Starship Orion helps debunk the Apollo Moon Landings!

I was watching the Discovery Channels new documentary “Starship Orion”. Orion is the new space craft being developed by NASA to go to the Moon, and possibly Mars later on.

They spent a lot of time explaining the research going into the heat shield Orion will need to return safely to Earth. This, and many other areas got me thinking – shouldn’t they have that information / data / technology if the went to the Moon in the Apollo craft? Sure they may want to revisit the data, and look at updated technologies, but in all seriousness, they were acting and R & D’ing like the Apollo missions had never happened! They were even trying to figure out were to put the windows, how big they should be, what shape they should be etc. etc.

If you were unaware of the Apollo missions before you watched this documentary, you could be excused for thinking that this was all new and the first time humans had planned such a feat.

In short, if you want evidence that disproves that NASA went to the Moon, then the whole Orion project helps out nicely. I for one now realise that this going to the Moon business is all new to NASA!

www.braeunig.us...
This gives a detailed analysis of everything the "moon landing hoaxers" bring up.

Well for one thing the Orion is not one of the Apollo shuttles. different ships, different variables. For another, every new ships needs to be designed from the ground up.
When you are throwing around millions of dollars 'Hey, this worked last time!" Only gets tossed in if it actually works this time. Traveling into space is not easy, and traveling to the moon is really only any easier because we've already been there. Heck, recent missions to orbit will show you how hard it can be to get the ships to space.
SO, OMG they are going over everything over and over again instead of relying on old stuff.
You strap yourself to a rocket sometime and see how careful you want to beabout it.

How is the design of a completely new spacecraft evidence of the Moon landings being fake? Every thing needs to be redone from scratch, so of course there is going to be a lot of R&D on all sorts of things. There are materials availible now that wern't around in the 60's. Construction methods have changed as well. So it's not as simple as just looking up old Apollo data, it may be a good reference, but that's about it.

There is also a generation gap between the people who worked on the Apollo program and the new Constellation program. So a lot of relearning needs to be done. This is what happens to any industry that stops doing something for a time and then tries to do it again several decades later.

I can answer that easily! They need to build the whole things from scratch because they've lost the old data, seriously NASA announced that already a while back and there was a short documentary on youtube explaining how NASA had lost almost all of the old data and designes.

You should check it out, search for "NASA forgot how to go to the moon" in the search function and you'll find a thread where this is all explained already soooo please don't make this another "The Moon-Landing-Was-Faked-Thread" cause we have about 3 Billion of them already

cheers!

I think the OP makes a valid argument. They really should have alot of the answers that they apparently don't know according to them

1. they should know the thickness and installation procedures for the windows

2, they should know what is needed for heat shield to work.

3. they have stated that they would use alot of the old technology and "not re-invent the wheel" if so this ought to be a piece of cake.

One would have to ask, "why are they re-inventing the wheel?"

I think I might actually need to get glasses. I read the title as "Starship Onion helps debunk the Apollo Moon Landings" for almost 5 minutes.

And now I have absolutely nothing further to say.

Originally posted by ObamaMomma
I think the OP makes a valid argument. They really should have alot of the answers that they apparently don't know according to them

1. they should know the thickness and installation procedures for the windows

Window thickness and installation proceedure will always vary with the exact material used, shape, and size of the window. If this were proof of some kind of conspiracy, then you'd have to be suggesting that the shuttle and space station, which both have windows, are hoaxes. Are you saying the shuttle's a hoax? How about the space station?

2, they should know what is needed for heat shield to work.

They know what is needed, that's defined by the trajectory, speed, and consequential temperature, the question is how best to meet that need? Mass is a precious commodity on a spacecraft; the lighter you can make a component the more stuff you can take with you and the farther you can go. The apollo heatshield was 848kg and it protected a capsule much smaller than the orion will be. It is desireable to use modern materials to create a new heatshield from scratch that will be lighter but offer the same heat protection, probably through ablation.

3. they have stated that they would use alot of the old technology and "not re-invent the wheel" if so this ought to be a piece of cake.

Therefore they should reuse the old heat shield because you said so? They're not reinventing the wheel here; they're using the same technique to protect the spacecraft from re-entry, but like everything else about orion they want to do the same thing better than it was done before. Just because you switched to new run-flat tires from a firestone blowout deathtrap doesn't mean you "re-invented the wheel."

An uncle of mine was the machine shop manager for the company that made the heat shields for the apollo program.
He was even almost killed during a test, when they were pressure testing a sheild assembly and it exploded.
One thing is that with the Orion program, they are trying to replace the very heavy metal heat shields used in the apollo program, with something much lighter and easier to make.
The metals used are very very heavy. The heat sheild on an apollo vehicle weighed more than the capsule and service module put together.

WE WENT TO THE MOON

The real question is why we stopped going.

How are they planning to shield from solar radiation?

My best understanding was that Apollo flew naked. No radiation shielding.
I consider that preposterous, since even NASA used to say that one solar flare and the would all be dead men. Even non-flare radiation is no joke once you are out of the Earth's magnetosphere. I will only believe that man has left the shelter of the Earth when they can credibly explain their radiation shielding.

If they cannot answer that question, just laugh at them. They have no credability.

reply to post by Cyberbian


I'm pretty sure you are right about solar flares, I remember reading about it awhile back. However solar flares are fairly predictable, arising about every eleven or so years. So they weren't exactly a danger there. If you are talking about the Van Allen belt radiation, he was quoted as saying the radiation actually would not harm the astronauts that badly.

Originally posted by Cyberbian
My best understanding was that Apollo flew naked. No radiation shielding.
I consider that preposterous, since even NASA used to say that one solar flare and the would all be dead men. Even non-flare radiation is no joke once you are out of the Earth's magnetosphere. I will only believe that man has left the shelter of the Earth when they can credibly explain their radiation shielding.

If they cannot answer that question, just laugh at them. They have no credability.

Of course Apollo had radiation shielding. Not enough for a major solar flare, but the Apollo missions happened durring a solar minimum and the space craft had enough shielding to deal with the Van Allen belts and normal particle flux from the Sun.

What they should do is when they retire a shuttle or two, is just leave them in orbit and use them to fly to the moon. They would have to figure out how to refuel them, but it could buy them some time if the Orion is behind schedule. Once they're up there, they just stay, so in order to come home you dock at the space station and you use a Russian lander to come home. The moon landing module can ride in the back of the shuttle.
Use what you got.

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
What they should do is when they retire a shuttle or two, is just leave them in orbit and use them to fly to the moon. They would have to figure out how to refuel them, but it could buy them some time if the Orion is behind schedule. Once they're up there, they just stay, so in order to come home you dock at the space station and you use a Russian lander to come home. The moon landing module can ride in the back of the shuttle.
Use what you got.

I've heard this idea before. It'd be nice, but unfortunately the shuttle's have a very limited power supply due to their fuel cells. The shuttles were recently upgraded to accept a power transfer from the space station while docked, but unfortunately that only buys them a very limited amount of time before they have to go home or run out of power. Refueling the RCS system is no easy task either, and even when fully fueled it doesn't have nearly the delta-V needed for a trans-lunar injection burn. It'd be nice if we could at least use them as a 7 man emergency return vehicle for the station, but the fuel cell problem is insurmountable without heavy (and expensive) redesigning of the shuttle's systems.

Originally posted by ObamaMomma
I think the OP makes a valid argument. They really should have alot of the answers that they apparently don't know according to them

1. they should know the thickness and installation procedures for the windows ...

So if I knew the procedure for correctly replacing the windshield (windscreen) in a 1967 Ford Mustang , then I should already know exactly how to replace the windshield in a 2008 Ford Mustang? Or do you think those procedures would be different?

And if I was building a 2008 Mustang, couldn't I just use the same type of window used in the 1967 model, or would I need to spend time and money developing a new one? I mean both windshields serve the same general purpose -- why would the 2008 one be any different? [/sarcasm]

Do you really want the Orion Capsule to use the same materials and fabrication techniques that they used over 40 years ago for the Apollo program? That doesn't sound like "progress" to me.


[edit on 6/26/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Yes, they need to design it from the ground up.

There's new minaturized tech, new materials, new products. The moon landings were in the 1960's and early 1970's -- when engineers still did calculations on slide rules and there really weren't things like onboard computers. Why would we use technology that's almost 50 years old (and isn't terribly safe) when we can build it better?

You can find it interesting that NASA, an organization teaming with Nazis in its highest administrative offices (granted, not all employees of course) would choose this Star System, the self same one which was the favorite of their beloved Adolph who believed he was in contact with aliens from Orion.

Here is what can be garnered from the Terra Papers regarding Orion:

Orions:
Eridanus Reptile Man SSS Reptilians or Masters (ARI) from Heaven (AN) or "Arians". SSS-T Queens from Orion using Mind Control and M-K or M-G Crocodile Warriors, Magi and Magicians, Occult masters. They are manifest forces in many Aryan movements and in racial supremacy groups.

So this is indeed an SS adventure with a hidden space agenda we will never know.

If you're interested in the Terra Papers you can download them at my signature link or at www.scribd.com...

This is not a voucher or endorsement of this account of human/extraterrestrial history. Only it is interesting to notice the coincidence of naming this vessel by the star system in Ursa Major used to illustrate the Nazi Swastika.

reply to post by WatchNLearn


Its clear from your post that you know diddly squat about engineering!
there is no standard for spacecraft, all different designs pose there own challenges to be overcome.

Can see why. I saw a show recently and basically they know nothing about earlier stuff because all the stuff went missing and was NEVER documented and you can in fact find tons of parts at junk shops , nasa has to go to them and study them just to see how they function and what led to the reasons they function the way they do

pretty sad.

Originally posted by NLDelta9
Can see why. I saw a show recently and basically they know nothing about earlier stuff because all the stuff went missing and was NEVER documented and you can in fact find tons of parts at junk shops , nasa has to go to them and study them just to see how they function and what led to the reasons they function the way they do

pretty sad.

Where on Earth did you hear this? What show? Because that's not true what so ever. Everything is documented. The aerospace industry is full of nothing but paperwork and documentation. Lots of the data from the Apollo program (and other projects) is kept stored away in various places. Not everything is kept of course, but to say it was "never documented" is completely false.