Everyone knows it was impossible to land on the moon

[Bob B.]

NOBODY EVER SAW THE DESCENT CAPABILITIES OF LUNAR MODULE ON EARTH; THEREFORE, NOBODY WAS CERTAIN THAT LUNAR MODULE’S ROCKET ENGINE COULD DO THE JOB WHILE ON THE LUNAR ORBIT.

The Moon is not some alternate universe where the laws of physics as we know them cease to exist.  Newton’s laws work just the same there as they do here, and all the parameters (such as lunar mass) needed to design a lander were well known.  It is total hogwash to say engineers wouldn’t know what to expect or couldn’t design a machine to work on or around the Moon.  I don’t have to go to the Moon and drop a rock to tell you how long it will take to reach the ground … I can just punch a few buttons on my calculator and give you the answer right here and now.

[Clavius]

People may or may NOT believe Lunar-Module ( LM ) has such magical power.

And people may or may not believe that jumping off a tall building is fatal.  Ignorant belief does not change an outcome dictated by the observable behavior of the universe. 

The LM was not unmanned space vehicle. It had to host two astronauts. If so-called “ hover over the surface and gently touchdown “ was the real situation, NASA had to conduct numerously rigorous experiments and tests on Earth before the Apollo missions to make sure that LM’s rocket engine could do the job...

Hogwash.  Tests on Earth would be invalid.  The LM propulsion system was designed to work in 1/6 G an a vacuum.  Testing it for landing in 1 G in air would be inapplicable.

NOBODY EVER SAW THE DESCENT CAPABILITIES OF LUNAR MODULE ON EARTH;

The LM had no descent capabiility on Earth.  That's like saying you can't believe a battleship will work in water until everyone has seen it work on land, even though battleships don't work on land.

THEREFORE, NOBODY WAS CERTAIN THAT LUNAR MODULE’S ROCKET ENGINE COULD DO THE JOB WHILE ON THE LUNAR ORBIT.

Hogwash.  You can test a propulsion system to death without mounting it in the spacecraft it's intended to push.  And since the LM's propulsion system was tested extensively in Earth and lunar orbit, your claim is pure hogwash.  If the engine fires in a vacuum, produces the correct thrust, and can be throttled as designed, it will work for landing.

The Lunar-Module was NOT fully tested. It could NOT be used for landing.

I have 20 years experience in engineering design, validation, and test, including experience in both manned and unmanned spacecraft.  In my expert, professional opinion the Apollo lunar module was tested sufficiently according to a well-reasoned, defensible test plan.  You're obviously a layman.  Why should we let you try to tell us how to do our jobs?  You clearly know nothing about it.

Yes, this the part where you try to tell me that I'm obviously well-motivated to defend Apollo.  Unfortunately this discussion is not about who may or may not have motive to tell the truth.  This discussion is about who knows how to build and test a spacecraft.  Since the number of spacecraft you've built is probably right around zero, I submit you don't know what you're talking about.

[Johno]

hyu2004,

I think you need to recognise something.  Some people on this board, like myself, are educated laymen.  Others are professional engineers (and a couple of honest-to-goodness NASA people).  Either way, we have a simple ethos - Any claim you make has to be backed up by evidence!

You throw around the word "impossible" like it means something.  In what sense of the word "impossible" do you mean? 

Do you mean physically impossible - that given the state of technology at the time, it could not be done then?  These people have demonstrated to you that the evidence says otherwise.  Whether or not you care to listen is your own business, but sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalala" doesn't change reality.

Or maybe you mean logically impossible - that to do this is inherently contradictory, such as making a square circle or 2+2 equalling 5.  This is obviously not the case for the moon shot - it is easily imaginable for someone to land on the moon, and we see no logical reason why it should not be possible.

You are trying to put the burden of proof onto others.  Your own argument does not bear any scrutiny.  Try again when you're ready to argue instead of making incoherent statements.

[Lemguy]

Dear Mr Yu:

I find it remarkable after so many years, so many photos, so many words written, that there still some people who resist in believing man went to the moon.

You, it appears, are one of these people. After hearing from so many people on this forum, all expressing the same basic thought, you still resist. I can only suggest that you prove your beliefs to every member of this forum. Kindly provide proof that can be verified by a number of different sources other than yourself and we just might change our minds.

But would you say to a person who has been to the moon that he has been mistaken for almost forty years ?. If that is the case I suggest most strongly you contact Richard Gordon and inform him he has been mistaken for almost forty years. His website is....I won't bother giving you his website because sir, I don't think you've got the guts.

[Bob B.]

Last night I programmed a simulation of the LM landing on the Moon.  The following is a printout of the results:

http://www.braeunig.us/misc/LMdescent.txt

Column 1:  Elapsed time in seconds from PDI (powered descent initiation)
Column 2:  Mass of LM less DPS (descent propulsion system) propellant, in kg
Column 3:  Remaining DPS propellant mass, in kilograms
Column 4:  Total mass of LM in kilograms, columns 2 + 3
Column 5:  DPS thrust setting in percent of maximum thrust
Column 6:  DPS thrust in Newtons
Column 7:  LM pitch angle in degrees; 90-degrees is “windows up”
Column 8:  Altitude above mean lunar surface, in meters
Column 9:  Acceleration of gravity, in m/s^2
Column 10:  Vertical acceleration of LM, in m/s^2
Column 11:  Horizontal acceleration of LM, in m/s^2
Column 12:  Vertical velocity of LM, in m/sec
Column 13:  Horizontal velocity of LM, in m/sec

The initial conditions shown at T=0 are from the Apollo 17 mission reports.  The values for thrust setting and pitch angle were determined and entered by me.  All other data is calculated from the initial conditions, the changing thrust and pitch, and the known lunar parameters.

I had only scant information regarding thrust and pitch settings.  I had to fill in the missing data by estimating thrust and pitch based on my experience.  Altitude and velocity information for six data points were known from NASA reports – the starting and ending points and four intermediate points.  I adjusted the thrust and pitch as necessary to make the simulated results match as closely as possible the known data points.  For example, occurring at T+440s was an event called “DPS Throttle Recovery”.  Below are the planned altitude and velocity for Apollo 17 from NASA and my simulated data:

                        NASA      Bob B.
Altitude:             7,847 m    7,845 m
Horizontal velocity     366 m/s    375 m/s
Vertical velocity       -27 m/s    -26 m/s

The closeness of these numbers show that the simulation is working.  I probably could have gotten even closer by tweaking the spacecraft attitude a bit more, but this is close enough for my purposes.  The intent of the simulation is not to make a perfect match, but rather to show that the LM had sufficient thrust and propellant to soft-land on the Moon. 

As you can see, after 720 seconds the simulation shows the LM on the ground (altitude=0) with zero vertical and horizontal velocities.  The amount of propellant remaining is 913 kg.  The actual Apollo 17 landing lasted 721 seconds and had 596 kg of propellant remaining.  The simulated numbers verify the real numbers as reported by NASA within a small margin of error.

I performed a similar simulation of the LM's ascent to orbit last year.  The results of that simulation again showed the information reported by NASA as accurate. 

[superman12]

If the moon landing was fake, there had to be at least a few thousand workers who set up the drama studios,take films, not to mention the people working in the related manufacturers etc... Also, everyone in the control room must have been faking everything. If you add these numbers up, the outcome is a HUGE population of people who know that the moon landing was fake!!
YET, we still haven't seen or heard ANYONE appearing in front of the camera or even send annonymous letters to the press telling it was fake.
We are people, no matter how top secret we are told it is, there are always people who break promises. Not to mention how much money you could get from the TV or books if you expose this to the whole world!

So there is a high chance it was not faked!

Best regards, superman

[spacecat27]

It would appear that young Mr. Yu had had his fun and run away.....
but I think this thread shows what a fine, upstanding and polite bunch we have here to take the time to methodically and logically put down his claims.  I salute the patience of you guys--- as a practiced Grumpy Old Man- I would not have given the scamp the time of day! 

[LunarOrbit]

hyu2004:

I have removed your latest postings because they were severely off topic. Religion and terrorism have absolutely nothing to do with the Apollo moon landings. I will also remind you one last time to stop posting the same message multiple times.

Stay on topic and stop spamming the forum, if you do it again I will ban you.