Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by icarusinbound »

I've already started a thread about the 40th anniversary of the reported Apollo 17 mission (see http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2378553, over in the main Moon Hoax thread).

The supposed anniversary is apparently being observed today and through the weekend (week?), certainly in a few news reports.

I decided to have a look at the Apollo 17 mission transcripts, and they are the standard, odd, ultra-casual style of the earlier missions. Have a look over at http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apo ... ments.html. The comments made whilst 'riding the Rover' (along with most of the moon-walk commentries) just sound like hippies in a dune buggy most of the time. There is a very high level of direction from Cap Comm, much more than I might have expected.

I think this extract in particular again deserves special attention:

Image

source http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apo ... 17_pao.pdf, a 1,964-page document

"This is our commemoration that will be here until someone like us, until some of you who are are out there, who are the promise of the future, come back to read it again and to further the exploration and the meaning of Apollo"

What? Not exactly the ever-lasting prose of "One small step....", is it?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by simonshack »

*

I would 'commemorate' the Apollo 17 hoax with these ridiculous images that NASA keep telling us are TRUE!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoVP2AB_31o

I would also dedicate this 40-year anniversary to the millions of gullible minds who steadfastly believe in the purported NASA moon landings. May these millions of gullible minds instantly wake up - so as to make this planet of ours a better place.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by lux »

^ I like the way he so casually says on blastoff, "We're on our way, Houston!" with no hint of stress from G-forces that a person ought to experience under a real blastoff. :lol:
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by brianv »

simonshack wrote:*

I would 'commemorate' the Apollo 17 hoax with these ridiculous images that NASA keep telling us are TRUE!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoVP2AB_31o

I would also dedicate this 40-year anniversary to the millions of gullible minds who steadfastly believe in the purported NASA moon landings. May these millions of gullible minds instantly wake up - so as to make this planet of ours a better place.

The images ARE true, what they depict isn't.

This sentence is false!
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by simonshack »

brianv wrote: The images ARE true, what they depict isn't.

This sentence is false!
Hehe - you're truly right, Brian. Thanks for your due correction. :P
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by lux »

simonshack wrote:*

I would 'commemorate' the Apollo 17 hoax with these ridiculous images that NASA keep telling us are TRUE!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoVP2AB_31o

I would also dedicate this 40-year anniversary to the millions of gullible minds who steadfastly believe in the purported NASA moon landings. May these millions of gullible minds instantly wake up - so as to make this planet of ours a better place.
I wonder who tilted the camera to follow the "craft" as it rose? Poor guy. Got left behind on the Moon. :(

Or, was it done by "remote control" from Earth? That would be tough with a 1.3 second transmission delay each way not to mention any mechanical delay in the camera movement mechanism. And all done without any testing first, of course. Those NASA guys are just incredible. Literally. :P
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by icarusinbound »

The official story on this is that the Apollo 17 Rover camera was being remotely-controlled from CapCom. This was also meant to have been the case with Apollo 16, so there will be two sets of similarly-impractical footage.

Interestingly the telecontrol arrangement officially failed during the Apollo 15 takeoff: it would be very informative to see static-shot television images of the same takeoff sequence. This was referred to somewhere as being caused by a clutch-drive failure on the camera control motors (more on this later).

The transmission delay earth-moon was meant to have been compensated for by spectacularly-good pre-emptive timing: this is being purported as being analogous to, say, a gunshot being fired before the trajectory of a desired target meets with an interception point. However, there are real problems with this assertion.

I am looking at this from a fresh perspective, I've not yet gone to look at what anyone else has come up with, but I cannot believe that my conclusions on this are unique.

Point 1 : consider the image pull-back/ depth-of-field change, commencing at around 11.25secs on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoVP2AB_31o. This is just too well-timed. Whilst there's an argument to say that widening the frame would be desireable to achieve, it's just too much of a cinematic ploy.

Imagine: we are in a half-dark, echo-filled dining room. I blindfold you, seated at the dinner table, and require you (for dramatic purpose) to continue sightlessly-pointing your hand at my face as I stand up (with us both chanting the incantation of a countdown sequence). I promise to you that I will rise from my seat in an accelerated motion, but you move your arm in a steady predictive arc. Also for dramatic purpose, you have tasked someone to pull your chair back just as I start to stand up. During/after this sequence, where would you be pointing relative to my head? At/above or below the target??

Also (again just regardingthe pull-back), although I am looking through the limited technical documents regarding the Rover television camera, I've not yet found any reference to telecontrol of depth-of-field. Pan/tilt, yes, but not that third axis under PWM control. So is this a whistle being blown?

Point 2: the ejected fragments depicted during the separation. Whilst conceding that there will have been supposed technical limits on the quality of imagery being obtained, there is a strong suggestion that these are displayed in a flat clock-face plane of tracks, with the exception of a very animated-looking element of 'tracer' at about the 270deg position as viewed. The elements which are seen travelling directly upwards are particularly suspect, as they are travelling at the same exit velocity. Having a point of origin immediately below the centre of gravity of the LM, and not having been able to pass through the craft, how did they get there? The LM itself by definition is meant to be getting propelled by the explosive forces of the ignition, it has to be the cork leaving the bottle: the champagne cannot get ahead of it, or it will not hit the ceiling. There is a strong suggestion that the ejecta/flak from the explosion all has a film-scratch/war movies feel to it. The fragmentation field is all too radial, and slow (I need people to back me on this vital point, there is a feasibility of shutter-speeds aspect to this!!) and at the very least appear to be Harryhausian add-ins, if we were to drunkenly-accept the LM as being real...which from this, clearly it's not.

I would like some feedback, please, from this excellent forum, on the two points above.

I've lots more to say on this...it will be worth hearing. But later..

(ps...and to some extent, conditionally on responses. I'm concerned that the forum is showing signs of slowing it's pace a bit. But that's more for the Chatroom)
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by Heiwa »

Image
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCa ... =1972-096C

The dry mass of the Apollo 11 ascent stage was 2180 kg and it held 2639 kg of propellant but only 1639 kg fuel carried was used for the ascent and docking. One ton of fuel is thus still orbiting the Moon today in the Apollo 11 Lunar module. Apollo 17 was probably similar but carried maybe less fuel. It is also still orbiting the Moon today like the other Apollo lunar modules.
To get off the Moon surface the ascent stage engine with 15 700 N thrust fired for 435 seconds so the Lunar Module reached a velocity of about 1 500 m/s at an initial orbit of about 90 000 m altitude above the Moon. The Lunar Module net acceleration was 3.45 m/s² to overcome Moon gravity at 1.63 m/s². The trajectory was about 326 000 m.

Then it was child’s game to steer the Lunar Module to the Command/Service modules at 126 000 m altitude and dock at 1 500 m/s speed, because there was a little docking window on the top of the Lunar module. After the Lunar Module was once again connected to the Command/Service modules you just had to open the overhead hatch and crawl over. Afterwards you close the hatches and dump the Lunatic ( :lol: ) Module. As said it is still there orbiting the Moon. If you believe the NASA science fiction nonsense. :P
Last edited by Heiwa on Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by icarusinbound »

Heiwa wrote: It is also still orbiting the Moon today like the other Apollo lunar modules.
..... As said it is still there orbiting the Moon. If you believe the NASA science fiction nonsense.
:P
I never appreciated, in all my years as an Apollo spectator, that this was meant to be the case?? Wow!

So, according to the conventional paradigm, there are six artificial satellites orbiting the moon? Conveniently held in an eternal criss-cross, not enough gravity to pull them down but enough to keep them from drifting away?

Presumably, of course, these will be claimed as being too small to see with telescopes...this is a fascinating discovery, if they are still claiming it to be true.

Do they publish Keplars for them? Probably not....and will the LRO, allegedly still orbiting the Moon, bear true witness to these undeniable smoking guns, these floating testaments to mankind's ingenuity and ambition? My prediction is....of course not. As ever, for complex technical reasons of undeniable self-referring doublethink.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by icarusinbound »

lux wrote:
simonshack wrote:*

I would 'commemorate' the Apollo 17 hoax with these ridiculous images that NASA keep telling us are TRUE!

