Moon landings - was it a conspiracy?
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Right now the USA is using rocket engines imported from Russia that were shelved 20 years ago because they are far more eficient than anything the US engineers have designed to date.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,440
Likes: 54
infering anything is not very scientific is it!
the engines are
http://members.lycos.co.uk/spaceproj...nes/nk-33.html
plus the rd-180
the RD180 is the most advanced rocket engine in the world.
[Edited by johnfelstead - 8/14/2002 4:33:36 PM]
[Edited by johnfelstead - 8/14/2002 4:35:56 PM]
the engines are
http://members.lycos.co.uk/spaceproj...nes/nk-33.html
plus the rd-180
the RD180 is the most advanced rocket engine in the world.
[Edited by johnfelstead - 8/14/2002 4:33:36 PM]
[Edited by johnfelstead - 8/14/2002 4:35:56 PM]
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
From: Washington, DC, USA
This made the news because it was the first joint venture between the US and Russia (1998).
Two of the world's leading producers of rocket engines have formed a joint venture to market a derivative of a Russian engine design for use in an American rocket.
Pratt and Whitney (P&W) and NPO Energomash (NPO-EM) announced on February 4 the creation of RD AMROSS, LLC, a Florida-based joint venture. The new company will market a version of the RD-180 engine for the Atlas IIAR rocket.
"We are extremely pleased by the formation of the joint venture, which will be critical in facilitating the RD-180's transition into service," said Douglas North, president of P&W's Space Propulsion business.
NPO Energomash is Russia's number one producer of liquid-fueled engines. Pratt and Whitney has experience with both liquid- and solid-fueled engines, including refurbishing the solid-fuel rocket boosters for the space shuttle.
The RD-180 is a derivative of the Russian RD-170 engine design. The 5.3-ton engines, which use kerosene and liquid oxygen as fuel and oxidizer, are capable on creating over 4.1 million newtons (930,000 lbs.) of thrust.
Lockheed Martin plans to use the RD-180 engine in the first stage of its Atlas IIAR expendable booster. The booster, capable of delivering up to 3.8 tons to geosynchronous orbit, is scheduled for its first launch in late 1998.
Two of the world's leading producers of rocket engines have formed a joint venture to market a derivative of a Russian engine design for use in an American rocket.
Pratt and Whitney (P&W) and NPO Energomash (NPO-EM) announced on February 4 the creation of RD AMROSS, LLC, a Florida-based joint venture. The new company will market a version of the RD-180 engine for the Atlas IIAR rocket.
"We are extremely pleased by the formation of the joint venture, which will be critical in facilitating the RD-180's transition into service," said Douglas North, president of P&W's Space Propulsion business.
NPO Energomash is Russia's number one producer of liquid-fueled engines. Pratt and Whitney has experience with both liquid- and solid-fueled engines, including refurbishing the solid-fuel rocket boosters for the space shuttle.
The RD-180 is a derivative of the Russian RD-170 engine design. The 5.3-ton engines, which use kerosene and liquid oxygen as fuel and oxidizer, are capable on creating over 4.1 million newtons (930,000 lbs.) of thrust.
Lockheed Martin plans to use the RD-180 engine in the first stage of its Atlas IIAR expendable booster. The booster, capable of delivering up to 3.8 tons to geosynchronous orbit, is scheduled for its first launch in late 1998.
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
From that webpage:
The following companies/organizations are interested/using the engines:
- Kelly Space and Technology <--private company using old US fighters as launch vehicles
- Kistler <-- private company
- NASDA <-- Japanese space agency, not well-known for launch success rate.
None of the big commercial launchers (US Atlas, Delta, Titan, EU Ariane) is using these engines.
Edit -- apart from the Atlas which apparently uses the RD-180 as described above, and confirmed by the LockMart website. Delta has the best success record, though, IIRC (my knowledge is probably out of date as I've been out of this caper since about 1997).
[Edited by carl - 8/14/2002 4:36:26 PM]
The following companies/organizations are interested/using the engines:
- Kelly Space and Technology <--private company using old US fighters as launch vehicles
- Kistler <-- private company
- NASDA <-- Japanese space agency, not well-known for launch success rate.
None of the big commercial launchers (US Atlas, Delta, Titan, EU Ariane) is using these engines.
Edit -- apart from the Atlas which apparently uses the RD-180 as described above, and confirmed by the LockMart website. Delta has the best success record, though, IIRC (my knowledge is probably out of date as I've been out of this caper since about 1997).
[Edited by carl - 8/14/2002 4:36:26 PM]
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,440
Likes: 54
The RD-180 is the main rocket engine i was refering too. now being deveoped by pratt and witney.
