Hoaxesssss innnnn Spaaaaaace

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, why would they need to do this if they can't go to space. You know the Van Allen belt :rolleyes::pac:

Don't get me started on the Van Allen belts... Van Allen himself stated they were traversable. Though NASA themselves weren't entirely confident until Apollo 8 went out there for the first time. They couldn't be, we simply didn't know for sure. When they were going through the belts astronaut Frank Borman was feeling extremely ill and a couple of doctors on the team were worried the calculations were wrong and it might be radiation poisoning. He had actually been chucking his guts up not long after getting into orbit because of motion/space sickness, but had kept it on the downlow. The other docs pointed out that his two capsule mates were perfectly fine which would hardly be the case with rapid onset radiation sickness. The belts are high enough in energy of course. As one of the docs on the mission said the equivalent to an xray, but over a couple of hours. That's the other aspect, they were going through them at IIRC 6000mph so the highest levels of exposure was time limited.

The human body also evolved in an already radioactive environment. It's all around us all the time to some degree or other. So we can repair quite a bit of damage before it goes too far(indeed research shows we're actually better at repairing short and higher bursts, than low level exposure over time). Certainly enough for spaceflight.That said space is an irradiated place compared to here on Earth and longer flights will likely cause problems in some crew members. The Apollo guys for example had higher than background rates of cataracts.

As for the radiation itself. Alpha and beta will be massively attenuated by the outer skin of the craft, and they flew into the belts with the LEM spacecraft and it's engines pointed into them, which gives you seven metres of various metals(and air) in front of you. Hell your skin will cut most of alpha and beta even if directly exposed. Today you can go out and buy wristwatches with tritium radioactively charged illumination so you can read them in the dark and tritium is an alpha and beta emitter, but the glass and case of the watch stops it dead(unlike the much older radium lume). Gamma would get through more, but while it's the most dangerous of the three is actually less ionising in nature.

skerry

bfa1509 wrote: »

I'm not claiming there is no space program, there definitely is. I do believe that thousands of research projects have been carried out in the name of space travel. And I think the world has benefited greatly from the program (and has suffered greatly too as it has also contributed to advances in weaponry)

But I don't believe we are anywhere near close enough to solving the greatest problems of space travel (yet). JFK made a promise America couldn't keep. That's where the deception started. We were made to believe in the 60s that we were many decades ahead of where we actually were/are

What stage we are at right now, I really am not sure. There are definitely satellites very high up, maybe at 400km and further. I certainly don't believe there is a manned satellite 400km above the earth's surface in zero gravity.

Why is that so hard to believe exactly (presume your referring to the ISS)? I've worked with scientists who have had their microbiology and plant biology experiments flown via shuttle to the ISS. I've stood next to them as we watched the shuttle containing their experiments launch and have worked with them when collecting what comes back from the ISS. The ISS is 100% up there. But your obviously entitled to believe its not.

Wibbs

bfa1509 wrote: »

We were made to believe in the 60s that we were many decades ahead of where we actually were/are

Not this old chestnut... Just because we're not doing something now because we've become so "advanced" doesn't mean we couldn't do it in the past. Hell, by the time of the Greeks, Egyptians were convinced the pyramids were constructed by the gods, because they forgot how to do it. More to the point the collective will was no longer there to do it.

We no longer fly at Mach Two while sipping champagne over the Atlantic either, but Concorde flew on a daily basis for over twenty years. Indeed many in NASA considered that at least equal to spaceflight as far as engineering went.

The plain fact is, yes your digital casio has more grunt than the computers around in the 60's, however spaceflight is quite a "dirty" technology involving big lumps of metal with huge quantities of explosive stuff that you need to go bang and focus at the gravitational body you need to focus it at. Werner Von Braun and his nazi buddies were firing V2 rockets into the edge of space at supersonic speeds and doing it on the regular with over 3000 flights before the transistor was even dreamt of, never mind the integrated circuit. Unless you think that was faked?

Every generation has a tendency to view the yesterday through the prism of their today, and today it's all about IT everywhere from your PC to your phone, to your cooker, to your car, to your fridge etc. Shit you can even get smart effin lightbulbs today. Yet we had fridges and cars and cookers and lightbulbs that did what they needed to do long before silicon valley came along.

Let's go back to pyramids. Could we build them today? Yep. Would it be a huge undertaking? Yep. Would we be able to build them faster today? Yep, because we have better tech. Why aren't we building pyramids? We don't want to and don't see the need and don't want to spend the resources.

storker

skerry wrote: »

But your obviously entitled to believe its not.

Or pretend he believes it's not.

Hobosan

Bowiessss innnnnn spaaaaace

bfa1509

Wibbs wrote: »

Don't get me started on the Van Allen belts... Van Allen himself stated they were traversable. Though NASA themselves weren't entirely confident until Apollo 8 went out there for the first time. They couldn't be, we simply didn't know for sure. When they were going through the belts astronaut Frank Borman was feeling extremely ill and a couple of doctors on the team were worried the calculations were wrong and it might be radiation poisoning. He had actually been chucking his guts up not long after getting into orbit because of motion/space sickness, but had kept it on the downlow. The other docs pointed out that his two capsule mates were perfectly fine which would hardly be the case with rapid onset radiation sickness. The belts are high enough in energy of course. As one of the docs on the mission said the equivalent to an xray, but over a couple of hours. That's the other aspect, they were going through them at IIRC 6000mph so the highest levels of exposure was time limited.

The human body also evolved in an already radioactive environment. It's all around us all the time to some degree or other. So we can repair quite a bit of damage before it goes too far(indeed research shows we're actually better at repairing short and higher bursts, than low level exposure over time). Certainly enough for spaceflight.That said space is an irradiated place compared to here on Earth and longer flights will likely cause problems in some crew members. The Apollo guys for example had higher than background rates of cataracts.

As for the radiation itself. Alpha and beta will be massively attenuated by the outer skin of the craft, and they flew into the belts with the LEM spacecraft and it's engines pointed into them, which gives you seven metres of various metals(and air) in front of you. Hell your skin will cut most of alpha and beta even if directly exposed. Today you can go out and buy wristwatches with tritium radioactively charged illumination so you can read them in the dark and tritium is an alpha and beta emitter, but the glass and case of the watch stops it dead(unlike the much older radium lume). Gamma would get through more, but while it's the most dangerous of the three is actually less ionising in nature.

NASA really need to get their story straight (skip to 2:45):

"We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space"

h3000

Really good live video from the ISS right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

h3000

This stream too. Russian Soyuz Docking with ISS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA9UZF-SZoQ

Wibbs

bfa1509 wrote: »

NASA really need to get their story straight (skip to 2:45):

"We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space"

Christ, the literalism of the true believer comes to the fore...

Yes the belts are a potential hazard - and ironically enough considering your wonderment at how we don't do it now when they could do it in the 60's - the tech today is far more susceptible to being buggered up by radiation. Rope memory, transistors and bigger scale IC's back then not so much. Never mind that we're far more "health and safety" these days and are also more likely to be sending inhaler puffing nerds rather than the very top spec humans and military test pilots who had a more lackadaisical attitude to risks. When Ron Howard was looking at making the Apollo 13 film, he reviewed all the tapes and video and was wondering how he could make a drama about it, because the people involved were anything but dramatic. All those scenes in the end film where the astronauts freak out or get emotional, while great for drama, never happened. When thier loved ones asked flight directors and the like as to the odds, not one of the replies came back as more the 50/50. Quite simply we wouldn't accept those kinda odds today. Indeed one major reason Apollo was cancelled when it was, was because the politicians were crapping themselves that tbey'd lose a crew on one.

Dohnjoe

bfa1509 wrote: »

I'm not claiming there is no space program, there definitely is. I do believe that thousands of research projects have been carried out in the name of space travel. And I think the world has benefited greatly from the program (and has suffered greatly too as it has also contributed to advances in weaponry)

But I don't believe we are anywhere near close enough to solving the greatest problems of space travel (yet). JFK made a promise America couldn't keep. That's where the deception started. We were made to believe in the 60s that we were many decades ahead of where we actually were/are

What stage we are at right now, I really am not sure. There are definitely satellites very high up, maybe at 400km and further. I certainly don't believe there is a manned satellite 400km above the earth's surface in zero gravity.

So to strip down to the basics, and to confirm

1. You genuinely believe the ISS isn't manned
2. Man hasn't landed on the moon

correct?

Can you please answer this question, thanks

King Mob

bfa1509 wrote: »

NASA really need to get their story straight (skip to 2:45):

"We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space"

So since you've ignored the other points, we'll consider them conceded.
You can't explain how we are able to see the ISS and you lied about the retroflectors.
You also lied about your engineering background.

So lets move on to this point.

Please detail, using exact numbers how much radiation astronauts would receive going through the Van Allen belt and how much radiation is a lethal dose.
Please include details on how you know these numbers are true.

If your answer does not contain these numbers or you outright ignore this question too, we will take that to mean that you have no answer. You have no idea how much radiation that would receive and you no reason to think it's lethal.

h3000

Along with the then live videos above this happened a few hours ago. It really did it’s not faked OP.

https://twitter.com/Space_Station/status/1152753120369188865

mickdw

I'm not convinced on the actual moon landing itself.
No issue with the space flight but I think going back 50 years, it was just too much.
Manually landing the capsule onto the moon, taking off and linking up with the space craft etc.
Someone quoted today 150 billion dollars to go to the moon again.
Considering the knowledge supposedly obtained from previous landings onto the moon and the tech available today, you would imagine that a very small team would be able to get the navigation side of it wrapped up in short order. Similarly with simulation tools available today and previous real-world knowledge, the craft should be a reliable and more understood machine.

A failed mission was not an option. They could easily have filmed the actual moon scenes in a top secret location. The keeping things secret issue is not a real problem. There are wifes all over American who believe their husbands have mundane office jobs working for the state where in fact they are working on classified military projects. The US government could easily get the moon scenes faked.

mickdw

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not convinced on the actual moon landing itself.
No issue with the space flight but I think going back 50 years, it was just too much.
Manually landing the capsule onto the moon, taking off and linking up with the space craft etc.
Someone quoted today 150 billion dollars to go to the moon again.
Considering the knowledge supposedly obtained from previous landings onto the moon and the tech available today, you would imagine that a very small team would be able to get the navigation side of it wrapped up in short order. Similarly with simulation tools available today and previous real-world knowledge, the craft should be a reliable and more understood machine.

A failed mission was not an option. They could easily have filmed the actual moon scenes in a top secret location. The keeping things secret issue is not a real problem. There are wifes all over American who believe their husbands have mundane office jobs working for the state where in fact they are working on classified military projects. The US government could easily get the moon scenes faked.

And to this day the Russians went okay, you crazy guys, we'll go along with it. "It best joke ever."

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not convinced on the actual moon landing itself.
No issue with the space flight but I think going back 50 years, it was just too much.
Manually landing the capsule onto the moon, taking off and linking up with the space craft etc.
Someone quoted today 150 billion dollars to go to the moon again.
Considering the knowledge supposedly obtained from previous landings onto the moon and the tech available today, you would imagine that a very small team would be able to get the navigation side of it wrapped up in short order. Similarly with simulation tools available today and previous real-world knowledge, the craft should be a reliable and more understood machine.

A failed mission was not an option. They could easily have filmed the actual moon scenes in a top secret location. The keeping things secret issue is not a real problem. There are wifes all over American who believe their husbands have mundane office jobs working for the state where in fact they are working on classified military projects. The US government could easily get the moon scenes faked.

But all of this is just an argument from incredulity.
You dont understand how it was done, therefore it was impossible.
Thats just silly.

Unless you can point to a specific aspect that you can show made the landings impossible?

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not convinced on the actual moon landing itself.
No issue with the space flight but I think going back 50 years, it was just too much.
Manually landing the capsule onto the moon, taking off and linking up with the space craft etc.
Someone quoted today 150 billion dollars to go to the moon again.
Considering the knowledge supposedly obtained from previous landings onto the moon and the tech available today, you would imagine that a very small team would be able to get the navigation side of it wrapped up in short order. Similarly with simulation tools available today and previous real-world knowledge, the craft should be a reliable and more understood machine.

A failed mission was not an option. They could easily have filmed the actual moon scenes in a top secret location. The keeping things secret issue is not a real problem. There are wifes all over American who believe their husbands have mundane office jobs working for the state where in fact they are working on classified military projects. The US government could easily get the moon scenes faked.

But all of this is just an argument from incredulity.
You dont understand how it was done, therefore it was impossible.
Thats just silly.

Unless you can point to a specific aspect that you can show made the landings impossible?

I didn't say impossible just not with 1960s tech.
Why completely stop going there if they could manage it so readily in the 1960s?
Surely we would have constructed a station on the moon if it is accessible like you believe.

Cork Boy 53

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not convinced on the actual moon landing itself.
No issue with the space flight but I think going back 50 years, it was just too much.
Manually landing the capsule onto the moon, taking off and linking up with the space craft etc.
Someone quoted today 150 billion dollars to go to the moon again.
Considering the knowledge supposedly obtained from previous landings onto the moon and the tech available today, you would imagine that a very small team would be able to get the navigation side of it wrapped up in short order. Similarly with simulation tools available today and previous real-world knowledge, the craft should be a reliable and more understood machine.

A failed mission was not an option. They could easily have filmed the actual moon scenes in a top secret location. The keeping things secret issue is not a real problem. There are wifes all over American who believe their husbands have mundane office jobs working for the state where in fact they are working on classified military projects. The US government could easily get the moon scenes faked.

Filmed by whom? Conspiracy theorists frequently mention Stanley Kubrick as being the person who did this based on his work in 2001: A Space Odyssey. While that film did generally portray space travel in a realistic way, one aspect that was not realistic were the scenes depicting astronauts walking on the moon`s surface which were clearly in Earth rather than lunar gravity. So with 1969 film technology who else could have faked the Apollo 11 moon events in a truly believable way?

Cork Boy 53

mickdw wrote: »

I didn't say impossible just not with 1960s tech.
Why completely stop going there if they could manage it so readily in the 1960s?
Surely we would have constructed a station on the moon if it is accessible like you believe.

Because of drastic NASA budget cuts beginning with the Nixon administration in the early 1970s and continuing right up to the present day. If NASA had continued to receive the same level of funding that it had in the 1960s, all that and more besides would have been done long ago.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

I didn't say impossible just not with 1960s tech.
Why completely stop going there if they could manage it so readily in the 1960s?
Surely we would have constructed a station on the moon if it is accessible like you believe.

Ok, so what specifically about 1960s technolgy made it impossible?
What part of the mission would not be possible because of the technology availible then and how do you know that as a fact?

As for the second part of your post, do you believe that Concorde is a hoax?
If not how do you explain the lack of supersonic passenger liners?
Surely if the technology was developed in the 70s all airtrravel would be super sonic now.
So how do you explain that?

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

Which are? Can you list them... apart from the vacuum.



Plus, can you confirm your stance on the Flat Earth "theory"?

mickdw wrote: »

I didn't say impossible just not with 1960s tech.
Why completely stop going there if they could manage it so readily in the 1960s?
Surely we would have constructed a station on the moon if it is accessible like you believe.

You should probably read up on the history of spaceflight. The US government pumped unprecedented financial and human resources into the Apollo programme in the 60s. Almost 5% of the federal budget went to NASA in this time, almost all was spent on Apollo. This wasn't sustainable and public support for expensive space exploration dwindled once the moon landings happened.

Spaceflight is expensive and Budgets were slashed from the late 60s and ever since essentially.



In addition there was a divergence in what the next step should be. The goal of landing a man on the moon unified all the stakeholders in the 60s. Once completed there was no agreement on the next steps. One thing was for sure, the federal government went going to continue to write blank cheques, so the idea of building moon bases and all that stuff wasn't going to happen. Nixon had no further interest in the moon and put his weight behind the shuttle program (then in its infancy).

You really should read up on this and educate yourself as you'd have all the answers to your questions if you scratched a bit deeper than, "it's all fake, man".

Wibbs

mickdw wrote: »

They could easily have filmed the actual moon scenes in a top secret location.

Right, now let's look at this aspect - and this is usually overlooked in this conspiracy stuff.

Have you any idea what filmmaking and special effects techniques were like in the 1960's? How primitive they were when compared to today? The usual guff about Stanley Kubrick faking the whole thing is rolled out. OK look at 2001 a Space Odyssey. That was the high point in special effects and remained one for many years. Looks fantastic even today. However it still looks "fake" and looked it then, but the spectacle was and remains enough to suspend disbelief.

But take special effects tech today and CGI and all the advances that have come along. OK, show me one example of any Hollywood flic where men in spacesuits walking on another world doesn't look fake. Look at the recent First Man film about Armstrong and the moon landings. The moon bits still look "wrong" even today. The dust doesn't fall correctly, the faked movements in lower gravity don't look right. They look right in the flight sequences alright, because like in the 90's Apollo 13 flic they shot much of it in aircraft flying a parabola to mimic low gravity(so called Vomit Comets), but they couldn't do that with the walking on the moon stuff.

But OK, let's imagine they could have faked the grainy footage from Apollo 11(but even there and I'll outline why later). Cool. But with every successive mission the video footage got better, in colour and in much higher definition and was transmitted for longer. Never mind the reels of 16mm colour film and countless reels of still photography. Hours, days worth of the stuff. Oh and with sound and radio transmissions back and forth that anyone with a ham radio setup(which was a popular hobby back then) could listen in on(and yes there is a discernible delay because of the distances involved).

And that's the aspect I'll outline now. Let's imagine they were able to fake the film to a level we can't even do today. Great, now you have to transfer that to video and in real time. Film comes in reels of a finite length. In shooting the cameras run out around the 10 minute mark, maybe 20 with huge reels or lower FPS rates. After processing you of course have longer reels, but again of finite length. In the old days of cinema projectionists they'd have to swap out the reels while the film was running and if you're aware of it you can spot when they did it. So if you're transmitting a few hours of video footage from a film original you have to change the reels and do so bloody seamlessly for an audience of millions, even billions at times and your moon conspiracy types don't seem to mention how they made this possible with 1960's film and video technology. We couldn't do it today.

Wibbs

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so what specifically about 1960s technolgy made it impossible?
What part of the mission would not be possible because of the technology availible then and how do you know that as a fact?

As for the second part of your post, do you believe that Concorde is a hoax?
If not how do you explain the lack of supersonic passenger liners?
Surely if the technology was developed in the 70s all airtrravel would be super sonic now.
So how do you explain that?

And as I pointed out earlier: Werner Von Braun and his nazi buddies were firing V2 rockets into the edge of space at supersonic speeds and doing it on the regular with over 3000 flights before the transistor was even dreamt of, never mind the integrated circuit. Unless you think that was faked?

Deagol

bfa1509 wrote: »

I have an engineering background, and quite frankly, I can't believe any human ever got to space (or at least got to space and returned alive), let alone the moon landings. It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, especially with the near perfect vacuum that is supposedly up there. (I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!)

I very subtly and carefully hinted my doubts to some, close, considerate people I know and the one argument they always come up with is that too many people would have to keep it secret, thousands of people. This simply isn't true, the whole space program contracts all the projects out to 3rd party contractors who fulfil a specific project. All of these then converge together to form the program. Very few people need to be "in on it". And even if they blew the whistle, nobody would believe them.

You say you have an engineering background without saying what that is. I'm guessing you once looked at the engine of your car because any engineer who says the above clearly is either suffering from a mental issue or should never have been able to pass even a basic engineering exam.

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

I didn't say impossible just not with 1960s tech.
Why completely stop going there if they could manage it so readily in the 1960s?
Surely we would have constructed a station on the moon if it is accessible like you believe.

Ok, so what specifically about 1960s technolgy made it impossible?
What part of the mission would not be possible because of the technology availible then and how do you know that as a fact?

As for the second part of your post, do you believe that Concorde is a hoax?
If not how do you explain the lack of supersonic passenger liners?
Surely if the technology was developed in the 70s all airtrravel would be super sonic now.
So how do you explain that?

No Concorde is not a hoax. I have a reasonable interest in Concorde. The only reason we don't have flall supersonic passenger aircraft imo is the sonic boom. Sure Concorde had limitations in terms of efficiency and capacity but that could have been addressed in future aircraft. Not being able to fly supersonic over land limited it's market and as such, the potential for future development was lost.
They basically invented the computing capability they required while designing Concorde.
The biggest issue was managing air supply to engine which had to be fed with air at a speed below the spped of sound even when moving at beyond the speed of sound. Computer controlled moveable inlets achieved this and was regarded as a masterstroke.
In terms of what would make it impossible back then, well there were a lot of unknowns. It's just too Hollywood that they landed and got off it each time and suddenly stopped.
No men lost, no crash landings, no suit failures, no health issues on return.

skerry

mickdw wrote: »

A failed mission was not an option. They could easily have filmed the actual moon scenes in a top secret location. The keeping things secret issue is not a real problem. There are wifes all over American who believe their husbands have mundane office jobs working for the state where in fact they are working on classified military projects. The US government could easily get the moon scenes faked.

But unfortunately for your theory there's overwhelming scientific evidence that it actually happened, vs zero evidence whatsoever about the quantity of American wives who believe their husbands are accountants when in fact they really work for a top secret government propaganda machine.

namloc1980

mickdw wrote: »

No Concorde is not a hoax. I have a reasonable interest in Concorde. The only reason we don't have flall supersonic passenger aircraft imo is the sonic boom. Sure Concorde had limitations in terms of efficiency and capacity but that could have been addressed in future aircraft. Not being able to fly supersonic over land limited it's market and as such, the potential for future development was lost.
They basically invented the computing capability they required while designing Concorde.
The biggest issue was managing air supply to engine which had to be fed with air at a speed below the spped of sound even when moving at beyond the speed of sound. Computer controlled moveable inlets achieved this and was regarded as a masterstroke.
In terms of what would make it impossible back then, well there were a lot of unknowns. It's just too Hollywood that they landed and got off it each time and suddenly stopped.
No men lost, no crash landings, no suit failures, no health issues on return.

Apollo 1 fire killed three astronauts. Apollo 13 astronauts were beyond lucky to survive. And then there is this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/07/28/moon-disease-apollo-astronauts-more-likely-to-die-of-heart-probl/

Strongly suggest you do some looking into this rather than just stating it was impossible without any thought behind it.

SlowBlowin

bfa1509 wrote: »

This concept of pinging a laser off a reflector on the moon is even more preposterous. The moon is 300,000km away, how on earth (so to speak) would anyone do this? If a laser gets reflected then that means the reflector would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the observer/laser source. This would be pretty much impossible.

This is an obvious wind up.

Anyone who boasts an "Engineering background" would know about the reflectors, I actually have a friend who has one and showed me it. Its in the top corner of his workshop. You shine a laser at it and it come straight back, wherever you are located in front of it.

You can improve your engineering knowledge by reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector

Lots of amateurs image ISS as it passes over, or in front of the sun. Try google for examples.

Occasionally an occupant of the space station is an amateur radio enthusiast, like a few of us here on boards. When this happens you can listen and talk directly to the space station, from your own antennas (directional) pointed up towards the ISS. You see the Doppler effect/frequency change etc. To fake this one thing would require a network of transmitters around the world (it would rival of exceed the topology of the internet), together with operators who sound like the astronaut in question.

You can't possibly have an engineering background, and make these statements.

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

No Concorde is not a hoax.

But man landing on the moon 6 times is?

I don't understand the science behind e.g. Magnetar stars, I can't wrap my head around them - it doesn't mean they don't exist. Likewise, if you, with your limited understanding, can't grasp how man went to the moon it doesn't mean it didn't happen

And stepping back, what a bizarre position to have - to think stuff in the world exists or doesn't exist based entirely on whether you can grasp it or not

I think we're spotting a pattern here

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

No Concorde is not a hoax. I have a reasonable interest in Concorde. The only reason we don't have flall supersonic passenger aircraft imo is the sonic boom. Sure Concorde had limitations in terms of efficiency and capacity but that could have been addressed in future aircraft. Not being able to fly supersonic over land limited it's market and as such, the potential for future development was lost.
They basically invented the computing capability they required while designing Concorde.
The biggest issue was managing air supply to engine which had to be fed with air at a speed below the spped of sound even when moving at beyond the speed of sound. Computer controlled moveable inlets achieved this and was regarded as a masterstroke.

Nope. I dont understand any of that, so has to be a hoax.
Thats the only explanation.

mickdw wrote: »

in terms of what would make it impossible back then, well there were a lot of unknowns. It's just too Hollywood that they landed and got off it each time and suddenly stopped.
No men lost, no crash landings, no suit failures, no health issues on return.

Again you've avoided my question.
What specifically is impossible?
Please be exact cause being as vague as you are makes it seem like you dont know what youre talkimg about.

Also did you forget about Apollo 13? Apollo 1?

Wibbs

namloc1980 wrote: »

Apollo 1 fire killed three astronauts. Apollo 13 astronauts were beyond lucky to survive. And then there is this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/07/28/moon-disease-apollo-astronauts-more-likely-to-die-of-heart-probl/

Strongly suggest you do some looking into this rather than just stating it was impossible without any thought behind it.

+1000. With 13 they were very lucky. If the tanks had blown earlier in the mission they were dead, as their wouldn't have been enough power and supplies in the landing module bit to act as a lifeboat for long enough, if it had happened later in the mission when two were on the surface of the moon, dead again. The Soviets lost people too. In flight and on the ground(hundreds in the latter case).