The most probable origin of NASA moon rocks

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...


indeed. although as far as I know USSR also never officialy said these
lunar expeditions were for real. It was ignored in fact. USSR was
perhaps the only country in the world where "US moon landings" were
not broadcasted live on TV.

Michael

US moon landings were broadcasting in USSR! You are just too young to
remember.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Michael Petukhov"
wrote in message
. com...
"Mark Test" wrote in message
...
And this has what to do with sci.military.naval????

Lots. For instance US NAVY was playing an
important role in the US moon
landing hoax. After all it was NAVY who recovered
return module with
new portion of US heros.

Michael


how seriously to take him when he posts on other
topics.

I think he's doing a good job

Keith


All Michael needs to do is ask Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11)
Al Bean (Apollo 12)
Ed Mitchell (Apollo 14) Dave Scott (Apollo 15) John Young and Charlie Duke
(Apollo 16), and Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt (Apollo 17). Talk to the moonwalkers
and they won't give any conspiracy theorists the time of day. Once some nut
tried to get Buzz Aldrin to admit to a Apollo hoax and Buzz punched the guy's
lights out (this was in L.A. about six months ago), and the LA County DA
wouldn't prosecute. Seems the DA felt the kook got what he deserved. Add
the guys who were unfortunately stuck in lunar orbit in the CSM, and you've
got a bunch of astronauts who won't listen to any conspiracy idiocy.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

From: (

snip

Anyway I continue... as U. S. Air Force veteran can you imagine that
someone was capable to perform landing in a surface of space object
(never done before) 6 times in a row using completely new technology
without actual testing it?

Every system, including the lander, was extensively tested prior to the first
landing. Feel free to reasearch this. You will find examples of failures and
successes.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Mark Test" wrote in message
...
And this has what to do with sci.military.naval????

Lots. For instance US NAVY was playing an important role in the US
moon
landing hoax. After all it was NAVY who recovered return module with
new portion of US heros.

Michael


Micheal just wants to establish his credibility so we all know
how seriously to take him when he posts on other topics.

Hm... never minded about my credibility in this NG particularly
in your Keith eyes. It is you Keith who care so much about
my credibility every time I post something new on US moon
landing hoax.



I think he's doing a good job


Sure I do a good job. now even you Keith know where
NASA took their 400+kg of moon rocks. Not bad indeed.


You'll have to try harder than that Michael

The only way we know so called Lunar meteorites are
from the moon is by comparing them with the samples
retrieved.
There are only two sources for such reference
samples, the Apollo Missions and the Soviet lander


Not necessary. This is because you are not a scientist Keith.
Otherwise you would know that humans never landed
on Sun and other distant stars (at least officially) but
its material compositions are known from spectroscopy data.
Some elements (helium for instance) were first discovered on
Sun and only after that was found on Earth. As for the Lunar
materials... well a standard marker composition can be easily
measured by an automatical probe and results send here by radio.
They did send automatical probes (Surveyors) to moon prior
"manned missions", did'n they? Moreover it was easy to guess
about some picularities of moon rocks, like extreme lack of
water or free oxigen and certain minerals which are known to
originate from nonexistent on moon processes. Given big enough
meteorite collection it is easy to design such a marker set.
Just a piece of cake, Keith!

by the way Keith so far NASA did not claim to land man on
Mars or in asteroid belt rocks, but meteorites from all
these places are easy to recognize and of course is on
sell with certificates as well.

So if you believe the Americans faked their samples
by buying lunar meteorites they would have to know
the nature of the lunar rocks or to fake or get the
Soviets to buy similar fakes for their lander several
years later.

"If" is not a proper wording here, keith. They knew for sure.


Then of course their the problem of buying 400 kg
of different meteorite fragments with nobody noticing.

why? somebody was noticing. As far as I know so far no
lunar meteorites were officially found in US soil
while it is estimated to be around of a few % of all
meteorites found today. Don't you think it is a bit of
strange give US with US huge deserts? Although of course
you don't. particularly given that NASA was known to buy
lots of them from privat persons all over the world.



I'm afraid all you did is demonstrate how prejudice
can lead even intelligent people astary.

Never say never, Keith. European SMART-1 is on the way to moon
and japanese Lunar-A and Selene are getting ready to follow soon.
They can send us very unexpected pictures of Apollo landing sites.
US privat company's "TrailBlazer" can do in principle but who in
a good mind can trust US data? Not me at least.

Michael


Keith

In article ,
(Michael Petukhov) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message
...
From: (Michael Petukhov)
Date: 10/16/2003 4:18 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote in message
...
And of course you also believe the Soviets sent a robot, Lunakhod (sp?)
to
the
moon and retrieved their own rocks?


Sure I do.

Michael

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

So, if the Soviets went to the moon albeit with a robot why do you refuse
to
believe the U. S. went ther with men when both countries brought back rocks
?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Very straight indeed. There are multiple reasons. And first of all
exactly because it was robot not manned mission. I do not think that
human civilization has reached a technology level to safely
land man on the moon even now, not to speak in 60s. As a U. S.
Air Force veteran can you imagine that

Michael

You can ask me -- I'm an Apollo Program veteran! We DID go to the moon
and land and return!

The Soviets' moon rocket blew up at least twice, before they gave up.
They tried to cluster too many smaller engines and got base heating
problems. A single F-1 engine put 1.5 million pounds thrust -- there
were five of them on the S-1C stage.

We had the technology 35 years ago, but it was just too expensive to
continue. A Saturn V shot cost $500 million, in 1969 dollars!

There is no real, practical, reason to have a moon base.

In article ,
(Michael Petukhov) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message
...
From: (Michael Petukhov)
Date: 10/16/2003 4:18 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote in message
...
And of course you also believe the Soviets sent a robot, Lunakhod (sp?)
to
the
moon and retrieved their own rocks?


Sure I do.

Michael

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

So, if the Soviets went to the moon albeit with a robot why do you refuse
to
believe the U. S. went ther with men when both countries brought back rocks
?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Sorry this mashine went crazy and send unfinished post by its own.
By the way Apollo computer had as much as 2kb of memory as and according
to NASA stalled was rebooted during first landing on the moon several
times.

There was a memory rationing on programs/data that went into the IU. I
wrote one of the algorithms for guidance.






Anyway I continue... as U. S. Air Force veteran can you imagine that
someone was capable to perform landing in a surface of space object
(never done before) 6 times in a row using completely new technology
without actual testing it? I cannot. Remember for instance how many
aviation pioneer died in much easy conditions of landing until they
learned how to do it properly. And it is not only one. There are tons
of strange NASA pictures and films, strange elements of LM design
like hatch opening inward cabine having not enough space for two
men in space suits etc. And also have you any idea about level of
space radiation above 1000km altitude particularly in van allen
belts they crossed without, according to NASA, any special
radiation protection. There is nice discussion on space radiation
based on recent NASA official data in:


There was a lot of realistic simulator action, including flying
testbeds, that trained the crews. Rememnber, also, that the astronauts
were also top-grade test pilots, who knew flying things inside and out.



http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss-03.htm

However he

http://srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov/FAQ/Index.html

NASA says that Organ Specific Exposure Limits for Astronauts
for 30 days are 25rem for blood forming organs,
100rem for eyes and 150rem for skin. Does it sounds
good for you? You can look at Britannica which says
that maximum permissible annual (!!!) dose for eyes
150 mSv (15rem) and for all others (e.g., red bone
marrow, breast, lung, gonads, skin, and extremities)
500 mSv (50rem). For acute exposures Britannica specifically
says: "Acute exposures in excess of 100 mSv (10 rem) are
justified only by life-saving actions in emergency
situations".

Actual dosage received in Apollo moon missions,
according to NASA were in the range of 0.5-1.4rem/mission
even less than that in some skylab (17.8 rem) and Shuttle
(7.8rem) which flew much below van-allen belts.

Also if actual space radiation dosage is so low why
NASA Organ Specific Exposure Limits for Astronauts are
so crazy high?


The CSM had radiation protection built in. There indeed were limits on
the total time the crew spent outside the CSM.

(B2431) wrote:
From: (

snip

Anyway I continue... as U. S. Air Force veteran
can you imagine that
someone was capable to perform landing in a
surface of space object
(never done before) 6 times in a row using
completely new technology
without actual testing it?

Every system, including the lander, was extensively
tested prior to the first
landing. Feel free to reasearch this. You will
find examples of failures and
successes.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
The two inflight tests of the LM were on Apollo 9 (earth orbit), and Apollo
10 (lunar orbit and approach) LM on 10 went to within 50K feet of Lunar surface.
Apollo 10 certified the LM for 11's landing mission.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

On 17 Oct 2003 18:49:32 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: (

snip

Anyway I continue... as U. S. Air Force veteran can you imagine that
someone was capable to perform landing in a surface of space object
(never done before) 6 times in a row using completely new technology
without actual testing it?

Every system, including the lander, was extensively tested prior to the first
landing. Feel free to reasearch this. You will find examples of failures and
successes.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

NASA even built a "zero-G" test rig to try out the landers controls.
It had a lift engine that could be throttled to exactly balance out
the weight of the rig, so the thrusted operated at "zero-G"

Al Minyard

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:09:44 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

NASA even built a "zero-G" test rig to try out the landers controls.
It had a lift engine that could be throttled to exactly balance out
the weight of the rig, so the thrusted operated at "zero-G"

Nope. The LLRV/LLTVs balanced out 5/6ths of the weight, so they were
operating at lunar gravity, not zero g. They could simulate the LM's
engines, too, so the landings could be simulated, and there were, no
doubt, times when the normal acceleration was zero g, not 1/6th g.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

From: Alan Minyard a

NASA even built a "zero-G" test rig to try out the landers controls.
It had a lift engine that could be throttled to exactly balance out
the weight of the rig, so the thrusted operated at "zero-G"

Al Minyard

I think they had more than one. I recall a pilot punching out of one just
before it crashed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired