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.
Thanks, Nelson... I already have apologized to Atlantin. It was late and I had a senior moment... my brain was on vacation.
Ion engines are typically low in thrust but high in efficiency. "Fast" depends what you mean. The measure of efficiency in rocket engines is specific impulse (Isp), which is defined as thrust divided by mass flow rate. The lower the flow required for a given thrust, the higher the Isp (efficiency).
It is quite possible to be efficient without having high thrust.
You may be thinking of the VASIMR project at MIT which is an experimental plasma engine which is claimed to offer "dial-in" thrust and/or Isp.
As a general rule, for thermal engines (ordinary rockets) it takes about 20 kilowatts (thermal) per pound of thrust.
Ion engines are not thermal, so the rule does not apply.
Compute the thermal power of a single SSME (space shuttle). The "jet power" is about 6.78 million horsepower. A military jet engine (Pratt and Whitney F-119-100) develops 261,000 horsepower. The power-to-weight of the SSME is ~969 HP/lb. The same value for the jet is 93.2. For an indy-car engine it is 3, and for your family car engine it is 0.5.
Now as to "fast". Spacecraft usually follow "hohmann" orbits, which are "least energy" orbits. But they are slow to reach their (incredibly distant) targets. An infinite number of paths are available to Mars, including a simple straight line--IF you have massive thrust AND high efficiency. Project Orion would have done that, and the Nerva nuclear rocket engine would have been much better than our current crop of chemical rockets. For example, the SSME (using oxygen and hydrogen) gets an "Isp" of ~453, whereas Nerva could get 800-850 Isp. The program was cancelled because Congress became concerned that the engine was being developed for a manned trip to Mars [it was].
You can go as fast as you want if you are willing to wait a long time for the speed to build up.
An acceleration 1 earth gravity (1 "G"=32.174 ft/s/s) turns out to equal 1.03 light years per year^2. So if you accelerate at 1 G for one year you will find yourself (ignoring Einstein) 1/2 light-year out and at roughly the speed of light.
Sounds easy, right?
Let's start small and accelerate a single kilogram at 1 G for one year. Its kinetic energy is 4.5E16 joules. A year is 31,557,600 seconds, so the power is 4.5E16/3.15E7 = 1.42E9 watts or 1420 megawatts.
In other words, to accelerate a single kilogram of mass to near-light-speed, you need to apply about 1-and-a-half nuclear power plants, working full tilt, for one year.
Hmm.
The engineering problem before us is: how do we apply the "oomph" from 1.5 nuclear power plants to the kilogram? You can speculate that you could beam the power to it...but the geometry is complex--and the more distant it gets the harder it gets to "hit the target". You could put the power plant (using 'dilithium crystals') on-board your kilogram. But to have a useful payload, the power plant must weigh much less than a kilogram. I'll give you 100 grams and 10 cubic centimeters.
The problem is now clear; you need to stuff the Sun into a sugar-cube.
The real problem is that humans are too puny to deal with energies and powers of these magnitudes, condensed to the requisite size and mass!
--Boris
The guy sounded like a dim-witted punk.
Near the end of the show, he started babbling about the Kennedy assasination and that Gus Grissom was murdered to keep him quiet.
Bring back the ghost stories George... us Art Bell listeners like that stuff!
For me, the burning question is this:
How far would Sibrel have flown when Aldrin punched him in the face, if they had been standing on the moon's surface at the time?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/818623/posts ... gravity speed measured
fools would believe that we never went to space if thats what u call it, its always in the earths gravatational pull. we never enter van allan belt, only russia has and all that passed through have died.Just rember russia was 10 years advanced in space travel than us. they sold us all their rockets after they lost over 11 cosmonauts. 2 which died on the luner surface.
fools would believe that we never went to space if thats what u call it, its always in the earths gravatational pull. we never enter van allan belt, only russia has and all that passed through have died.Just rember russia was 10 years advanced in space travel than us. they sold us all their rockets after they lost over 11 cosmonauts. 2 which died on the luner surface.
WVBILLSP
Werner von Braun Inside Luner Lunar Spelling Ping
Who knows that there is no "wind" anywhere in space??????
Check this out...
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.