I would like to ask all of you that believe in the moon landing to bear with me? I know most of you will make fun and say no wonder you believe the way you do. My education consists of completing the 8th.Grade. This hopefully will not bar my being able to think research, & read to come to a conclusion of the moon landing being an absolute hoax. Unless some of you scientists can show me proof. What I am going to state to you is absolutely without any merit or consideration. Why does all the scientific community mock, boast, harass, and make a person that is trying to find answers look stupid, instead of helping to answer and show proof. What is wrong with showing proof something exists or does not exist? I want to view from the earth the site, objects left behind, physical proof that is beyond a shadow of a doubt. You know like do you believe there is a moon? Yes Why? Because I can see it.
1. In school we were taught you must have oxygen and atmosphere to have fire. The moon we were taught has no oxygen or atmosphere (no stars in pictures) (my personal belief that the pictures were faked is the no stars in the pictures would not allow anyone on earth to check the actual position of the stars and how they would look from the moon). Out of all NASA"S photos there is absolutely not one photograph showing the sun while on the moon. Not One you would think a picture like that would be utterly refutable. 5,000 pictures and not one showing the earth and the sun together on any moon mission. NASA’S own pictures of the pod lifting off the moon you see flame. It would be impossible as if one (1) millisecond of time elapsed with a misfire they would have if they were there fallen back to the moon. You cannot have a flame in space. Who took the picture of the pod lifting off? If the camera was left behind how did we get the pictures and film of the liftoff since it clearly shows being left behind? How did the camera pan when there was at least 2 to 3 minute delay in transmission? Why did not the glass on the space craft and the camera not freeze and break? Why did the film not freeze? Why did the silver nitrate on the film not freeze? why did the film emulsion not freeze?
2. Temperature on the moon in the shade or at night is -170 Degrees below zero. Temperature on the moon in the daylight is 265 degrees F.. Now will anyone of you tell me why no film manufacture in the year 2007 has never been able to duplicate this film again.
3. Now this is something I find almost astonishing for even the scientific community to believe. We on planet earth were able in the year 1993 for the first (1st) time were able in a laboratory to create temperatures below absolute -273.15 Celsius now this is a proven fact. How did NASA test suits that could not protect men from this type of temperature when there was no way to test this temperature until 1993. Wow that’s a stumper. We want to go into space but will not be able to test our equipment until 1993 24 years after the fact. Wow how smart was we then that we would know how to test for those low temperatures even though we would not have the ability to test until 24 years later.
4. Aluminum freezes at 660.323 C. = 1220.581 F.. Oxygen Liquefies at -183 C.. Glass 550 C., Glass 270 C.. Now lets say the Capsule had plastic somewhere on board wonder what plastic freezes at Hmm.
Wonder why the pen he supposedly used did not explode and ruin his shirt Hmm. Oh that’s right cabin maintained moderate temperature. Wonder how much the Oxygen tank on board held to operate so called rocket propulsion along with temperature and air supply and keep from freezing? It would be nice to know the size of the oxygen tank?
5. Water boils 212 degrees. Hmm an aluminum capsule skin with thickness of aluminum foil as stated by NASA was able to keep these outside temperatures at earth atmosphere. Hmm.
6. The metals would not be able to withstand these extrteme different temperature changes without breaking down.
7. Astronoughts space suits were made of layered plastic, That must have been some of the best plastic we ever made cause we don't have any today like that.
8. The body saliva would boil or freeze.
9. Silver freezes at compressed air or another form of propulsion?
12. With lower gravity, no atmosphere, why would the craft not have to use propulsion to push down rather than use to slow the ascent?
13. Why was nothing floating in the Apollo space craft when they were orbiting the moon and when landing? Since they were in no gravity absolutely nothing was floating.
14. Why did the led in the computer not freeze or melt? Cabin pressure?
I have many more ideas, questions, concerns. It would be greatly appreciated if you help with answers instead of making everyone that disbelieves anything to be treated and looked upon as blithering idiots. Show me absolute scientific proof. No absolute proof then even your belief is just that a belief. The very fact everyone trys to debunk peoples ideas is usually a sign of falsehood. Everyone has the right to believe and distrust our government. Everyone has the right to ask a question no matter how dumb it sounds to men of so called higher education. You might remember that’s why we are here in the first place. People were not allowed to believe they way they wanted.
It would be very easy to prove this so called theory of mine.
It is hard for me to believe NASA would have thousands of photo's with not one showing absolute proof as the earth and sun in one photograph with and astronought standing behind an astronought taking the chest picture from the moon. This would be absolute unrefuteable, undeniable proof. Yet there is not one (1).
Rdbob In Search of positive undeniable proof of moon landing

Welcome to BAUT, rdbob!

I agree that someone with your level of education should be able to understand the basics of space flight and the Apollo program, and be able to judge the evidence that the Moon landings really happened. To do that, though, you may need to slow down a little.

One thing I notice in your post is that you repeat a lot of claims that supposedly "prove" a hoax. However, every single one of these claims has been refuted, many times over. You can find a lot of discussions about such things as lunar photography, surface temperature, and the design of the spacecraft and propulsion systems either here or on one of several very good web sites. The most comprehensive one is www.clavius.org.

I'm not going to start addressing every point you've brought up one by one. I would like you to think about one general area, though. A lot of your objections -- for instance, temperatures and other extreme conditions in space, the manufacture of space suits, and so on -- would apply to ALL space flight, manned and unmanned. Do you also suspect that there are no communications satellites, or that the Space Shuttle and International Space Station are also hoaxes? If you accept the reality of those things, why would the Apollo missions have been so much more difficult?

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Well, rdbob, the problem here is that you're starting from some egregiously wrong preconceptions about heat, equipment, engineering, procedures, etc. Are you willing to accept the likely possibility that many of your concerns seem problematic only because your common sense and recollection of your education are telling you the wrong things?

You have a whole laundry list of various claims. I'd suggest first that you try to understand heat transfer, using whatever source seems best accessible to you. 8th-grade science doesn't delve far enough into it to give you the basis that the engineers have who designed and built all that equipment. When you understand the mechanisms of conductive, radiative, and convective heat transfer, you will be in a better position to revisit your questions.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The landings occurred in the lunar "morning". Remember, the lunar day is around 14 Earth days long, as is the lunar night. So, on landing, the surface temp was not really "hot". It takes time for the shallow sun angle to start warming the rocks and dust after the long cold dark night...
I have frozen aluminum sitting on my desk here, the aluminum pan for a pot pie. "Frozen" simply implies it's in a solid state.
The spacecraft cabins were kept at comfortable temperatures via environmental control systems. The big problem of the spacecraft wwas excess heat, not from sunshine or some radiation, but from the onboard electrical equipment. This was shed as needed via radiators (not to be confused with your car's "radiator", which needs an atmosphere).
I'm not an expert, but you have come to the right place if you are interested in learning the science behind the challenges of spaceflight, and how they dealt with them. It's absolutely fascinating stuff, and several folks here deal with it routinely in their work with spaceflight and spacecraft. Yes, it's what they "do" for a living!
Welcome aboard, be ready to learn.

The shallow sun angle is the answer to another question: why aren't there pictures from the lunar surface of both Earth and sun? In general the Earth was high in the sky. In general the sun was low on the horizon. The lenses on the still cameras had a field of view of only around 50 degrees -- not enough to get both in the frame.

But there are lots and lots of photographs taken on the lunar surface that show the sun. I don't know why that's necessarily such a big deal, but as a matter of historical fact there are plenty.

Also the star-position argument is naturally contradictory. It doesn't rely on education or specialized knowledge, just on the patience to think things out. The notions, "You can't accurately position the stars in fake pictures," and, "Anyone could tell that the stars weren't accurately positioned," are naturally contradictory. Boiled down to its essence, the argument tries to say that something is simultaneously easy and hard to do.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The lunar liftoff was filmed from the Rover's onboard, remote controlled (from an operator at Houston) TV camera. No "film" was involved. The delay in the image sent from the Moon was a couple/few seconds, not minutes. The operator timed the upward pan by estimating the launch moment, minus the delay, and start panning. He got it right on A17, after not getting it on the A15 and 16 departures.
The "flame" you see on the A17 ascent stage liftoff is a combination of initial combustion instabilities and the glowing bits of material (insulation, etc) from the "launchpad", the expended descent stage. Notice that once clear of the lower stage, the "flame" is gone, only the glow from the actual combustion chamber is visible. The hypergolic fuels used don't show noticable flame in a vaccuum when burning in a steady state.
edit: and absolute zero is around -459F, -273C...the lunar surface gets nowhere near that cold.

Each mission carried at least one television camera, one 16mm film camera, and one 70mm still camera. Most carried two still cameras. Different models of TV cameras were used on different missions. The TV cameras were left in place at liftoff and operated either autonomously or by remote-control afterwards. The film cameras were taken back up, because they were used to film the liftoff. The still camera bodies were usually jettisoned before liftoff.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'll just pick a couple at random since they beat me to the liftoff camera one.

The suits are made the same way today. It's multi-layered with the outer cover for protection for the actual pressure suit. Of course I'm not an expert on spacesuits but we do still use them today so it stands to reason that they were designed and built sometime in the past. Perhaps as part of the early space programs, say. We do still have folks in space you know.

And I don't know where you get that nothing was floating around. There's plenty of footage of things floating around. Not while landing because they were too busy flying to have stuff floating around or to play with cameras for that matter. So it was all stowed. Either stowed or secured with...velcro! Why they even velcroed the astronauts to the floor.

Welcome to the board.

EDIT: Here's a page about the suit layers, complete with a nifty drawing though it's almost too small to be useful.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

I'll give it a go...

Welcome to BAUTFORUM, rdbob.
Please read the FAQ, especially the rules, and happy posting.

I don't think they do. Trying to find answers is a good thing. It's what science is about.
(Keep in mind though that most of the Hoax Believers we meet online have already made up their minds, and are incredibly stubborn about ignoring the evidence provided. It's frustrating.)

What is wrong with showing proof something exists or does not exist?I
Nothing at all.
And you've come to the right place, real life rocket scientists post here. (I'm not one of them. )
The exact meaning of words is important though, there is a difference between proof and evidence.

[I w]ant to view from the Earth the site, objects left behind, physical proof that is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I'm afraid there is no telescope big enough to actually make out the man-made items on the Moon. (I wish there was.)

You know like do you believe there is a moon? Yes Why? Because I can see it.
I think there is a difference between believing and knowing (with varying degrees of certainty) something.
If I look at the Moon I just see a disk.
I know it is spherical by putting together other things I know.
Things are not always as they seem.

1. In school we were taught you must have oxygen and atmosphere to have fire.
You need oxygen and something to burn.

The moon we were taught has no oxygen or atmosphere
Correct enough.

(no stars in pictures)
Has nothing to do with the Moon's lack of an atmosphere.

(my personal belief that the pictures were faked is the no stars in the pictures would not allow anyone on earth to check the actual position of the stars and how they would look from the moon).
Google star parallax.
The patterns of the stars look exactly the same from the Earth and from the Moon.
The Moon is only 1.3 light-seconds away, the stars are many, many lightyears away.

Out of all NASA's photos there is absolutely not one photograph showing the sun while on the moon.
Not One you would think a picture like that would be utterly refutable.
5,000 pictures and not one showing the earth and the sun together on any moon mission.
Did somebody tell you this, or did you look at these thousands, and thousand of photos yourself?

NASA’S own pictures of the pod lifting off the moon you see flame.
It would be impossible as if one (1) millisecond of time elapsed with a misfire they would have if they were there fallen back to the moon.
I don't understand what you mean.

You cannot have a flame in space.
Yes you can. All you need is fuel and an oxidiser (usually oxygen).
Rockets carry their own oxidiser. That is how rockets work.

Who took the picture of the pod lifting off? If the camera was left behind how did we get the pictures and film of the liftoff since it clearly shows being left behind? How did the camera pan when there was at least 2 to 3 minute delay in transmission?
Since the Moon is only 1.3 light-seconds away, the transmission delay is 2.6 seconds.
The remote control operator practised in advanced with a stopwatch.
And he still bungled it. The clip you usually get to see is from the last mission, which he got right.

Why did not the glass on the space craft and the camera not freeze and break? Why did the film not freeze? Why did the silver nitrate on the film not freeze? why did the film emulsion not freeze?
Why do you think these thing would get so cold?

2. Temperature on the moon in the shade or at night is -170 Degrees below zero.
At most.

Temperature on the moon in the daylight is 265 degrees F.
At most.
Temperature doesn't just flipflop, it takes time to change.
And keep in mind that these are the temperatures of the Moon's surface.
Remember, the Moon has no atmosphere. Vacuum has no temperature.

Now will anyone of you tell me why no film manufacture in the year 2007 has never been able to duplicate this film again.
I believe it is still being made. You can buy it in speciality stores.

3. Now this is something I find almost astonishing for even the scientific community to believe. We on planet earth were able in the year 1993 for the first (1st) time were able in a laboratory to create temperatures below absolute -273.15 Celsius now this is a proven fact.
Not quite. Absolute 0 Kelvin is not achievable. But you can get very, very close.

How did NASA test suits that could not protect men from this type of temperature when there was no way to test this temperature until 1993.
[...snip..]
(points 4 to 6 all about temperature.)
Once again, space has no temperature. And there is quite a difference between absolute 0 and the lowest possible temperature of the Moon's surface.
The equipment didn't get that cold. It was designed and tested to work in a space environment and they worked as planned.

7. Astronoughts space suits were made of layered plastic, That must have been some of the best plastic we ever made cause we don't have any today like that.
First, the use of the word astronaught is frowned upon here.
It implies that these men are liars. Which you would have to proof. It is an insult.
The spacesuits used today are not that much different then those used during Apollo. And they work just fine.
Or are you claiming the whole space programme is a fraud, even those of other countries?

8. The body saliva would boil or freeze.
Why?
Actually spacesuits need a cooling system. Human bodies produce a lot of heat.

9. Silver freezes at compressed air or another form of propulsion?
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
(Points 10 & 11 somehow got lost.)

12. With lower gravity, no atmosphere, why would the craft not have to use propulsion to push down rather than use to slow the ascent?
If I understand your question correctly (and I'm not sure I do) the answer is:
Propulsion was used to reduce orbital speed so the LM started falling towards the Moon.
Then the rocket engine was used again to slowdown the decent speed to almost nil.
Otherwise the craft would have splattered.
Low gravity does not mean no gravity.

13. Why was nothing floating in the Apollo space craft when they were orbiting the moon and when landing?
Since they were in no gravity absolutely nothing was floating.
It is not smart to keep things floating around in a working spacecraft.
Something might get in the pilot's eye at just the wrong moment.
The demonstration you saw on TV was a show for the folks back home.
After it all objects were secured again.

14. Why did the led in the computer not freeze or melt?
The computer (AGC, the first 'real' computer) was inside the spacecraft. Which had a controlled temperature.
(I don't think they were LEDs. Those were just being developed at the time.)
ETA: O, lead?

Cabin pressure?
What's with it? A balloon can do it. You just have to make sure everything is airtight.

I have many more ideas, questions, concerns. It would be greatly appreciated if you help with answers instead of making everyone that disbelieves anything to be treated and looked upon as blithering idiots.
Show me absolute scientific proof.
No absolute proof then even your belief is just that a belief.
In the real world there are no absolutes.
For example, I'm not absolutely certain that you are a real human being.
You might be a super advanced secret computer programme.
But for that to be true I would have to assume a lot of extra things for which I have absolutely no evidence.
The parsimonious conclusion then is that you are a real person, and I will act on that. (At least until new evidence shows up.)

The very fact everyone tries to debunk peoples ideas is usually a sign of falsehood.
We would also try to debunk you if you claimed that the Earth was flat.
Don't presume anything. Get the evidence.

Everyone has the right to believe and distrust our government.
Everyone has the right to ask a question no matter how dumb it sounds to men of so called higher education.
The only dumb questions are the ones you don't ask. It's how you learn.
(But a single fool can ask more questions then a thousand sages can answer. Ancient proverb.)

You might remember that’s why we are here in the first place.
People were not allowed to believe thy way they wanted.
You mean America? Well, that's one interpretation.

It would be very easy to prove this so called theory of mine.
Then please do so.

It is hard for me to believe NASA would have thousands of photo's with not one showing absolute proof as the earth and sun in one photograph with an astronought standing behind an astronought taking the chest picture from the moon.
This would be absolute unrefuteable, undeniable proof. Yet there is not one (1).
As pointed out the expeditions occurred during Moon morning. (Yes, to keep things from getting to hot.)
The Sun was at the horizon, and the Earth high in the sky.
The photo you are describing would have to be a fraud, or evidence of a fraud.

Rdbob In Search of positive undeniable proof of moon landing

Here is a non-inclusive list of independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings: Wikipedia
Here are some good debunking sites: Clavius Moon Base & Bob B.'s site.
In this thread temperature issues are discussed.

Don't hesitate to ask any questions.

BTW, why would anybody spend $25 billion (more then a 100 billion in modern money) on not going to the Moon.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

(It never hurts to proofread. Oops. )

The DSKY displays were OTS 7-segment electroluminescent units, not light-emitting diodes or liquid-crystal displays. They're based on the principle that you can get just anything to glow if you shove enough voltage across it. They bear more resemblance to the tube displays called nixies. They really aren't affected by vacuum. They aren't much affected by cold either, since they work by running pretty hot. You can cold-soak those things forever and then just fire them up. The thermal ramp-rates were hundreds of degrees Celsius per second.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You know, I some times suspect that you are a super advanced secret computer programme.

__________________

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

The film was the Kodak E-3 (Ektachrome) emulsion on the then-secret Estar polyester base. Estar was developed as a film base for the Project Corona spy satellite film cartridges and was formulated to operate in extremes of temperature.

Estar is still used today and can be purchased from Kodak in a variety of formats and with a variety of emulsions.

The E-3 emulsion is not especially sensitive to cold extremes, but will begin to exhibit color shifting and other adverse effects at the hotter extremes.

It's important to realize that the film never got very hot or very cold. Heat transfer in a vacuum doesn't work the way intuition says. The film wasn't in an ambient medium (i.e., atmosphere) that would transfer heat to or away from it. The only heat transfer to and from the film was by conduction through the magazine, and slightly by radiation from the inside surfaces of the magazine case. The magazine in turn would be heated and cooled only by radiative effects. The camera and magazine bodies were coated with the same thermal coating that is used on older Thermos bottles, with the slightly mottled appearance.

There is a long history of using photographic film in space environments. The people who are telling you photographic film won't survive in space simply don't understand the physics involved or the actual makeup of the film.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You know, I some times suspect that you are a super advanced secret computer programme.

Oh, I think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

My mentor kept the backup CM DSKY for Apollo 14 in his office. They made about 100 of them, and he was one of the lucky recipients.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Let's be careful. Space shuttle suits are hard-shell torsos. While they incorporate the same functional layers as Apollo EMUs, they're built quite differently.

A space suit has to keep in air pressure, manage the occupant's temperature, and protect him from impacts and other harmful incoming stuff.

When you build something for space, the outermost layer is almost always driven by thermal and optical concerns. The outermost layer of an Apollo suit was made of Beta cloth, a sort of fiberglass. Its job is to reflect away as much light as possible -- about 80% (until it got dirty). Beta cloth is also somewhat mechanically tough to resist abrasion and tearing. It's very much like the nylon gym bags you can buy.

The next layer down is thermal insulation and mechanical impact protection. The materials in this layer do double duty. There are alternating layers of Mylar and cloth. The Mylar is thermal insulation. It keeps heat from passing either way. The cloth separates the Mylar layers by a specific distance. That's because when little micrometeoroids strike the surface, the Mylar breaks them up. Each successive layer spreads out the force. Alternating layers of strong and weak materials are the basis behind laminated battle armor and the high-tech bulletproof vests.

All this is simply an outergarment -- like a big space sweater. None of these layers are responsible for holding in air. In fact, their job is simply to protect the layer that does.

The pressure garment is made of Neoprene rubber sheets that incorporate a restraint layer to keep them from stretching too much under stress. They're cut and glued together in patches to make a human-sized rubber suit. But it's not just a big rubber bladder. It incorporates accordion joints where the astronaut needs to bend, and anodized aluminum rings for attaching the hoses, gloves, helmets, and so forth. There is also a cable and spring system that helps compensate for the stiffness of the pressurized suit. On my web site you can see pictures of astronauts being fitted for their suits using just the pressure garment.

So we've protected the astronaut from particle radiation, micrometeoroids, and the heat of the sun. We've also prevented him from absorbing or losing too much heat through the suit. We've given him air to breathe. Now we have to manage his temperature.

The average human being generates about 80 watts of heat through metabolism. 100 if he's exerting himself. That heat actually has to go somewhere. We've done such and excellent job of insulating him that we are now in danger of that heat building up. So the astronaut wears an undergarment laced with little tiny tubes. Water flows through those tubes and then through a cooling unit in his backpack. The heat is rejected to space by means of sublimation (from a separate, open-cycle water system). The cooling liquid is closed-cycle and circulates all around the astronaut's body.

We could just heat or cool the air in the suit. But in fact the air doesn't circulate so well in a space suit. And technically the astronaut's skin doesn't need fresh air; only his face, so that he can breathe. So the suit air doesn't flow well, gets stale, and would not be a good means of moving heat around. Liquids convect heat much more efficiently.

The answer to the question how one "goes" in a space suit is: you go before you put it on. The astronauts wore, to be frank, diapers for emergencies. But true to form, these test pilots adopted low-residue prior to and during diets so that they wouldn't have to suffer the various indignities that accompany taking care of one's business.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Hi rdbob and welcome to BAUT. I'm glad you're asking questions, and I hope you consider the answers carefully. As in all learning, it will help you to gather the facts before drawing a conclusion. For example, you could have asked, "Are there photographs of the sun taken from the moon? If not, why not?" Instead, you boldly stated:

Out of all NASA"S photos there is absolutely not one photograph showing the sun while on the moon. Not One

Well, from a single mission (Apollo 12*), here are 25 images of the Sun**:

AS12-46-6739
AS12-46-6762
AS12-46-6763
AS12-46-6765
AS12-46-6766
AS12-46-6767
AS12-46-6768
AS12-46-6805
AS12-46-6806
AS12-46-6807
AS12-47-6950
AS12-47-6951
AS12-47-6952
AS12-47-6971
AS12-47-6972
AS12-47-6996
AS12-47-6997
AS12-47-6998
AS12-49-7214
AS12-49-7215
AS12-49-7245
AS12-49-7246
AS12-49-7297
AS12-49-7298
AS12-49-7299

This should make you cautious about believing anything you read on a Moon Hoax website. The people who write those sites are generally ignorant of science, engineering and history. More importantly, they are relying on you to be ignorant of these things, and want you to remain ignorant and to believe what they say without questioning it.

Many people here (including myself) are interested in learning about Apollo, and love researching its history, because doing so helps us all to learn about real science and real engineering. For my part, I love Apollo because it showed us all what amazing things people can achieve when they dream big and work hard to achieve a dream. It showed humanity at its best. These people who fill your head with stories that it was all a hoax have never accomplished anything meaningful in their lives, and try to console themselves by tearing-down the achievements of others.

Keep asking questions. Learn from the answers. Dream Big and Work Hard.


*****************

*Ironically, the Apollo 12 crew also burned-out their TV camera when they accidentally pointed it at the Sun.

**Note that having the undimmed Sun in the photographic frame basically washes out the image, resulting in a crummy picture. The same thing happens on Earth, Mars, in orbit, and pretty much everywhere else in the Solar System.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery