Wernher von Braun on the moon

originally posted by: Petra137
Fact is NASA "if" it went to the moon would have certainly kept going and expanding with US and allied interest, when North American was founded did they stop sending ships?

That's because North America had gold and tobacco, and you didn't need to bring all of your food and water and air with you to get it. It also wasn't covered with a layer of microscopic glass razor dust.

a reply to: TheGreatWork

What a bunch of poorly, manipulated CGI images and movies. One brief section looks very similar to the actual space hoax movie Capricorn One. Not to mention if they are going to perpetuate 400 MILLION dollar hoax they arent going to film anything showing them faking it, that alone makes no sense

a reply to: Petra137

Fact is NASA "if" it went to the moon they would have certainly kept going and expanding with US and allied interest, when North American was founded did they stop sending ships?.

Nonsense.

Fact is that the moon missions were ridiculously expensive. In 1966 NASA budget reached 4.4% of federal spending. Nowadays NASA budget is at 0.5%. Fact is that there was no point in continuing sending people up there.

To "expand interest" would have required something like a permament moon base, which would have been and endless money sink, given the need for continuous supply missions.

Wow! again we have somebody who is smarter than Sergei Korolev and the entire Russian 60's space program scientists....

We went to the moon.

We have rocks to prove it.

What do you mean the rocks have been stolen ?

It’s time to go back.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets


We did nt destroy the technology

The blueprints for the SATURN V exist in paper form and microfilm both in NASA Archives and at its manufacturer '
ROCKETBYNE

In fact in reason years ROCKETDYNE has been testing a simplified redesign of the F1 engines from r the first stage of Saturn V

Known as F1 B uses more simpler design and advanced manufacturing techniques - F1 engines were custom built by hand

arstechnica.com...

Of course facts don't matter to the conspiracy minded ……..

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets

We didn't destroy anything. All the blueprints, specs, tech data we have all of it. I was looking at the Moon buggy technical manual not too long ago. It has every single detail in it and that's just the buggy.

But This NASA man said we lost enough that we cant repeat the trip:



A blueprint and manual for a buggy is only proof that there was a working buggy. If NASA scientists say we dont have the moon-reaching technology anymore, and were trying to figure out how to get past low earth orbit which is only 1/20th of the way to outer space, then it doesnt seem likely that we made it to the moon 50 years ago with exponentially less computing power and technology.

a reply to: Petra137

As stated in numerous interviews, in what industry does technology get lost and forgotten?

Damn near every single tech company....
They COULD bring old tech back , but why ?

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Petra137

As stated in numerous interviews, in what industry does technology get lost and forgotten?

Damn near every single tech company....
They COULD bring old tech back , but why ?

I've got the answer to that very question on my computer. Now if I can just get it to read Wordstar on this 5-1/2 inch floppy disk...

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Gil Scott Heron... never figured him out......not too well known......
I thought I was only one ever heard of him....

"Mandate, my ass!"

a reply to: TheGreatWork

Seems very faked to me. Mish mash of clips and some photoshopping to put the people in the shot or have images appear where they might not have been.

Side note: My theory on the Moon Landing has changed somewhat. I do believe we went to the moon but Armstrong and co were not the ones to be first. I think they were staging maybe the first and second and it was a latter one who was actually the first. Both because of technology and the whole fact that Russia was at that point, winning the space race and with them looking to put man on the moon the US decided "America must be the best" and so set something up.

a reply to: cooperton

A blueprint and manual for a buggy is only proof that there was a working buggy.

a very amusing and fatally flawed concept of " proof "

as for the tech to go to the moon - apollo solutions are useless in the 21st century - all they would allow - is a recreation of the apollo missions

today and in the future - we need a massivly greater payload and endyrance - the ability to start work on a permanent // semi permanent lunar base

apollo cannot deliver that

thats why new tech is required

a reply to: Dwoodward85

Side note: My theory on the Moon Landing has changed somewhat. I do believe we went to the moon but Armstrong and co were not the ones to be first. I think they were staging maybe the first and second and it was a latter one who was actually the first. Both because of technology and the whole fact that Russia was at that point, winning the space race and with them looking to put man on the moon the US decided "America must be the best" and so set something up.

