If NASA were able to carry out five completely successful Moon landings thirty years ago, why is it barely able to get the space shuttle into orbit today?

Firstly, officially, six mission classified as successful involved a landing. Secondly, the space shuttle only goes into Earth orbit because that's its design. Von Braun conceived the Space Shuttle as a cheap and easy means to transport personnel and payloads between Earth orbit stations, ie Skylab, and the surface. The Saturns and NERVAs were supposed to do the rest.

What he didn't count on was Nixon sabotaging the space program. He cancelled the Apollo program and ordered the hardware, including the gorgeous Saturn V's scrapped. However, he ordered that the Space Shuttle project go ahead. The idea was that Apollo was a democratic achievement and Nixon wanted America's pride and joy to be a republican achievement. So, a new vehicle, the Space Shuttle would take its place.

Moreover, why did every mission apart from Apollo 13 go perfectly?

They didn't. Apollo 11 had a computer overload. Apollo 12 got struck by lightening on launch. Apollo 14 nearly had to abort the mission and the first attempts at TD&E failed.

a) Although the only source of light was supposed to be the Sun, many photos show shadows which are not parallel (for example, the shadows of two astronauts standing on flat ground are not parallel). This suggests a much closer light source.

Give an example or an ID. We won't be able to respond to your argument unless you actually state it.

b) Some photos show two light sources. In fact, all the photos look very much as though they were taken in the dark using very bright spotlights.

Show us a photo and pinpoint the evidence. This is just subjective handwaving.

c) Some photos show artifacts. One shows a letter "C" carved on a rock; another shows a structure apparently floating in space a few metres above the ground.

This one has been done to death.

A third photo shows two astronauts reflected in the visor of a third one. (Yet there were never supposed to be more than two people on the Moon at the same time).

That a lot of kilometreage you get out of a few pixels. Can you provide us with a high resolution magnification of the area in question? It looks like this extra astronaut, as well as being very thin, has stolen Harry Potter's invisibility cloak and put it around his torso.

e) There is no crater, nor any sign of disturbance, under the Lunar Module. Yet its rockets would have blown dust and rocks away as it landed, and produced a crater.

There is evidence of raying and discolouration. But nothing along the lines of what conspiracists expect.

f) There is no dust on the rocks. Since there is no air on the Moon, there should be just as much dust on the rocks as on the rest of the surface, since there is nothing to blow it away.

Two problems:

1) Seismic activity and impacts would shake the dust off the rocks.

2) Dust forms on the grounds because of thermal shocks and micrometeroid impact. Thermal shocks don't tend to be as acute with the rocks because they are small and micrometeroid impact would probably knock the dust onto the ground.

Note that all of these photos can be seen on-line or ordered through NASA http://www.nasa.gov. The links below discuss the photographic anomalies in much more detail.

Very cordial of you. Except you haven't provided the IDs so we cannot know which ones we want.

g) There are no stars in any of the pictures. Stars are visible in pictures of space taken in Earth orbit, and are obviously visible from there. The only explanation that NASA gives is that it was "too bright". However, it is no brighter than it would be if you were in orbit around the Earth. Or maybe the problem is that it is harder to fake stars. (See discussion below).

There are no pictures taken from Earth orbit, which show stars (provided that there was no intention to capture them). That was a complete and bald faced lie.

h) On Earth, the atmosphere attenuates light, so that distant objects appear less sharp than objects close up. On the Moon, this would not happen. Yet several photos show backgrounds which disappear into the distance.

Again, no examples.

i) The lunar dust is totally dry. Yet the footprints look much like footprints on Earth: the moisture in the soil holds it together. On the Moon, the dust would not cling together, and any footprints would be much less well defined.

What has Terran soil got to do with Lunar soil?

(3) Although they were apparently operating under one-sixth gravity (and should therefore have been able to jump six times as high as on Earth) there is no film showing them doing this. According to NASA, their backpacks and suits increased their weight so much that their overall weight was only twice that on Earth. Unless the backpacks were full of lead, this seems unlikely. In fact, there is no evidence that they could jump even twice as high as on Earth.

Actually, they could jump over one metre to the third rung on the ladder. However, when they jumped, they had a tendancy to topple over.

a) the film would have either melted (in the heat) or snapped (in the cold). Unlike the astronauts, the cameras used were simply shielded from the Sun. The astronauts themselves apparently had special water-cooled spacesuits.

Of they're shielded from the sun, what else do they need to protect them from heat? How else are they going to pick up heat?

b) the visors would have cracked if they had been partly in a hot area and partly in a cold area (i.e., if a shadow fell across them).

Jay gave some details about the tolerance of Lexan in one of Ciggy's threads, I think.

(1) What about the Moon rock?

Nothing has ever been produced that could not have been created on Earth.

Wrong!

2) What about the laser reflector, which was apparently placed on the lunar surface, and which has been used by scientists to measure the exact distance to the Moon?

All the data has been controlled by NASA

That is absolutely not how it works! Only in paranoid delusions is the data filtered and altered by NASA. That is blind supposition being used in a pathetic attempt to hand wave off a legimate point.

(b) A pilot reported seeing the Command Module being thrown out of a plane with a parachute, a few minutes before it landed in the sea.

That's the Dark Lord's argument. It has never been confirmed because the Dark Lord refuses to state his source.

4) Why didn't the Soviets point this out?

There could be a number of reasons. We don't know the true state of the relationship between the USSR and the time: to what extent was the Cold War real, and to what extent was it created by the Industrial-Military complex to justify spending on arms? Maybe there was co-operation at some levels between the USA and the USSR. Maybe the Soviets never found out. Maybe they did find out, and they kept quiet in exchange for the Americans keeping quiet about something else.

The idea that the Soviets found out is ridiculous because they tracked the spacecraft and the frequencies used.

The idea that they were cooperating is laughable because it eliminates the only remotely credible reason for any fakery: to appear to be winning the Cold War.

5) What was the reason for this?

Money and prestige. The Americans' first Apollo mission, Apollo 1, ended in the death of three astronauts on the launchpad. According to one theory, NASA then commissioned a report which showed that it was extremely unlikely that a lunar mission would succeed (the person writing this report subsequently had an "accident".) However, JFK had already publically committed the country to going to the Moon. They therefore decided to use the approx. $30 billion (in today's terms) to fake the landing and save face. $30 billion provides a pretty big incentive, as does the desire to save face in front of the rest of the world.

The money was to accomplish a manned lunar landing, not to fake it. Faking it would be far more expensive. If you put all the money into the fakey, what are you getting in the end? Just a lie. Just because a successful lunar landing would be good, it doesn't automatically imply a faked one would also be good. That's a bit of straw man. Either a lunar landing means nothing, therefore no attempt would have been made, or it means everything, in which case, there is no way NASA could appear to fail. Why not a shade of grey, where it is important, but not so important that failiure would be unthinkable?

7) The American government is democratic, and would never lie to the people on such a large scale.

The American goverment has a track record of lying to its people. There is no reason whatsoever to take anything which it says at face value. NASA is a government organisation with close links to the military.

That doesn't automatically mean anything it says is a lie. Given the history of the lies of the US government, I don't think they are up to the challenge of such a conspiracy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Glom on 2002-11-28 08:05 ]</font>