Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA Unsure of How to Counter the 'Moon Hoax'
The Associated Press ^ | January 5th 2003 | MARCIA DUNN

Posted on 01/05/2003 5:06:37 PM PST by ContentiousObjector

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Is that the moon or a studio in the Nevada desert? How can the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon? Why can't we see stars in the moon-landing pictures?

For three decades, NASA has taken the high road, ignoring those who claimed the Apollo moon landings were faked and part of a colossal government conspiracy.

The claims and suspicious questions such as the ones cited here mostly showed up in books and on the Internet. But last year's prime-time Fox TV special on the so-called "moon hoax" prompted schoolteachers and others to plead with NASA for factual ammunition to fight back.

So a few months ago, the space agency budgeted $15,000 to hire a former rocket scientist and author to produce a small book refuting the disbelievers' claims. It would be written primarily with teachers and students in mind.

The idea backfired, however, embarrassing the space agency for responding to ignorance, and the book deal was chucked.

"The issue of trying to do a targeted response to this is just lending credibility to something that is, on its face, asinine," NASA chief Sean O'Keefe said in late November after the dust settled.

So it's back to square one -- ignoring the hoaxers. That's troubling to some scientific experts who contend that someone needs to lead the fight against scientific illiteracy and the growing belief in pseudoscience such as aliens and astrology.

Someone like NASA.
"If they don't speak out, who will?" asks Melissa Pollak, a senior analyst at the National Science Foundation.

Author James Oberg will. The former space shuttle flight controller plans to write the book NASA commissioned from him even though the agency pulled the plug. He is seeking money elsewhere. His working title: "A Pall Over Apollo."

Tom Hanks will speak out, too.
The Academy Award-winning actor, who starred in the 1995 movie "Apollo 13" and later directed the HBO miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon," is working on another lunar-themed project. The IMAX documentary will feature Apollo archival footage. Its title: "Magnificent Desolation," astronaut Buzz Aldrin's real-time description of the moon on July 20, 1969.

While attending the Cape Canaveral premiere of the IMAX version of "Apollo 13" in November, Hanks said the film industry has a responsibility to promote historical literacy. He took a jab at the 1978 movie "Capricorn One," which had NASA's first manned mission to Mars being faked on a sound stage.

"We live in a society where there is no law in making money in the promulgation of ignorance or, in some cases, stupidity," Hanks said. "There are a lot of things you can say never happened. You can go as relatively quasi-harmless as saying no one went to the moon. But you also can say that the Holocaust never happened."

A spokesman for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington says there will always be those who will not be convinced. But the museum does not engage them in debate.

The spokesman acknowledges, however, that if a major news channel was doing a program that questioned the authenticity of the Holocaust, "I'd certainly want to inject myself into the debate with them in a very forceful way."

Television's Fox Network was the moon-hoax purveyor. In February 2001 and again a month later, Fox broadcast an hourlong program titled "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"

Roger Launius, who agreed to Oberg's book just before leaving NASA's history office, says the story about the moon hoax has been around a long time. But the Fox show "raised it to a new level, it gave it legs and credibility that it didn't have before."

Indeed, the National Science Foundation's Pollak says two of her colleagues, after watching the Fox special, thought it was possible that NASA faked the moon landings. "These are people who work at NSF," she stresses.

The story went -- and still goes -- something like this: America was desperate to beat the Soviet Union in the high-stakes race to the moon, but lacked the technology to pull it off. So NASA faked the six manned moon landings in a studio somewhere out West.

Ralph Rene, a retired carpenter in Passaic, N.J., takes it one step farther. The space fakery started during the Gemini program, according to Rene, author of the 1992 book, NASA Mooned America!

"I don't know what real achievements they've done because when do you trust a liar?" Rene says. "I know we have a shuttle running right around above our heads, but that's only 175 miles up. It's under the shield. You cannot go through the shield and live."

He is talking, of course, about the radiation shield.

Alex Roland, a NASA historian during the 1970s and early 1980s, says his office used to have "a kook drawer" for such correspondence and never took it seriously. But there were no prime-time TV shows disputing the moon landings then -- and no Internet.

Still, Roland would be inclined to "just let it go because you'll probably just make it worse by giving it any official attention."

Within NASA, opinions were split about a rebuttal book. Oberg, a Houston-based author of 12 books, mostly about the Russian space program, said ignoring the problem "just makes this harder. To a conspiracy mind, refusing to respond is a sign of cover-up."

Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell does not know what else, if anything, can be done to confront this moon madness.

"All I know is that somebody sued me because I said I went to the moon," says the 74-year-old astronaut. "Of course, the courts threw it out."

The authorities also threw out the case involving Apollo 11 moonwalker Aldrin in September.

A much bigger and younger man was hounding the 72-year-old astronaut in Beverly Hills, Calif., calling him "a coward, a liar and a thief" and trying to get him to swear on a Bible, on camera, that he walked on the moon. Aldrin, a Korean War combat pilot, responded with a fist in the chops.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: apollo; crevolist; fox; istheantichrist; moonhoax; nasa; rupertmurdoch; russia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-329 next last
To: Cincinatus
If a moon base is to be built, then let's build it. First we ought to design it. Where is the development plan? What do we need to truck up there? How many tons of this and tons of that? If trips will be frequent, what kind of ship is needed? Engineers like to deal with real things that can be built now. Make any assumption about funding.
261 posted on 01/06/2003 1:26:53 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
D=1/2AT2
262 posted on 01/06/2003 1:28:56 PM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: ContentiousObjector
One step for Man and one giant leap for Hillary, the Hag in the Moon. Let's give her a one-way bus ticket to the moon, and make her use it ASAP.


263 posted on 01/06/2003 1:35:27 PM PST by jws3sticks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: boris

Boris's comments about cooling in space are quite correct. Actually, for somethinh painted white floating in space near the Earth, its temperature will drop to about the freezing point of water or below (like the dead space station, Salyut-7, in 1985).

The shuttle has a secondary cooling system for use when the payload bay doors are closed, it's called a 'water spray boiler' or 'flash evaporator' -- water vapor is ssprayed in a vacuum onto heat-carrying coils, and as the water flashes into vapor it absorbs heat from the fluid in the coils, cooling the fluid.

Sometimes some of the water freezes because it forms droplets, which cool because the outer edge evaporates -- this water is 'wasted' because it doesn't cool what it was supposed to, the heat-fluid coils.

These snowflakes can drift off and look like a space blizzard (or fireflies, as on Glenn's flight), or UFOs, if your mind is sufficiently unhinged. On the moon, the spacesuits used exactly this kind of device, and any such flakes would have fallen to the ground and evaporated in sunlight.

Since a passive body, painted white, on the Moon at about 1 to 2 days after sunrise would reach ambient temperature of about zero C, the heat that had to be dumped from the suits wasn't solar thermal input at all -- it was the 100-200 watts of metabolic and electrical heat generated by the astronaut's body and equipment.

Note I did say "zero degrees centigrade" -- that was the 'average temperature of the lunar surface during the time the astronauts were there. So where did this 200 degrees 'baking oven' centigrade myth come from? Gee-whiz journalists and bragging space 'experts' used the temperature of the DARK moon surface at full noontime after a full week of sunlight, and enjoyed impressing and deceiving their naive audiences.


264 posted on 01/06/2003 1:35:51 PM PST by BigJimO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
Now how, pray tell, is the Shuttle supposed to get to the Moon? It has barely enough fuel to get into orbit (8 km/sec) and back down. Escape velocity for the Earth is about 11 km/sec. That extra three kps is a real killer.
265 posted on 01/06/2003 1:35:51 PM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Obstinate Insomniac
The one argument I have never heard countered is why the Russians never blew the whistle and embarrassed the US since they would have had to know the truth from observing the process.

You're right, I've never heard of a Russian Cosmonaut or anyone involved in their rocket program say anything remotely as idiotic as som of out home-grown naysayers.

The solution is simple enough: Get Buzz Aldrin to call a press conference and say simply: "We actually landed American men on the surface of the moon, then returned them safely to Earth. There was no hoax." Then have him crack his knuckles loudly, look around the room and ask: "Any questions?..."

