Moon Walkers.

[picowatt]

Johan 1955 says
quote
The Netherlands are best friends with US!

So we did get a very special gift in the sixties from our liberating friends, only Russia did do the job:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm
---
things like the above don't help the cause

No, they don't.

But consider this.  You've had a piece of moon rock proudly displayed sitting on a shelf in a cabinet at home for many years.  You grew old and died.  The administrators of your estate estate finds out the item on the shelf is actually fake.

Now, in your mind, is it not likely that as you grew old, a caregiver, lawyer, nephew etc, realized the amount of money some private collector would be willing to pay for that item and might have taken the rock and replaced it with something that looked fairly similar?  After all, you as an old man probably did not look at it very much any more, and if you did, well, your eyes had become a bit older too.   

Many moon rocks have been stolen or just come up missing over the years.  Even NASA employees have been arrested for stealing moon rocks.  It is almost always because of what someone is willing to pay for them. 

where's all the good Moon pics ?

There are plenty of moon "pics".  Have you looked for them?  Check out NASA...

do you have any idea how much interest NASA [or whomever] could generate if we pointed the Hubble scope at the Moon for some close ups so the kids could see the old sites ?

The Hubble is not suited for looking at the moon with greater resolution than LROC.

The best images to date of the Apollo landing sites are from LROC and what you have seen is as good as it gets (the image TK recently posted for example).

PW

[ramset]

Soo the Old moon rock switcheroo conspiracy theory       perfectly plausible

I suppose the "Good as it gets" Moon pics from NASA are a bit odd to the general population with_ images_
of Nebulas and such at unimaginable distances ?

And generating images from radio or other methods doesn't seem to be available for the moon lander locations ..

[picowatt]

Soo the Old moon rock switcheroo conspiracy theory       perfectly plausible

I suppose the "Good as it gets" Moon pics from NASA are a bit odd to the general population with_ images_
of Nebulas and such at unimaginable distances ?

With that "general population" apparently not understanding why, or even realizing, that the resolution of the lunar images made by LROC is much, much better than the resolution of those Nebulae images...

[conradelektro]

Here a more elaborate newspaper article about the Dutch fake moon rock:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm

"The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum."

So, is this the true story of the Dutch Moon rocks? I do not know, but it shows that one should not make conspiracy theories  from newspaper articles. Many articles are just hearsay or misinterpretations or misrepresentations of the truth.

About good pictures from the stuff left on the moon:

Whatever NASA provides, the conspiracy believers will not be satisfied. Everything can in theory be faked and there will always be people who claim that it is a fake, however good the proof is. And why should NASA provide proof, just because a few crazies demand it?

Why nobody has gone back to the moon:

The moon race was important politics at that time. The US wanted to prove that they can do better than the Russians. This goal has vanished, because the space race was won too easily by the US. There was and still is no more need to prove anything. The Russians have been defeated by themselves and the US is doing everything possible at the moment to copy that (just look at the presidential candidates and how the middle class has ben wiped out in the last decades).

It makes little sense to do the moon landings again unless one can build permanent buildings on the moon and have people there for months and years. And this is still not feasible.

All commercial interest in space is directed towards earth orbits (communication satellites, navigation satellites). Even most scientific interests are in earth orbit (measuring and photographing many things globally on the earth). Military interests are in earth orbits; the enemy is on earth not out in space.

Sending men beyond earth orbit is still not feasible in a useful way, and therefore it is not happening.

Too many problems have materialized on earth: financial crisis, economic crisis, political crisis because the "free market economy" is not providing what was promised for many decades, a global disillusionment concerning manned space travel has happened.

It turned out that sending men far into space is much more costly and technologically difficult than one thought back in 1960 to 1975. Much more progress is still necessary than one thought. May be autonomous robotic devices can do better space travel than people?

These are much more valid reasons than a conspiracy!

But conspiracy theories are cheap to come up with and can be sold easily. One can never beat conspiracy developers and conspiracy believers, they will be with us forever.

Conspiracy developers and believers are like OU developers and believers: they demand that one proves them wrong. This is a reversal of duty. They have to provide very good proof that they are right.

Greetings, Conrad

[tinman]

Like I said, the cost of the hardware to actually build the rovers was insignificant compared to the cost to design, test, and certify the operation of the rovers.  Please don't start spouting what you believe to be a rover design suitable for launch to and operation on the moon. 

The fact that you cannot see the engineering marvels used in the deigns of the very simple lunar rover used during Apollo only indicates that you do not understand the difficulty of the task.  Look how long China's recent robotic lunar rover was able to move about before it failed. 

That you "think" you could do better or cheaper has no bearing on whether Apollo did or did not happen and only erodes your credibility.


I need to get some work done, so I likely won't be wasting much more time on this subject.

But, how about before YOU go any further you address the refutation of your claims regarding the Van Allen belts?
What you stated was simply not true and yet you just continue on as if it were.

I have posted video's of both the ISS commander ,and a NASA engineer that have both said that we cannot yet traverse the van allen belt's. Perhaps you go argue with them?.
I have also posted video's of the apollo astronaut's that had no clue as to weather they went through the van allen belt's or not--are you going to argue these two point's ?.

Do you seriously think yourself qualified to perform even the thermodynamic analysis necessary to design your thermal management system?  Do you know how innovative and yet elegantly simple the rover's thermal management system was?

As you guys often say-->you can see the forest for the tree's.
Do you know how innovative and yet elegantly simple the rover's thermal management system was

Yes i do. It was about as innovative as the photographic paper the picture below was printed on,and the plastic bag it was wrapped in.

Quote: I've seen figures stated as extreme as  +/- 200C (+392 to -328F)

Well if a picture and plastic bag can survive those temperatures,then how can you say that thermal control is an issue.
Time and time again,NASA shoots them self in the foot,and shows us evidence time and time again that the moon landings were a hoax. But no matter what evidence any one provides that clearly shows the whole thing was a hoax,you (and others) turn a blind eye to it all--as you must believe it was real,regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

So how is it that the picture that Charles Duke placed on the moon dose not shrivel up PW,if temperatures are as high as you have posted.?

Brad