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/3a/html...cts_rd180.html
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/3a/html...cts_rd180.html
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Nice pic. Needs to be bigger tho' 
Rocketdyne F1 (5 of these were in the first stage of a Saturn V):
P&W RD180 specific impulse (Isp): 338 seconds in vacuo
Rocketdyne F1 specific impulse (Isp): 304 seconds in vacuo so 10% worse, but developed in 1959
[Edited by carl - 8/14/2002 4:46:03 PM]
Rocketdyne F1 (5 of these were in the first stage of a Saturn V):
P&W RD180 specific impulse (Isp): 338 seconds in vacuo
Rocketdyne F1 specific impulse (Isp): 304 seconds in vacuo so 10% worse, but developed in 1959
[Edited by carl - 8/14/2002 4:46:03 PM]
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,440
Likes: 54
the russians and USA had very diferent ideas on launch vehicle designs. Typically the americans went for big ineficient lumps, the soviets went for multiple stacks of smaller, more eficient units. The N1 moon launch vehicle had 30 smaller rocket motors to give the thrust required. They failed to make it work properly in the 4 attempted launches due to control system issues that no doubt they would have overcome if the programme wasnt canned.
PS the Soviets were first to the moon, just not with a manned mission. edit. Aledgedly LOL
[Edited by johnfelstead - 8/14/2002 4:48:00 PM]
PS the Soviets were first to the moon, just not with a manned mission. edit. Aledgedly
LOL[Edited by johnfelstead - 8/14/2002 4:48:00 PM]
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Anyone who seriously believes that the US astronauts did NOT get to the Moon should read this website:
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
It debunks all of the major "proofs" that the Moon landings were a hoax.
Some other points to ponder:
1. NASA in the 1960's was a large organisation. A very large organisation employing thousands of people. Do you really believe that you could hide the biggest lie of the 20th Century from that many people?
2. The Moon landings were THE scientific project of the 1960's. At the time, if you were the best of the best of the best scientists, astrophysicists, engineers, materialogists, etc., there was only ONE place to work. Do you really believe that the world's best would willingly participate in a lie?
3. Landing on the Moon only requires Newtonian physics and lots of money. NASA had both in the 1960's. It's not a great deal more complicated than launching satellites into space that hop from planet to planet and it certainly doesn't require "high tech equipment" like Intel Pentium processors and Microsoft Windows.
4. Just because the Russians had more efficient technology (can anyone spell Kursk?) does not mean that the US rockets were incapable of doing their job. The US Shuttle is less technologically advanced than the Russian Buran, but which one made the most flights?
5. Neil Armstrong was a highly-skilled test pilot & astronaut (not to mention degree-educated). It's not like NASA sent up a bus driver and a conductor to land on the Moon.
6. There were multiple Apollo launches for the same reasons that there were multiple launches in all the other major space programmes. It is not practical to fit all of the scientific experiments into one mission and there are economies of scale to consider, not to mention redundancy in building multiple launchers.
Anyway, SELENE should settle it once and for all.
[Edited by DavidRB - 8/15/2002 7:06:42 PM]
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
It debunks all of the major "proofs" that the Moon landings were a hoax.
Some other points to ponder:
1. NASA in the 1960's was a large organisation. A very large organisation employing thousands of people. Do you really believe that you could hide the biggest lie of the 20th Century from that many people?
2. The Moon landings were THE scientific project of the 1960's. At the time, if you were the best of the best of the best scientists, astrophysicists, engineers, materialogists, etc., there was only ONE place to work. Do you really believe that the world's best would willingly participate in a lie?
3. Landing on the Moon only requires Newtonian physics and lots of money. NASA had both in the 1960's. It's not a great deal more complicated than launching satellites into space that hop from planet to planet and it certainly doesn't require "high tech equipment" like Intel Pentium processors and Microsoft Windows.
4. Just because the Russians had more efficient technology (can anyone spell Kursk?) does not mean that the US rockets were incapable of doing their job. The US Shuttle is less technologically advanced than the Russian Buran, but which one made the most flights?
5. Neil Armstrong was a highly-skilled test pilot & astronaut (not to mention degree-educated). It's not like NASA sent up a bus driver and a conductor to land on the Moon.
6. There were multiple Apollo launches for the same reasons that there were multiple launches in all the other major space programmes. It is not practical to fit all of the scientific experiments into one mission and there are economies of scale to consider, not to mention redundancy in building multiple launchers.
Anyway, SELENE should settle it once and for all.
[Edited by DavidRB - 8/15/2002 7:06:42 PM]
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Neil Armstrong was a highly-skilled test pilot & astronaut (not to mention degree-educated).
Most of the astronauts had higher degrees. Some had PhDs. Buzz Aldrin's Masters thesis was on the orbital mechanics of rendezvous and docking (which is part of the reason he was selected for the Gemini programme).
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
From: The Great White North
This makes for interesting reading. Do I think they landed on the moon? hmm, not sure. But I'm on the fence on this one.
As some have said, why have we never gone back there? One could argue because the goal was reached, but surley another goal. eg; base on the moon, should/could/would take us back.
I'm dying to see what the other probes send back, but then, we would only be shown what governments would want us to be shown.
I am totally in awe of Neil, Buzz, and the rest of the moon landing crew. Why? well, I still cannot comprhend how you can walk on the surface of another planet and then come back and walk on this planet. I know 'it's just a job to them' but even still, they are the only human beings on the planet that have done this.
