Evan Burton

Next - the jump height.

The 2 metre jump height mentioned might be possible if it were not for the constraints of the Apollo EMU.

An astronaut could not bend his legs enough to jump very high; watch various video of the astronauts on the Moon and see how they have to position themselves if they want to pick something up. The PLSS meant their centre of gravity was to the rear, meaning they had to lean forward slightly to maintain balance. Even if they could jump to a great height, it would not be advisable; there was the risk they could fall over and damage their life support system. The biggest jumps were during the Apollo 16 EVA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgGFU1oDxAE&NR=1

The Apollo 1 crew was still alive for at least 15 minutes after the craft caught fire, because their autopsy found that they have managed to develop pulmatory oedema, which cannot happen if they had died earlier.

I'd like to see supporting evidence of this. The report said:

Loss of consciousness was due to cerebral hypoxia due to cardiac arrest resulting from myocardial hypoxia. Factors of temperature, pressure and environmental concentrations of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen and pulmonary irritants were changing extremely rapidly. It is impossible to integrate these variables on the basis of available information with the dynamic physiological and metabolic conditions they produced, in order to arrive at a precise statement of time when consciousness was lost and when death supervened. The combined effect of these environmental factors dramatically increased the lethal effect of any factor by itself. It is estimated that consciousness was lost between 15 and 30 seconds after the first suit failed. Chances of resuscitation decreased rapidly thereafter and were irrevocably lost within 4 minutes.

Lets see PROOF of the claim.

3 of the X-15 were built, and its last flight was a year later (in 1968), out of 9 service years in total.

Again - so what? The three aircraft made 199 flights, reaching 107 km in altitude. The pressure suits they wore formed the basis for Apollo suits, BTW.

Apollo 1 was not the first prototype but had a serial number of 012.

Again, so what? In the aerospace industry, you produce prototypes and flight prototypes. Most were used in tests before the first manned test article.

. For many years before and after 1967 both the US and Soviet space industry had from 0 to 3 death cases per year. Only in 1967, a year before the first manned Apollo flight, there were 11 death cases.

I'd like to see references. I have 6, perhaps 7 US deaths in 1967. I'd like to see the deaths detailed.

Next: Apollo 1 deaths, as well as others.

Apollo 1: The deaths of the Apollo 1 crew was not only tragic but preventable. There are numerous factors that come into play, but the two over-riding factors were complacency and the pressure to achieve a deadline. Complacency regarding the use of oxygen in spacecraft had been growing since Mercury, and pressure to meet schedules meant accepting defects in the process. A common attitude was that the machine was not perfect but they would sort problems out later. This affected all aspects of Apollo; a common saying was "waste anything but time". There is a claim is that spacecraft commander Gus Grissom was going to hang a lemon on the spacecraft. This is NOT true. He did hang a lemon on the spacecraft simulator, frustrated that the simulator configuration was not keeping pace with that of the spacecraft. So was Gus satisfied with the state of the Block I Command Module? No, he was not. He expressed his complaints in various areas but believed that the spacecraft was safe enough to fly, fixing up the problems in the Block II CM. This aspect needs to be looked at closely. The hoax believer claim is that he dared not speak up lest he was killed. This is wrong because he DID speak up. Did he do enough? No - astronaut John Young (veteran of Gemini X, Apollo 10 and commander of Apollo 16) said that Gus spoke to him of the problems. Young - an outspoken advocate of safety since the Apollo days - said that he asked Gus why he didn't complain more loudly. Gus told him he was afraid they would take the first Apollo flight away from him. Now think about this: would someone who had already voiced concerns about the spacecraft remain in a craft he felt was a death trap? NO - he was not happy with the state of the craft but felt the risk was acceptable. If he really felt it was unacceptable, all he need do was complain enough and he would be replaced. There was a backup crew waiting to fly, and they would step up in a moment. This would remove Gus (and probably his crew) from the danger whilst still highlighting the problems. Now let's examine the case of a deliberate murder of the crew; if this were the case, what did it achieve? It highlighted publicly the problems with the spacecraft and delayed the programme for 18 months. Now how did that work to the perpetrator's advantage? If anything, it drew attention to the problems and programme. It simply does not make sense.