I would also dedicate this 40-year anniversary to the millions of gullible minds who steadfastly believe in the purported NASA moon landings. May these millions of gullible minds instantly wake up - so as to make this planet of ours a better place.
I wonder who tilted the camera to follow the "craft" as it rose? Poor guy. Got left behind on the Moon. :(
Further to my previous response on this...here's an interesting picture. Which adds another layer of double disinfo...

Image
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... er_LRO.png

Where is the abandoned Rover?

With it's camera, that tracked the last take-off of the last ? Casting a classic sharp shadow, like the LM itself?? Along with it's large umbrella/parasol antenna? It has to be there, if the descent stage is meant to be there...or did they park the Rover for eternity 100s of metres away from the LM site, so it didn't get scorched by that strangely-inconsistent rocket exhaust, which only seems to cause blast and flame on takeoff, but never on landing.

Here's a side-view of where the Rover is meant to be, realtive to the main site:
Image
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... 1jul_lroc/
The Apollo 17 moon buggy, circled, waits to film the departure of its mothership, Challenger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter wrote:The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is a NASA robotic spacecraft currently orbiting the Moon on a low 50 km polar mapping orbit....
.....In addition, LRO has provided some of the first images of leftover Apollo equipment on the Moon
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/11jul_lroc/ wrote:
Suddenly, soundlessly, Challenger split in two. The base of the ship, the part with the landing pads, stayed put. The top, the lunar module with Cernan and Jack Schmitt inside, blasted off in a spray of gold foil. It rose, turned, and headed off to rendezvous with the orbiter America, the craft that would take them home again.

Those were the last men on the Moon. After they were gone, the camera panned back and forth. There was no one there, nothing, only the rover, the lander and some equipment scattered around the dusty floor of the Taurus-Littrow valley. Eventually, Rover's battery died and the TV transmissions stopped.

That was our last good look at an Apollo landing site.
Image

And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Better pictures are coming. In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.

The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images.

Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels.

What does a half-meter resolution picture look like? This image of an airport on Earth has the same resolution as an LROC image. Moon buggy-sized objects (automobiles and luggage carts) are clear:

Image

Above: An example of half-meter resolution overhead photography, the same resolution that LROC images will be. This photo of an airport shows airplanes of various sizes as well as many car-sized service vehicles. Notice how shadows help the objects to stand out from the background. The LROC high-res images will also be grayscale, but will be less grainy than the example above thanks to its digital imaging technology. Image courtesy MIT Digital Orthophoto Project.

"I would say the rovers will look angular and distinct," says Mark Robinson, research associate professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, and Principal Investigator for LROC. "We might see some shading differences on top from seats, depending on the sun angle. Even the rovers' tracks might be detectable in some instances."

Even more recognizable will be the discarded lander platforms. Their main bodies are 4 meters on a side, and so will fill an 8 by 8 pixel square in the LROC images. The four legs jutting out from the platforms' four corners span a diameter of 9 meters. So, from landing pad to landing pad, the landers will occupy about 18 pixels in LROC images, more than enough to trace their distinctive shapes.

Shadows help, too. Long black shadows cast across gray lunar terrain will reveal the shape of what cast them: the rovers and landers. "During the course of its year-long mission, LROC will image each landing site several times with the sunlight at different angles each time," says Robinson. Comparing the different shadows produced would allow for a more accurate analysis of the shape of the objects.
So it's been able to taking pictures of the Apollo 17 site, and all the others, regularly, ever since it arrived, at various different intercepts, sun angles, arrival points....where are they all???

Especially today on the 40th anniversary?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by simonshack »

icarusinbound wrote:

So it's been able to taking pictures of the Apollo 17 site, and all the others, regularly, ever since it arrived, at various different intercepts, sun angles, arrival points....where are they all???

Especially today on the 40th anniversary?
Indeed, Icarusinbound, indeed...

NASA actually claims that their LRO hovers as close as 22km from the moon's suface - yet its camera only manages to capture pretty crappy (greyscale!?) images. Compare these two alleged ESA and NASA images (one from alleged altitude of 694km - the other from alleged altitude of 22km)...
CitronBleu
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by CitronBleu »

By curiosity, what do we make of all the Defense Industry ties entertained by NASA - normal, good, bad?

Many of its present day engineers, at least the ones who are heavily involved in the core spacecraft engineering design, have worked at one point or another for a Defense contractor.

Others today who are employed at NASA/JPL, then move on to work in the Defense Industry.

JPL (jet Propulsion Laboratory) was founded as a private enterprise in 1944 by Hungarian immigrant Theodore von Kármán, with several of his colleagues from the California Institute of technology. This same von kármán had previously founded, in 1936, the rocket motor company Aerojet.

Aerojet is a big NASA contractor, and was also the first producer of US-designed cluster bombs in the 1970s.

The MSL Sky Crane allegedly used Aerojet thrusters for its powered descent.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by icarusinbound »

CitronBleu wrote:By curiosity, what do we make of all the Defense Industry ties entertained by NASA? Normal, good, or bad?
Keep that query in mind...will give a response

But meantime...

icarusinbound wrote:Here's a side-view of where the Rover is meant to be, relative to the main site:
Image
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... 1jul_lroc/
The Apollo 17 moon buggy, circled, waits to film the departure of its mothership, Challenger.
Let me call the direction from the landing zone to the flag UP, and the direction towards the Rover RIGHT....
Image

So:
Image
(extract from NASA copyright for study http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/n ... sites.html)

And closer..
Image
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/5843 ... 7_area.jpg

There are a few immediate observations, from this 'higher resolution' image. Look at the large peaked-top shadow, at the main A17 landing site, where the descent stage is meant to still be. It's very sharp, isn't it?

And why is it so very like the shape of the departed LM that isn't there any longer??
How would the remaining flat-topped/low-profile bottom descent section cast such a tall shadow??

Also it doesn't seem possible to reconcile the location of the Rover (shown as 'LRV', in the bottom-right of both pictures, with very little shadow apparent from that parasol, despite having a height easily-comparable to the remaining lower descent stage??) with where the Rover is meant to be located, according to the sideways colour shot...that would place it just below where I've marked with '??' symbols.

And...if we accept that the viewed image of the lift-off was taken from the 'LRV' white-print location....at that slant-angle, from RIGHT-DOWN...wouldn't we see the US flag? Why should that be kept just out of the frame? Clearly, because it gives a frame of reference....
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by icarusinbound »

A further Apollo 17 resource that is well-worth watching is "Apollo 17 "On The Shoulders of Giants" - NASA Space Program & Moon Landings documentary" on Youtube. It includes the Part 2 separately posted, and is claimed to be 1080p HD.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfmUYkkuUL8

Note the utterly-implausible 'float-falling' exhibited at 15m15s . And the kicking of football-sized bolders coupled with kangaroo jumps knows no bounds, irrespective of adding the first-ever (and last) scientist.

However... of much-more interest is what I believe may be the only imagery which purports to show an astronaut on the Moon with his face clearly-visible through the visor!! Note of course that this has meant to have been captured via proto-video camera, and not by the pesky star-blind stills Hasselblad.
Image
This is an extract from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfmUYkkuUL8 , taken at 19m21secs. Come on folks, am I right? is this a unique combination? I can't think of any other example of it (happy to be rethreaded...)

Intriguing that Apollo 17 was the only manned Saturn launch that occured at night. And surprising (for me, anyway) that the Space Shuttle appears there in cutaway as a fully-developed design/concept/model, already, along with Skylab....and all before Apollo 17's capsule had splashed back down into history.

(this was all slated for posting last night, but I experienced an 18hr forum blackout from 2100UTC.... ^_^ )
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Apollo 17 anniversary : how will you commemorate it?

Unread post by lux »

From above Apollo 17 video:
Image

Why would a person in a reduced gravity move upward in slow motion? What is slowing him down as he jumps up?
Post Reply