WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE PART 2 - DEBUNKED

“Well,” you now say, “what about all those cool Moon rocks? How did they get those? The Moon is, you know, the only source of Moon rocks, so doesn’t that prove that we were there?”

No, as a matter of fact, it does not prove that we were there, and as odd as it may sound, the Moon is not the only source of Moon rocks. As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites. Because the Moon lacks a protective atmosphere, you see, it gets smacked around quite a bit, which is why it is heavily cratered. And when things smash into it to form those craters, lots of bits and pieces of the Moon fly off into space. Some of them end up right here on Earth.

 McGowan says “matter of fact” when he knows nothing about the subject. Meteorites have most of their mass burnt away during entry into Earth’s atmosphere. They develop fusion crusts. This negates two very significant things pertinent to Apollo samples. From exposure to solar events, the exterior of the rocks develop a stronger, very thin layer of He3(helium 3). Any such layer would be burnt away on a meteorite. Many of the rocks also showed unique characteristics, later dubbed as “zap-pits”, from billions of years of  micro-meteorite bombardment. This would also not be present, together with redistributed helium 3, known as “gardening”. Meteorites once on Earth, naturally begin isotopic decay which can easily be measured and more importantly they develop secondary minerals within from exposure to oxygen, nitrogen and water. All in all, it is completely impossible for these rocks to have come in as meteorites.

By far the best place to find them is in Antarctica, where they are most plentiful and, due to the terrain, relatively easy to find and well preserved. And that is why it is curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off. You would think that, what with the demanding task of perfecting the hugely complex Saturn V rockets, von Braun and his cronies at NASA would have had their hands full, but apparently there was something even more important for them to do down in Antarctica. NASA has never offered much of an explanation for the curiously timed expedition.

This is very much a fabrication. Although meteorites can be seen easily against the white of the terrain, they are largely collected at the outwash plains of glaciers. Their quantity is quite significant, but sadly the number of meteorites collected from the Moon is not. Von Braun is a rocket engineer, his party went on a field trip to explore hostile terrain. It makes no sense whatsoever to send such a rocket engineer on a geology field trip. A field trip where they collected 842lbs of lunar samples? Already established as impossible, but what method did they have to create 3m core samples etc. And of course, the logic bomb! Why would NASA release photographs of such an expedition in the first place!

Some skeptics have said that it is possible that Moon rocks could have been gathered from the Moon with robotic probes. But while it isn’t being argued here that unmanned craft haven’t reached the Moon, it seems virtually inconceivable that any unmanned spacecraft could have landed on and then been brought back from the surface of the Moon in the 1960s or 1970s. There is no indication that it can even be done today. It’s been more than three decades since anyone has claimed to do it, and that claim, by the Soviets, is highly suspect.

Empty rhetoric, bare assertion and begging the question. But he does at least dismiss the idea that robotic probes were used. Where did the rocks come from then!?

 

What is known for sure is that even some of the ‘debunking’ websites have, albeit reluctantly, acknowledged that meteorite samples gathered from Antarctica are virtually indistinguishable from NASA’s collection of Moon rocks

 

A lie. They have the same general appearance and minerals, but with notable differences detailed above.

 

Of course, as we very recently learned, that is not true of all of NASA’s Moon rocks. Some of them apparently bear no resemblance at all to lunar meteorites. Instead, they look an awful lot like petrified wood from the Arizona desert. Such was the case with a ‘Moon rock’ that the Dutch national museum has been carefully safeguarding for many years now, before discovering, in August of 2009, that they were in reality the proud owners of the most over-insured piece of petrified wood on the planet. The ‘Moon rock’ had been a gift to the Dutch from the U.S. State Department, and its authenticity had reportedly been verified through a phone call to NASA. I’m guessing that NASA was probably running low on meteorite fragments and figured the Dutch wouldn’t know the difference anyway. Or maybe Washington was a little peeved over the fact that Dutch newspapers reportedly called NASA’s bluff at the time of the first alleged Moon landing.

 

A complete fabrication and embellishment of an event that did not occur. The Ambassador for the USA, gave the ex-prime minister the gift. Nowhere was this part of the Goodwill tour. The astronauts did not meet with him. They actually handed out tiny fragments encased in resin, on a presentation stand with gold embossed and engraved plaque - in 1970, well after this tour. Nixon's idea for the moon rock plaques didn't actually happen until November 1969, and the plaques themselves were handed out in 1970. The actual gifts given were a replica of a piece of silica engraved with goodwill messages from heads of state that was left on the surface, a magnifying glass to read the disk, a replica of the 'we came in peace...' plaque on the LM and photographs.This was to all the heads of state they met. No way would NASA even consider handing out a sizeable rock to an ex-prime minister when even the Queen hersel f received one of the tiny fragments.
The lunar samples themselves were only released from the lunar receiving laboratory in mid-September 1969 to the world's scientists after the LRL had carried out their own analyses, so by early October 1969 when Apollo 11 visited Holland the samples had only just been given to scientists to look at.

 

This is not to suggest, of course, that all of the Moon rocks passed out by NASA and the State Department are obvious fakes. Most, presumably, are of lunar origin – but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were gathered by American astronauts walking on the surface of the Moon; they could just as easily have come to Earth as meteorites. It is also possible that they are of otherworldly origin but not from the Moon at all – such as meteorites from other sources that have been collected here on Earth.

 

Repeating his ignorant claim. They simply cannot be meteorites.

 

The only way to know for sure what NASA’s Moon rocks are, of course, would be to compare them to a ‘control rock’ that is known to be from the Moon.

 

And again McGowan has no formal geology education. He is simply making bare assertions. The rocks all come from a bone dry place, with indications of low gravity formation. They have no terrestrial weathering. They have exterior helium-3. They have zap-pits. They have numerous other solar isotopes. Significantly, the meteorites compared to Apollo rocks also show one common feature to Earth rocks. They contain identical oxygen isotope ratios, unlike any other source of rocks/meteorites.  

These are the reason the rocks are confirmed as being of lunar origin. They cannot be Earth rocks or meteorites. They had to have come from off Earth. The natural conclusion together with all the characteristics that are consistent with it, is that they came from the Moon via 6 Apollo missions.

 

The problem, alas, is that the only known source for ‘authenticated’ Moon rocks is NASA, the very same folks who are known to occasionally hand out chunks of petrified wood.

 

A lie. Geologists all around the globe confirm the authenticity of the rocks. NASA did not hand out anything to Drees.

 

The other problem, it turns out, is that most of the Moon rocks are, uhmm, missing.

 

A lie. Some of the tiny gifts are missing. The actual inventory shows the vast majority intact and in safe storage.

 

 Does anyone see a pattern developing here?

 

Yes. McGowan has either very poor research skills, hopeless conclusions or is a liar. I favour the latter.

 

Since the discovery of the fake Moon rock in the Dutch museum, ‘debunkers’ have claimed that the fact that no other Moon rocks have been declared fake proves that the Dutch case is an isolated one. “After that announcement,” goes the argument, “wouldn’t every other country in possession of a Moon rock have rushed to have them authenticated? And since no other country has made a similar announcement, doesn’t that prove that the Moon rocks are real?”

 

An embellished lie. The Dutch rock was not a fake Moon rock. It was given as a gift, but not by NASA. There has been no such “admission” about it being an isolated incident, it is simply hoax believers blowing hot air. Begging the question.

 

At first glance, that would appear to be a valid argument. The problem, however, is that the vast majority of those countries can’t test their ‘Moon rocks’ because, shockingly enough, no one knows where they are! As the Associated Pressreported on September 13, 2009, “Nearly 270 rocks scooped up by U.S. astronauts were given to foreign countries by the Nixon administration … Of 135 rocks from the Apollo 17 mission given away to nations or their leaders, only about 25 have been located by CollectSpace.com, a Web site for space history buffs that has long attempted to compile a list … The outlook for tracking the estimated 134 Apollo 11 rocks is even bleaker. The locations of fewer than a dozen are known.”

 

These were the tiny fragments given out on Goodwill tours, encased in resin. McGowan is once again bending the truth, or has no research skills.

 

It appears then that having a ‘control rock’ wouldn’t really be of much help after all, since nearly 90% of the alleged Moon rocks that we would want to test don’t seem to be around any more.

 

A lie.

 

“But I have also heard,” you now say, “that photos have been taken of the equipment left behind by the Apollo astronauts on the surface of the Moon, like the descent stages of the lunar modules. How do you account for that?” It is certainly true that there have been numerous claims over the years that various satellites or unmanned space probes or space telescopes were going to capture images that would definitively prove that man walked on the Moon, thus settling the controversy once and for all. And in recent years, the ‘debunkers’ have openly gloated whenever such an announcement has been made, boldly proclaiming that all the “hoax believers” will soon be exposed as the ignorant buffoons that they are.

 

Empty rhetoric and begging the question.

Despite all the promises, however, no such images have ever been produced, a fact that the ‘debunkers’ seem to conveniently overlook while forever rushing to announce that the hoax theories are about to be discredited.

 

There are now hundreds of images of the Apollo landing sites from LROC. I notice McGowan never corrected this piece of willful ignorance.

For at least two decades now, since the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, we have been promised dazzling images of the lunar modules sitting on the surface of the Moon.

 

A lie. No such promise was made, and why should it be. Placating the wild claims of conspiracy theorists is not high on the financial planning!

 

The Hubble technology, needless to say, never managed to deliver.

 

It doesn’t have the resolution necessary!

 

More recently, in 2002, the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (whose inventor apparently coined the name while watching Sesame Street) was also supposed to deliver the promised images. And seven years later, the fabled images have yet to materialize.

 

Nor will they. The VLT uses interferometry, that relies on significant contrast to build its images. The Apollo equipment on a grey background is invisible to such equipment and the resolving power is only just able to pick them out.

 

In March of 2005, Space.com boldly announced that a “European spacecraft now orbiting the Moon could turn out to be a time machine of sorts as it photographs old landing sites of Soviet robotic probes and the areas where American Apollo crews set down and explored. New imagery of old Apollo touchdown spots, from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SMART-1 probe, might put to rest conspiratorial thoughts that U.S. astronauts didn’t go the distance and scuff up the lunar landscape. NASA carried out six piloted landings on the Moon in the time period 1969 through 1972. Fringe theorists have said … that NASA never really went to the Moon.”

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.

 

I’m guessing that most “fringe theorists” will continue to harbor “conspiratorial thoughts” for as long as pompous websites like Space.com continue making arrogant proclamations such as that and then not following them up with so much as a single image in well over four years.

Who knew, by the way, that the European Space Agency had the technology and the budget to send a spacecraft off to orbit the Moon? Who knew that the Europeans even had a space agency? I wonder, given that they obviously have the technology to send spacecraft to the Moon, why they haven’t sent any manned missions there? I would think that it should be fairly easy to send some guys to at least orbit the Moon … right? I mean, all they have to do is add a couple seats to the spacecraft design that they already have and they should be ready to go.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The ESA Smart-1 lacked the resolution to photograph Apollo landing sites.

 

Here is another thing that I sometimes wonder about: why it is that in the 1960s we possessed the advanced technology required to actually land men on the Moon, but in the 21st century we don’t even have the technology required to get an unmanned craft close enough to the Moon to take usable photographs? Or could it be that there’s just nothing there to photograph?

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.

 

Just this year, NASA itself boldly announced that it’s “Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has returned its first imagery of the Apollo moon landing sites. The pictures show the Apollo missions’ lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon’s surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules’ locations evident … ‘The LROC team anxiously awaited each image,’ said LROC principal investigator Mark Robinson of Arizona State University. ‘We were very interested in getting our first peek at the lunar module descent stages just for the thrill – and to see how well the cameras had come into focus. Indeed, the images are fantastic and so is the focus.’”  Sounds promising, doesn’t it? The images, however, hardly live up to the billing. They are, in fact, completely worthless. All they depict are tiny white dots on the lunar surface that could be just about anything and that would barely be visible at all without those handy “long shadows from a low sun angle.”

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The LROC resolved all the equipment and astronaut trails. No amount of evidence would suffice to one so entrenched in their false claims.

 

And the weird thing about those shadows is that, in the very same NASA article, it says that “because the sun was so low to the horizon when the images were made, even subtle variations in topography create long shadows.” And yet while it is perfectly obvious that there are more than just “subtle variations” in the lunar topography in the images, the alleged lunar modules are the only things casting the long shadows.

 

By far the largest thing on the surface, so why wouldn’t they. Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.

 

Even if we give NASA every benefit of the doubt and assume that the images have not been amateurishly Photoshopped and that the indiscernible white dots are indeed something of man-made origin, the most likely culprit would be those Soviet robotic probes mentioned by Space.com, which presumably did land on the Moon. A number of those probes, which were part of the Apollo-era Luna Program, were very similar in size and shape to the lunar modules – certainly enough so that images of much higher resolution would be required to make a definitive judgment.

 

Bare assertion. The landing sites match exactly to what is claimed. The LROC pictures also show features that the Apollo team could not possibly have known about. Yet these show up on all the 6 landing films.

 

Actually, after studying the image above, of one of the alleged Luna probes, I’m going to have to say that the Soviets were lying their asses off almost as much as NASA was. There is no way I’m going to buy into the notion that the Soviets sent a freeform abstract sculpture, which appears to have been constructed by Fred Sanford and Granny Clampett, on a 234,000 mile journey from the Earth to the Moon. Careful study of the central area of the photo, however, does reveal why the spacecraft were known as ‘probes.’ I wonder if they were capable of performing docking maneuvers?

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The appeal to incredulity.

 

According to NASA, Japan and India have also sent unmanned orbiting spacecraft to the Moon in recent years, as has China. As with the ESA’s and NASA’s orbiters, they too have failed to return any images of Earthly artifacts left behind on the surface of the Moon. If the hoax ‘debunking’ websites are to be believed, by the way, the reason that no one has returned to the Moon in thirty-seven years is because we pretty much already tapped that celestial body for all the information it had to offer. There’s really, you see, nothing much left to see there.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The Japanese Selene mission, shows topography that is identical to Apollo images! In addition, thanks to efforts from individual researchers, it can be determined that there is evidence of human activity visible in the images sent back by Japan, China and India. Note that it doesn't claim to have found equipment as the resolving capabilities aren't good enough, just evidence of where astronauts disturbed the ground. It's noticeable in the Chinese images that the more disturbance there is the easier it is to pick it out. Apollo 11's site, for example, is only just discernible if you squint a bit, whereas the later missions are much more obvious.

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/landings.html
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/landingsa15a.html

 

A ‘debunking’ article posted by ABCNews.com, for example, quoted Val Germann, the president of the Central Missouri Astronomical Association, as saying, “There’s no reason to go back … Quite frankly, the moon is a giant parking lot, there’s just not much there.” I wonder why it is then that just about everyone seems to want to send unmanned probes there, or to train enormously powerful telescopes on the Moon’s surface? What could they possibly learn about the “parking lot” from those distances that our astronauts didn’t already discover by actually being there?

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.