The Baron death: Thomas Baron made two reports to the AS-204 Review Board (the Apollo 1 fire), claiming various problems. The majority were just heresay and unproven (or disproven) but some were quite valid. Baron was a quality control inspector for North American Aviation, the makers of the Apollo CM and SM. After he submitted his reports to NAA (in 1966, before the Apollo 1 fire), the AS204 Review Board and subsequent House investigation, he and his family were killed when crossing a train crossing. Again, there are claims he was "removed", so let's review this. He made complaints and a report BEFORE the Apollo 1 fire. He made complaints and a report AFTER the fire. His written reports were presented to the review board and the House investigation. He gain notoriety because he leaked his reports to the media. So what did his death result in? Increased scrutiny of his claims, the last thing a conspirator would want. The hoax claimers often fail to mention Baron's mental state at the time of his death.

Deaths of other astronauts. The vast majority of astronauts in those times were military test pilots. They maintained their flying proficiency by flying high performance jet aircraft. Flying military jet aircraft, especially in those day, is a hazardous profession. Let's have a look at the statistics. How many fatal jet aircraft accidents were there in those days?

FATAL ACCIDENTS (Pilots only) / (Class A accident involves fatalities) / Astronaut numbers - deaths - percentage (death)

1965 - 153 / Class A rate - 4.57% / 33 - 0 - 0%

1966 - 139 / Class A rate - 4.91% / 50 - 2 - 4%

1967 - 117 / Class A rate - 4.54% / 56 - 6 - 10.7%

1968 - 146 / Class A rate - 3.90% / 56 - 0 - 0%

1969 - 139 / Class A rate - 4.05% / 91 - 0 - 0%

A quick review of astronaut deaths:

1964 - Ted Freeman. Birdstrike to T-38.

1966 - Elliot See / Charlie Bassett. Landing below weather minimums.

1967 - Apollo 1 crew, CC Williams, Robert Lawrence (first African-American graduate of Aerospace Research School), Ed Givens. Capsule fire, control malfunction, instructor pilot when student made fatal approach, car accident.

Astronaut Groups

Astronaut Deaths

Next: A hoax is possible to keep secret.

We have a number of examples quoted: The Manhattan project, Bletchly Park (Enigma), the N-1 moon rocket, etc. Let have a look at them.

The atomic bomb: It is established fact that there were many leaks to the USSR of the Manhattan Project, which greatly accelerated the USSR's own atomic bomb project. What about Germany?

...German physicists heard rumors and suspected an atomic bomb project was underway in Britain, the United States, or both...

Enigma: This one is slightly different. The number of people "in the know" was quite small. Each hut only knew about its own decodes and not others. Huts did not necessarily know about the Bombe or Colossus, just that they had been given a "tool" to help break the code. After the war, it was still kept secret because it was still leading to information about Soviet activities / spy rings. The secret was kept because it was a matter of national security, and when that was no longer relevant the secret began to leak. The comparison is invalid: Bletchley Park involved cipher codes during a real war and then protecting the secret because it could still affect current operations. If Apollo had been faked, there would be no reason to keep the secret, especially after the fall of the USSR.

The USSR's N-1 moon rocket: The N-1 was the USSR's equivalent to the US Saturn V rocket. Its development, along with manned lunar lander hardware, is proof that the USSR believed a manned landing on the Moon was not only possible but they hoped to beat the US. The CIA knew about the N-1 programme almost since its inception. In fact, it (along with the Proton booster) was one of the factors that led to Apollo 8 becoming a circumlunar flight.

So we see that a big secret is difficult to keep. Also, the number of people to be involved in a hoax is not small. It must include astronauts, NASA management, flight controllers, tracking stations, and more.

(An aside: notice that the top secret report talks about Soviet confidence to conduct a "... manned flight of 1 to 2 weeks; this would be adequate for a manned circumlunar or lunar landing mission...". So the USSR didn't think that travel through the VABs posed an insurmountable problem)

Conspiracy theorists.

If you claim Apollo was faked, then by definition you are a conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy is:

"...an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act..."

Next: Movies.

Well, so what? In 1968 there was a movie called MAROONED where, after leaving a Skylab-like space station, three astronauts are stranded in Earth orbit when their SPS engine fails to fire. A rescue attempt is made using the X-20 Dyna-Soar spacecraft and the USSR. In real life, the X-20 was cancelled. Nothing close to anything like that ever happened. The nearest to co-operation with the USSR was the ASTP, a largely political exercise.

In the TV series QUANTUM LEAP, Sam leaps into the body of Lee Harvey Oswald as we see how he prepares and carries out the assassination of JFK. Is this proof the LHO was indeed a 'lone nut'?

There are lots of movies portraying FICTIONAL events. Just because a movie is made that relates to real world events doe NOT make the movie fact, true, or containing hidden messages, etc.

Next, the claim of flawless performance. To most people, everything seemed fine with every mission bar Apollo 13. After all, missions were launched, the crew landed, an area of the lunar surface was explored and the crew all returned safely. NASA did its best to minimise, however, the problems that occurred - problems that could have led to scrubbing a landing to near fatal events. In fact some NASA officials wanted to end the landings after Apollo 12, fearing that there could be loss of life. Others felt that valuable experience was being gained from each mission, and that they should continue.

Examples of incidents not well known:

Apollo 10: Incorrect switch setting led to problems during LM ascent stage / descent stage separation above lunar surface. Quick action brought the situation under control, but they were about 10 seconds away from an unavoidable crash into the lunar surface.

Apollo 11: Apart from the 1201 / 1201 computer alarms, after landing some of the fuel solidified in the DPS fuel lines, leading to a buildup of pressure. Engineers on the ground discussed the problem. Some thought it should clear itself. Others thought the pressure buildup could cause an explosion, and so the engine should be "burped" (briefly fired) to clear the blockage. They were planning to burp the engine but before the instructions could be passed, the blockage cleared by itself.

Apollo 12: Lightning strikes during launch. Caused systems loss in CSM. Luckily the Saturn V was designed to fly by itself, with the flight computer in the launch vehicle and not the spacecraft. A reversion mode allowed the spacecraft to continue flying and systems re-set once in orbit. There were fears that the strike could have damaged the re-entry parachutes, however it was decided there was nothing that could be done about it so the mission may as well continue as planned.

Apollo 14: Securing a hard dock between CSM and LM took several attempts and required more than normal force. It was feared that when the ascent stage returned to lunar orbit, they may not be able to dock and the astronauts may have to conduct a contingency EVA to return to the CM. Also, during the landing,there were two problems. What was believed to be a ball of solder escaped detection was and causing the LM ABORT switch to be made / unmade. Solved by a software workaround before the powered descent. In addition, the landing radar did not lock on until near the mandatory abort point.

Apollo 15: A short circuit in one of the control systems led to situation where there could be uncommanded activation of the CSM's SPS engine. After the LM had redocked and prior to the jettisoning of the LM, the lunar dust caused problems with the crew getting proper seals on their pressure suits (crew wore the suits for jettisoning after the Soyuz 11 disaster). There were also problems getting a proper seal on the CSM / LM tunnel inner hatch.

Apollo 16: Vibrations during the firing of the S-IVB stage during LOI. Luckily the vibration did not reach a point where they had to prematurely shut down the S-IVB's J-2 engine. After undocking in lunar orbit, there was a problem with one of the SPS engine's control circuits. They were considering aborting the mission but decided there was enough redundancy. On the surface, Charlie Duke fell over and landed on his PLSS backpack. Although there was no damage, the PLSS was not designed for this treatment and Duke was quite unnerved by the incident. He made sure he was a lot more careful after that, saying he he thought he was going to die.

ASTP: During splashdown, the crew failed to correctly actuate a system and subsequently gases from the CM's reaction control system and chute pyrotechnics were brought into the CM cabin when a vent opened. The crew began choking from the noxious gases, and had to don emergency oxygen masks.

But what about the times when ATS-3, a geosynchronous satellite, was taking images on the OPPOSITE side of the Earth to what was being seen on the Moon.... and those lunar images match known weather patterns?

I bet JVB dated EHH

LOL!!!!

Just a minute.. because the weather patterns on an Apollo image match the weather patterns known to exist, that's proof they were faked???