As for keeping them quiet if it was a hoax, well, I'm pretty sure that a secret government agency (majestic 12 anyone? hmm, think this kinda thing would be in their mandate) could elicit enough fear, eg; 'mention this to anyone and you and your entire family dies' would work. hell, it'd work on me, and I would have thought it'd work on most people. If you tell someone they are being watched 24/7 and occasionaly prove it to them, then fear will keep them in check (hmm, sounds like I know what I'm talking about 
)
Anyway. I like to think, hopeless romantic that I am, that we did land and walk on the moons fair surface, and one day we will return.
As some have said, why have we never gone back there? One could argue because the goal was reached, but surley another goal. eg; base on the moon, should/could/would take us back.
I'm dying to see what the other probes send back, but then, we would only be shown what governments would want us to be shown.
I am totally in awe of Neil, Buzz, and the rest of the moon landing crew. Why? well, I still cannot comprhend how you can walk on the surface of another planet and then come back and walk on this planet. I know 'it's just a job to them' but even still, they are the only human beings on the planet that have done this.
As for keeping them quiet if it was a hoax, well, I'm pretty sure that a secret government agency (majestic 12 anyone? hmm, think this kinda thing would be in their mandate) could elicit enough fear, eg; 'mention this to anyone and you and your entire family dies' would work. hell, it'd work on me, and I would have thought it'd work on most people. If you tell someone they are being watched 24/7 and occasionaly prove it to them, then fear will keep them in check (hmm, sounds like I know what I'm talking about
)Anyway. I like to think, hopeless romantic that I am, that we did land and walk on the moons fair surface, and one day we will return.
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
As some have said, why have we never gone back there?
If they'd continued funding at the Apollo levels, they were intending to run Apollo up to no. 20, build the shuttle in the mid-1970s and have a permanent space-station by 1985. IIRC there was talk of a permanent moonbase by the end of the century and the first manned mission to Mars in the same sort of timescale.
[Edited by carl - 8/15/2002 8:27:29 PM]
BANNED
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
From: In my own little world
Bollocks...
Come on lads let build a rocket and go and have a look.We could do it.
Team so far
John Banks : Chief Engineer
Adam M: Tech advisor.
Salsa: Stickers
Ps Lewis: Gold wheels
Chiark: Stereo and *****/dials etc.
Astraboy: Weapons
Can anyone arrange some cheap "Optimax"
What/who else do we need.
We can take off front "Brent Cross" car park. (Got a mate who does security there.)
Come on lads let build a rocket and go and have a look.We could do it.
Team so far
John Banks : Chief Engineer
Adam M: Tech advisor.
Salsa: Stickers
Ps Lewis: Gold wheels
Chiark: Stereo and *****/dials etc.
Astraboy: Weapons
Can anyone arrange some cheap "Optimax"
What/who else do we need.
We can take off front "Brent Cross" car park. (Got a mate who does security there.)
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
...actually I have built a rocket
http://www.cartman.clara.net/achievements.htm
I'm the plonker with the hat and the Bill Gates glasses. Fortunately I don't look like that any more
http://www.cartman.clara.net/achievements.htm
I'm the plonker with the hat and the Bill Gates glasses. Fortunately I don't look like that any more
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Great thread.
I'm also sitting on the fence until its proved conclusivley, although I won't be loosing any sleep in the mean time.
I think some of you were a bit unfair on Tel, none of you realy know the truth.
Very entertaining though.
EB
I'm also sitting on the fence until its proved conclusivley, although I won't be loosing any sleep in the mean time.
I think some of you were a bit unfair on Tel, none of you realy know the truth.
Very entertaining though.
EB
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
From: London
Easilybored, I think the evidence is overwhelming, and the likelihood of a conspiracy is effectively neglible. As has been stated before, with the sheer number of people involved, it would have been easier to actually go to the moon than to attempt to create & maintain the illusion of having done so....
Still, as General Melchitt once said, "If at first you don't succeed, a blind stubborn refusal to stare facts in the face will se us through. Baaah!".
Still, as General Melchitt once said, "If at first you don't succeed, a blind stubborn refusal to stare facts in the face will se us through. Baaah!".
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
From: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Has anyone mentioned that one of the Apollo missions brough back pieces from one of the unmanned landers (Surveyor 3) to see what long duration exposure on the Moon did to the metal? Another additional bit of proof that we actually went there. Unless of course the unmanned landers weren't sent either...
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
No one can 100% say that we walked on the moon except a small handful of people in NASA.
Not everyone in NASA would've needed to be in on it.
But I'm not saying we did or didn't, I was just commenting on the way that Tel was patronised(spelling).
EB
Not everyone in NASA would've needed to be in on it.
But I'm not saying we did or didn't, I was just commenting on the way that Tel was patronised(spelling).
EB
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
From: London
I was just commenting on the way that Tel was patronised
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Just telling it how it sounded to me, I've just sat and read it in one go over the last 1/2 hour (quiet at work!) and it sounded to me that he had been unfairly treated for having certain views on an unprovable (either way at the moment)subject.
apologies to anyone that I might have offended in putting my views across, I will think about much more carefully before posting ever again.
EB
apologies to anyone that I might have offended in putting my views across, I will think about much more carefully before posting ever again.
EB