 

Some True Believers also claim that what was dubbed the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment also proves that we really went to the Moon. As the story goes, the astronauts on Apollo 11, Apollo 14, and Apollo 15 all allegedly left small laser targets sitting on the lunar terrain (one of them can be seen in the official NASA photo reproduced below), so that scientists back home could then bounce lasers off the targets to precisely gauge the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

According to the ‘debunkers,’ the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically – most likely by the Soviets. It is also possible that there are no laser targets on the Moon. In December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963.

 

Bare assertion. There is not one scrap of evidence to support unmanned probes to the areas visited to plant laser reflectors. The laser reflectors return an accuray within fractions of a millimeter. The surface bounces were random and had variances of tens of metres!

 

There was much about the Apollo flights that was truly miraculous, but arguably the greatest technological achievement was the design of the lunar modules. Has anyone, by the way, ever really taken a good look at one of those contraptions? I mean a detailed, up-close look? I’m guessing that the vast majority of people have not, but luckily we can quickly remedy that situation because I happen to have some really good, high-resolution images that come directly from the good people at NASA.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The appeal to incredulity. McGowan is suggesting, that his biased and uninformed observation is the definitive one, whilst blatantly ignoring the numerous development and testing videos that show the Lunar Module without it’s various external shielding!

 

While what is depicted in the images may initially appear, to the untrained eye, to be some kind of mock-up that someone cobbled together in their backyard to make fun of NASA, I can assure you that it is actually an extremely high-tech manned spacecraft capable of landing on the surface of the Moon. And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the Moon and flying 69 miles back up into lunar orbit! Though not immediately apparent, it is actually a two-stage craft, the lower half (the part that looks like a tubular aluminum framework covered with Mylar and old Christmas wrapping paper) being the descent stage, and the upper half (the part that looks as though it was cobbled together from old air conditioning ductwork and is primarily held together, as can be seen in the close-up, with zippers and gold tape) being the ascent stage.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. What McGowan fails to point out is that this was not built by NASA, so encompasses an entire company of people, who he suggests, produced a craft not fit for purpose!

 

The upper half, of course, is the more sophisticated portion, being capable of lifting off and flying with enough power to break free of the Moon’s gravity and reach lunar orbit. It also, of course, possessed sophisticated enough navigational capabilities for it to locate, literally out in the middle of fucking nowhere, the command module that it had to dock with in order to get the astronauts safely back to Earth. It also had to catch that command module, which was orbiting the Moon at a leisurely 4,000 miles per hour.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. Appeal to incredulity. McGowan expresses crudely his complete ignorance of the scenario. The CM/SM craft, over flew the landing site on each orbit, or very close to it. The docking procedure was simply aligning the known arrival of the orbiting vessel with the known time to reach orbital status. No sophisticated navigation was needed. Just simple radar and simple timing.

 

But we’ll get to all that a little later. I think we can all agree for now that such a sleek, stylish, well-designed craft would have no problem flying with that kind of power, precision and stability.

There is one thing that appears to be a problem though: how did they get everything on board the modules that they were going to need to successfully complete their missions? According to NASA, the modules were (excluding the landing pads) only about twelve feet in diameter. That is obviously not a whole lot of space to work with, so let’s try to think of everything that we would need if we were astronauts venturing off on a little journey to the Moon.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. Again, re-iterating that the design of the craft was by Grumman and it was fit for purpose.

 

First of all, of course, we have to account for the space taken up by the various components of the ship itself. There is the framework and the, uhh, let’s call it the ‘fuselage’ of the craft. And we will need a lot of very sophisticated navigation and guidance and communications equipment, all of which took up a whole lot more space back in the ‘60s than it would today. And then, needless to say, there is the power supply – or rather multiple power supplies. For the descent stage, there is the reverse-thrust rocket that allegedly allowed the craft to make a soft landing on the Moon. And then for the ascent stage, there is a powerful rocket to propel the random bundle of sheet metal into lunar orbit. There are also additional rockets to allegedly stabilize the vessel in flight (the random clusters of what look like bicycle horns).

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. In struggle to find anything here that needs addressing, McGowan is simply blowing hot air out.

 

Next up is the massive amount of fuel that will be required to power all of those rockets, for both the ascent and descent stages of the mission. The ascent stage in particular is going to be a bit of a fuel hog, as ascending 69 miles and breaking free of the Moon’s gravity is a formidable challenge, to say the least. Though it may only have 1/6 the gravitational pull of Earth, keep in mind that it is still a force strong enough to create the tides here on Earth, 234,000 miles away.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. Fuel loads, engine ISP and delta-v figures have all been provided. The mass is provided. Where is McGowan’s analysis to support his bare assertion?

 

I’m not a rocket scientist, by the way, so I am sure that there are quite a few components that I am leaving off of my lunar module – but that’s okay, because our spaceship is already feeling really cramped just with the stuff listed so far. And we’re just getting started.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. McGowan has not started anything that is not fully detailed in the LM schematics, the specifications and the numerous videos on its design and build.

 

Next we have to include everything required to keep ourselves alive and well. We aren’t going to be there very long, of course, and space is obviously limited, but we will still require some basic amenities. We will, after all, have to sleep somewhere in the ship, won’t we? Or will we just unfold cots on the lunar surface? We will also require a sanitation/septic system of some kind. Or did those missions bring about another ‘first’ that NASA has been reluctant to brag about? Was Neil Armstrong, unbeknownst to the American people, the first man to take a dump on lunar soil? Or was it Buzz Aldrin? Which astronaut has the distinction of being the first to soil the lunar landscape? Anyway, getting back to our packing list, in addition to a sanitation system, it is imperative that we bring along an adequate supply of food, water and oxygen – and not just enough to last for the planned duration of our visit, but enough to supply a small safety cushion should anything go wrong. Because from what I have heard, running out of food, water or oxygen while on the Moon can really fuck up an otherwise perfectly good trip. The oxygen is especially important, so we’re going to need a really good, reliable system to deliver that oxygen, and to, you know, recharge the oxygen tanks in our spacesuits so we can walk around on the Moon and jump like 8” or 9” high like the Apollo guys did. And a back-up oxygen system probably wouldn’t be a bad idea.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. Nothing in McGowan’s list is problematic or not accounted for.

 

We are also going to need to install a top-of-the-line heating and cooling system. Probably several of them, actually. Because the ‘weather’ on the Moon, so to speak, can be a bit unpleasant.

 

McGowan offers nothing to suggest this was not the case.

 

According to the experts over at NASA, daytime highs average a balmy +260° F, but it cools off quite a bit at night, dropping to an average of -280° F. If you’re looking for anything between those two extremes, you won’t really find it on the Moon. It’s pretty much one or the other. If you’re in the sun, you’re going to be boiled alive, and if you’re out of the sun, you’re going to be flash frozen.

 

A complete lie. All Apollo missions landed in early Lunar morning. The figures quoted by him are for the extremes of temperature of the surface. His claim about being in and out of the Sun is just a ridiculous appeal to incredulity. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of basic thermodynamics.

 

I’m not at all sure how the air conditioning system is going to work, come to think of it, since air conditioning requires a steady supply of – and please stop me if I am stating the obvious here – air. And the Moon doesn’t really have a lot of that.

 

Water and sublimation.

 

It would help, of course, if our spacecraft was heavily insulated in some manner, but that doesn’t appear to be the case, so we’ll need a really, really good heating and cooling system, and plenty of freon or whatever it is that we’ll need to keep it running. So now we have to add all of the following to our already crowded spacecraft: ourselves; a minimal amount of room to sleep and otherwise take care of the basic necessities of life; some type of plumbing and sewage system; a really good heating and cooling system, and a considerable supply of food, water and oxygen. And we’re still not done packing for our trip.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. On the one hand we have McGowan’s hysterical ramblings about all the foil on the craft, then he suggests it had no thermal shielding. The craft had multiple layers of this, including the hull. This was more than adequate to protect against any thermal radiation.

 

Now we have to add all of the equipment that will be required to maintain the ship and complete our planned missions. First of all, we are definitely going to need to pack an exhaustive supply of spare parts and a wide variety of tools. That is an absolute must. From what I have heard, there are a few stores on the Moon that do stock spaceship parts, but they tend to close on certain days of the week. And orders from the mainland can take a frustratingly long time to arrive, so it’s always best to be prepared for any emergency. There are a lot of things that can go wrong with our spaceship and the only thing harder than finding a good mechanic here on Earth is finding one on the Moon.

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.

 

And then, of course, we’ll have to bring all the fancy testing equipment that we will use to pretend to conduct experiments. Some of it is quite bulky, so we’ll need to set aside some storage space for all of that. And we’re going to need some additional storage space to bring back all those petrified wood samples, but we should have room for that after we jettison most of the fake testing equipment.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.

 

Our spaceship is now so ridiculously overloaded that we may have had to add a roof-rack and we still aren’t quite done yet. We still have a couple more items to pack, and we probably should have gotten them on sooner because they are going to require a lot of space. Since this is one of the later Apollo flights, you see, we also have to pack a dune buggy, otherwise known as a lunar rover. And the rovers, according to NASA, are a full ten feet long, just two feet less than the diameter of our craft. But not to worry – according to NASA, the rovers (pictured below) folded up to the size of a large suitcase. When released, they would just sort of magically unfold and snap into place, ready to roam the lunar terrain.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. McGowan hasn’t established that the craft was “ridiculously overloaded”. He simply has no idea of the way it was designed. There are numerous video examples of Earth and Lunar unloading of the rover.

  

To be perfectly honest, I’m not really sure why we have to pack the damn rover. There is no real compelling reason to take it to the Moon … except for the fact that they make for good TV, and that seems to be of paramount importance. And as can be seen below, it should easily fit into our spaceship.

A quite ridiculous statement. The rover gave the missions massive scope for exploration, capacity to carry samples and a means to video the entire thing via onboard TV transmitter.

One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover. And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. McGowan makes no attempt to source out the specifications for the batteries, their power output or the total load they were to support. He simply makes his customary appeal to incredulity and makes his ignorant assertions.

 

By the way, I can’t possibly be the only one who is disappointed that we never followed up on that breakthrough folding-vehicle technology. If we had folding Moon buggies back in the early 1970s, then how far behind could folding automobiles have been had we chosen to stay the course? Had NASA’s pioneering vision been followed up, we could all be folding up our cars and tucking them away under our office desks. But as with all the Apollo technology, it existed only in that specific period of time and has now, sadly, been lost to the ages.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. Purpose built for lunar excursions and of considerable cost. Not least the weight considerations and the practicality.

 

NASA has done something very odd, by the way, with the lunar module that it has on display for museum visitors to marvel at: it has staffed it with miniature astronauts wearing miniature space suits (the module may also be scaled slightly larger than the ‘real’ modules that allegedly landed on the Moon). I wonder why they would do that? I’m pretty sure that Buzz and Neil were of normal stature, so the only reason that I can think of that they would use miniature astronauts would be to portray the modules as larger than what they actually were. And in better condition too. Did they pick up the ones they sent to the Moon at a used car lot?

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. Appeal to incredulity.

 

Before moving on, I need to emphasize here just how sophisticated the lunar modules actually were. These remarkable spacecraft – and I understandably get a little choked up here talking about this, because I am just so damn proud of our team of Nazi scientists – managed to make six perfect take-offs from the surface of the Moon! And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!

 

A lie. The engines were tested both on the ground, in vacuum chambers, at altitude simulations and in space.

 

You can’t duplicate the conditions on the Moon here at home, you see, or even provide a rough approximation.

 

Yes you can,

 

And since no one had ever been to the Moon, they didn’t know exactly what to replicate anyway, so this part of the mission was pretty much of a crapshoot. Conditions on the Moon are, to say the least, a bit different than here on Earth. The gravitational pull is only about 1/6 of what it is here. And then there is that whole ‘lack of atmosphere’ thing.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.

 

And the decidedly unearthly temperatures.

 

Already covered. McGowan is quoting surface temperatures at maximum and minimum. Neither apply and the surface temperature is irrelevant within the extremes of mild blackbody radiation on the LM.

 

And then, of course, there are the high levels of space radiation.

 

To which McGowan suddenly believes NASA, applies his ludicrous exaggeration to it, then chooses to disbelieve their method to shield from it.

 

I’m quite sure that we had the best minds available working on the Apollo project, but none of them could have accurately predicted and compensated for how all those unearthly conditions would combine to affect the flight potential of the lunar modules. So the ability of the modules to actually blast off from the Moon and fly was, at best, a theoretical concept.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. McGowan is not qualified to make any such judgements and invariably misapplies or assumes incorrectly.

 

It is also important to remember that, unlike the initial blast-off from Earth (seen above), which involved the collective efforts of thousands of people and the use of all types of peripheral equipment, the astronauts taking off from the Moon had only themselves and a strange vessel that looked like it had been salvaged from the set of Lost in Space. What would you be thinking, by the way, if you suddenly found yourself on the surface of the Moon with what looked like a cheap movie prop as your only way home? Would you feel comfortable hanging around for a few days doing experiments, confident that, when the time came, the untested contraption behind you would actually get you back home from the Moon? Or would the words “bad career choice” be running through your head?

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The same collective efforts were there as on the ground, just closer, but still only in radio contact!

But as it turns out, America kicked ass back then and those lunar modules performed like champions every single time! They didn’t even need any modifications! Despite the completely foreign environment, they worked perfectly the very first time and every time thereafter!

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.

 

On Earth, it took many long years of trial and error, many failed test flights, many unfortunate accidents, and many, many trips back to the drawing board before we could safely and reliably launch men into low-Earth orbit.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.

 

But on the Moon? We nailed that shit the very first time.

 

Appeal to incredulity. That would be down to the endless testing on Earth.

 

Today, of course, we can’t even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though we have lowered our sights considerably. After all, sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit is considerably easier than sending spacecraft all the way to the friggin’ Moon and back. It would appear then that we can draw the following conclusion: although technology has advanced immeasurably since the first Apollo Moon landing and we have significantly downgraded our goals in space, we can’t come close to matching the kick-ass safety record we had in the Apollo days.

 

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. There were 135 space shuttle launches. 2 of them resulted in fatalities. Sending craft into orbit is the very hardest part of the whole process. It involves massive rockets and lifting considerable mass.

 

The thing is that, back in the frontier days, we didn’t need all that fancy technology and book-learnin’ to send Buzz and the boys to the Moon and back. Back then, we had that American can-do spirit and we just cowboyed up and MacGyvered those spaceships to the Moon. All we needed was an old Volkswagen engine, some duct tape and a roll of bailing wire. Throw a roll of butt-wipe and a little Tang on board and you were good to go.

 Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The appeal to incredulity.

 And how about the speed with which we cranked out those Apollo spacecraft? Once we figured out how to make them, we were stamping them out like Coke cans. We fired off seven of them in just under three-and-a-half years, or about one every six months. Given the extreme complexity of those vessels, and the fact that every component had to perform flawlessly under largely unknown conditions, that is a pretty impressive production schedule. America, I think it is safe to say, totally rocked back then!

Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The appeal to incredulity.

Well part 2 completed and McGowan still hasn’t provided any evidence. Lots of very idle speculation and some appallingly inept observations. I wonder how anyone can be taken in by this endless tirade of rhetoric and logical fallacies.