266 posted on 01/06/2003 1:51:56 PM PST by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Junior
how, pray tell, is the Shuttle supposed to get to the Moon?

Technically, it could be done. It might be one of the least efficient space flights of all time, but it could be done. Coming back would also be possible, but it would have to be slowed before it enters the atmosphere or it would become just another fireball or bolide. That would involve even more expendibles. Could be done, though, using multiple launches and space rendezvous.

267 posted on 01/06/2003 1:54:11 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras
#14, along the same line that I was thinking. If anything, the best evidence for a hoax is Tom Hanks involvment.
268 posted on 01/06/2003 1:58:03 PM PST by gnarledmaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: boris
Looking at the moon would not harm the Hubble. The Hubble uses a mirror, BTW, not a "lens"--except for the complex bunch of small lenses installed to correct for flaws in the mirror.

Actually, COSTAR - the device installed in Hubble to correct for the flawed mirror - consisted of mirrors, too.
269 posted on 01/06/2003 2:12:50 PM PST by ToSeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
BTTT!
270 posted on 01/06/2003 2:50:58 PM PST by The Obstinate Insomniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: ContentiousObjector
Isn't there a flag still up there from this landing? Wouldn't that be easily verifiable?
271 posted on 01/06/2003 2:58:52 PM PST by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
If I get this, it would be like a sludge, being puked out of the way. This I can picture. But, the way the dirt/silt moved as the rover made a sharp turn, still leaves room to ponder.

Okay...don't mind me, Im headin' back up in the bleechers!

SR

272 posted on 01/06/2003 3:34:34 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"Now how, pray tell, is the Shuttle supposed to get to the Moon? It has barely enough fuel to get into orbit (8 km/sec) and back down. Escape velocity for the Earth is about 11 km/sec. That extra three kps is a real killer."

It leaves the earth's surface with 2 or 3 barn silos attached. Why not retain two instead of jettisoning them? Or, redesign the craft?

273 posted on 01/06/2003 3:44:48 PM PST by DCPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
Two of the items in question are solid-fuel rockets. They are jettisoned as soon as they run out of fuel. The big thing underneath the shuttle is a fuel tank. It takes literally all that fuel and those two SF rockets to rachet the shuttle into orbit.
274 posted on 01/06/2003 4:02:09 PM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: boris
Im not a big science gear head. I only went to the NASA website to do some research on Kennedy and the space race. I just noticed those 2 articles in the news and made notice of it in my "speech." (School)

Anyways, Ion engines aren't fast? I thought NASA said they were more efficient and produced much more thrust than conventional rocketry ( Good ol' Von Braun).

Oh well, I dont know. Not that its much of a big deal. But I take it you read the article on the "space elevator"?
275 posted on 01/06/2003 4:36:18 PM PST by Hobo anonymous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: BigJimO
Good to have you aboard, Big Jim.
276 posted on 01/06/2003 5:00:00 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker; boris
Thank you for the correction ... I admire scientists and I'm not one, so when I'm reading about Mars then open an FR thread on the Moon, I tend to be muddle-headed. 1/6 or 1/3, what's the difference, one's half the other. See what I mean about muddle-headed? [Seriously, I have a question for you knowledgeable folks: is the dust on the Lunar surface electrically charged? I realize the Moon doesn't have a magnetic field like Earth, but does the particulate on the Lunar mass carry a weak charge as in an electrostatic field?
277 posted on 01/06/2003 5:25:37 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Defend the Second
We were at KSC at the same time. I was working in SAEF-II at the time getting the Magellan ready for launch prior to my time at JPL.
278 posted on 01/06/2003 5:26:23 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
Spell Wat?
279 posted on 01/06/2003 7:19:02 PM PST by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Hobo anonymous
Anyways, Ion engines aren't fast? I thought NASA said they were more efficient and produced much more thrust than conventional rocketry ( Good ol' Von Braun).

Very efficient per pound of fuel used. Very low thrust. You can reach very high speeds, but it would take years. Check it out.

http://www.planetary.org/learn/spacepropulsion/ionrocket.html

280 posted on 01/06/2003 8:07:57 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-329 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson