revise their design too drastically.

www.hq.nasa.gov...


So the LM was designed to land in what type of ground??

originally posted by: Box of Rain

By the way, this is also good evidence for this landing being in vacuum conditions. On Earth with an atmosphere (such as in a studio), you would expect the dust to remain suspended in the air for a while, creating a cloud. So, if this was done on earth, the air-suspended dust would in fact hang there long enough to be able to fall upon the landing pad. However, there is no atmosphere on the Moon, so there is no air in which the dust could remain suspended. There would be no dust cloud - only dust that would be blown along a parabolic path, falling back to the surface along that parabolic path. Granted, the dust would fall at 1.62 m/sec/sec, but that is still much faster than powdery dust on Earth falls, which can stay suspended in the air for a minute or more.

During landing, the impact of rocket exhaust with the surface produced dust clouds. On some missions, dust became visible 30 to 50 meters above the surface, and during the final 10 to 20 meters of descent, the surface was largely obscured by the dust cloud. On other missions, the dust cloud was not as dense and the surface remained clearly visible throughout the landing.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Little Clouds Around Your Feet

And the dust! Dust got into everything. You walked in a pair of little dust clouds kicked up around your feet.

er.jsc.nasa.gov...

Just by walking, interesting.

a reply to: FoosM

did the dust linger???

on the moon a large amount of dust moving along a ballistic trajectory will look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger or billow??

if you kick up the dust on the moon, it will follow a ballistic trajectory but the amount will make it look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger/billow??

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

oops looks like we got ourselves a little "data miner" Terry here

Why I ought to be more careful

I am just a regular guy here, I have no real formal education, but I did travel to few continents, absorbed bunch of unrelated information. Which interestingly enough become very much related within my own thoughts.

For this reason I came to understand that selective and too specific - non - broad - education system does not produce quality thinkers.

On the issue of Moon and NASA

We know US has today capability to go to the moon, (secret space program, black budget etc)
We know bunch of US equipment was left on the moon from the 60s (we can see it)

We know there are big holes in NASA photo and other evidence of other moon missions.

What can we conclude ?

US did go to the moon, and then U-Turned never to go back officially.
Something told them, stay back "hairheads" (humans)


I mean sure it also helps to be the Camera Man working for Kubirck at the time on the NASA moon set.

KIDDING, just kidding.
(looking left and right wondering if it was a good idea to joke like this or to use the term "hairheads")

a reply to: FutureWithoutFuture4

Baseless conjecture?

a reply to: FoosM

The finely powdered lunar surface dust (at least as fine as talcum powder or bread flour) did not billow up into lingering clouds, as it would if there was a thick atmosphere. Instead, the dust just fell back along a parabolic trajectory, as would happen in the absence of air resistance, or in the absence of atmosphere that could suspend dust particles as billowy clouds

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: FutureWithoutFuture4

Baseless conjecture?

ok, so why are you still in Hoax labeled thread or even reading this nonsense

It does say beneath your alias "disinfo agent"

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: FoosM

did the dust linger???

on the moon a large amount of dust moving along a ballistic trajectory will look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger or billow??

if you kick up the dust on the moon, it will follow a ballistic trajectory but the amount will make it look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger/billow??

If you kicked up dust on the moon would there be some on your foot?