W R O N G

At the time frame, 1968-1969, Russia (then Soviet Union) were attempting to launch manned circum lunar flyby called ZOND

www.astronautix.com/s/soyuz7k-l1.html

Were experiencing severe issues both with PROTON heavy lift booster and the capsule, a modified Soyuz spacecraft

A Soviet manned lunar mission would require several launches of PROTON to carry spacecraft, lander and upper stages needed to escape Earth and to blast off from moon

Despite the secrecy of the Soviet space program the number of launches would have detected by US intelligence and tracked

Soviets believed that given NASA careful and methodical pace would not be able to land on moon before Kennedy timetable to land before 1970

NASA decided to roll the dice and accelerate the pace, it was the Zond missions which forced NADA hand starting with Apollo 8 .

Apollo 8 was designed as earth orbit check out of Lunar module (LEM) The LEM would not be ready until March 1960

A proposed series of high altitude missions with Apollo going midway to the moon was also scheduled

NASA decided to scrap the mission plan and literally "Shoot for the moon" launching Apollo 8 on lunar orbital
mission in December 1968

Was a bold high risk given that the previous test of SATURN V in April 68 had serious problems - 2 engines in second stage shutdown, 3rd stage failed to re light on command and severe vibrations. pogo, affected spacecraft

Von Braun team was able to solve them and get SATURN V ready in time

There are numerous books on the topic - suggest you read some of them before post ant more comments

Here's a recent overview of the Soviet side of the Moon Race;

www.astronautix.com...

a reply to: JimOberg
Interesting link, thanks.
When we look at those details about how closely the Soviets and Americans were monitoring each others progress, if becomes even more astonishing that some people can still think the moon landings were faked. In your link there's a link to a youtube video where the Luna 15 (crash) landing was monitored, and even the comments on the youtube video point out the same thing.

One point in the slides was that the soviets continued working on their program even after Apollo 11, hoping there could be some kind of embarrassing catastrophic failure of the American program that might still let them come out ahead. Mission failure was a possibility, and Apollo 13 was a close call so I wonder if that same risk was another reason besides money the Americans didn't keep sending missions to the moon, since they had not much to gain and a lot to lose since as Apollo 13 showed they were still high risk missions.

originally posted by: cooperton


Not what NASA says. Here is NASA saying "I'd go back to the moon in a nanosecond, the problem is we don't have that technology anymore... we used to but we destroyed that technology..."

By your logic that means everything that has ever become obsolete is potentially a hoax. Where are the factories still building the model T? Where can I purchase a new 1967 Mustang? Can you give a logical explanation as to why you think someone should spend tens of millions of dollars maintaining obsolete technology that they have no intention of using?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

After the Apollo 1 fire put a severe crimp in US moon program , Soviets still thought could beat US to moon

First was ZOND program to launch modified Soyuz in circumlunar flyby around moon -programs with spacecraft and PROTON booster delayed it

Soviets thought that given NASA plodding incremental style had a window to slip in and beat US

Nasa flipped the script and literally decided to "shoot for the moon" starting with Apollo 8 lunar orbit mission

Then Soviets had problem with enormous N class booster - it had some 30 rocket motors in first stage

Test flights ended in complete failures, the N booster blowing up in massive explosions shortly after launch

The success of Apollo 11 and subsequent flight caused Soviets to abandon manned attempts

Were able to land spacecraft on moon. grab few ounces of dirt and claiming this was superior to US program

originally posted by: firerescue
The success of Apollo 11 and subsequent flight caused Soviets to abandon manned attempts

According to Jim Oberg's slides in his link above:

"THEIR MAN-ONTO-THE-MOON PROGRAM WASN’T TERMINATED UNTIL 1972"

"Their" I assume means soviet, and the last Apollo mission (17) was in late 1972 so it sounds like maybe they didn't give up after the success of Apollo 11 but they certainly had huge problems with their 30 engine rocket design as you say, which seems like the biggest problem for their manned program.

I get the impression that even if the Soviets only had a rocket system that gave them a 40/60 chance of getting people to the Moon and back they would have risked it. You look back and even the US chances of succeeding were maybe only 50/50 or 60/40 at best. Sure we had casualties, but I feel that the Soviets were much more willing to sacrifice cosmonauts to get the job done if they had even an outside chance of success. Which they apparently didn't. But maybe that's just my Cold War propaganda brainwashing talking.

a reply to: Blue Shift
It's hard to say, maybe the Soviets had higher tolerance for risk, but the Soviet's N1 was launched 4 times and failed 4 times, so the success rate of that launch vehicle for manned moon landings was zero.

Apollos 11-17 were 7 missions, and 6 were successful (86% success rate for manned moon landing missions) and even on the 7th, nobody died so I don't know how you get "US chances of succeeding were maybe only 50/50 or 60/40 at best."