Huh?

And you have NOT demonstrated any such thing about the live video feeds. You have given a hypothesis which might be possible in one case, but cannot account for ALL the other live video feeds.

Let's talk about some of the various claims made in the thread. The first I want to address is the missing Apollo tapes.

First off, let's get one thing completely clear: there is NO MISSING FOOTAGE. Every second of the EVA that had footage taken has been recorded and is available. What is missing is the backup tapes, which would have allowed for a better quality version of the EVA. Let me explain.

The TV broadcast had to share limited bandwidth with what was considered more important data: spacecraft systems telemetry, communications, biomedical readings, etc. Because of these limitations, it was sent at 320 lines per frame and 10 frames per second (called Slow Scan Television - SSTV). This format is not compatible with standard TV broadcast format, so a conversion took place at the ground receiving stations. The signal went out and the Apollo 11 EVA was broadcast around the world.

The original SSTV tapes were packed up from all the receiving stations and sent back to NASA for storage. They were now backup tapes, in case a portion of the footage could not be broadcast or was destroyed (highly unlikely since the footage was sent around the world). It was still in the format which was incompatible for broadcast. These tapes were kept in a protected area for many months after the Apollo 11 mission, then sent to longer term storage. This longer term storage contained massive amounts of 1" magnetic tapes, all with various telemetry data: engine performance, communications, fuel cell performance, tracking data, etc. There were tens of thousands of these tapes.

In the mid-1970s, the producers of magnetic tape began to apply a new type of magnetic tape. This turned out to have problems and after a few years the tape would degrade. This led to a shortage of good quality, usable tape. NASA made the decision to recycle tape that was no longer necessary. They looked for tapes that could be re-used, degaussed them, and used them for current missions.

Because of poor archival practices, the Apollo 11 SSTV were mislabelled and probably re-used. For years it was available, and was then inadvertently (probably) re-used. They may still be amongst all the archival tapes, but the chances are not good.

It was not until around 2003 that Apollo TV engineers - who steadfastly deny any claims of a hoax - realised that better quality EVA footage could be available.

Just because it could have been done does not prove that it WAS done. Besides, you have account for the fact the the weather patterns associated with the Earth matched that seen in the images... and the live video images.

The ATS supported communications

Why does Jim not supply any references (e.g. the numerous [1] we see) and why does his link go do a dead page?

What standards of "evidence" does Jim use? It would seem it is "evidence" if it agrees with his opinion.

Kevin West: "Why would it be easy to see stars on the moon? All of the missions were during the day, with everything around them brightly illuminated by direct sunlight. To see stars, your eyes need to be dark adapted". Perhaps the Soviet cosmonauts had superior vision as well as superior space technology, as reported in http://en.metapedia....wiki/Moon_Hoax:

"Soviet cosmonauts (Leonov, Lebedev, Savinykh) on the dayside of the orbit; light from the Earth (Earth albedo 0.367, Moon albedo 0.12) did not hamper them see the stars.[1] For example, Leonov says that "the brightest of the stars can be recognised when they are farther than 30° away from the daylight luminary [the Sun].[1]"

"On the Moon, the sky is black—-even during the day-—and the stars are always visible.[1][1]

"In fact, the Moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system... The Moon reflects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it.[1]"

Kevin appears to be relying upon a faulty analogy comparing visual experience on the Earth with those that take place in the vicinity of the Moon.

Why would it be easy to see stars on the moon? All of the missions were during the day, with everything around them brightly illuminated by direct sunlight. To see stars, your eyes need to be dark adapted.

This video shows that the "earthrise" photos from Apollo 8 and 11 were really the same photo.

Really?

Here is the image I showed (AS11-44-6551). The "AS11" refers to the mission, "44" refers to the film roll number.

Here is a similar image from Apollo 8 (AS8-14-2383):

Check out the cloud patterns on each. Check out the land masses. Are they the same?

Many earthrise photos have been taken by unmanned missions, including Soviet missions and NASA's Clementine mission, just to name a few.. There are only a handful of Apollo photos showing the image of "earth" in the "lunar" sky, all of which could have been easily photoshopped.

Except that Photoshop did not exist in 1968 / 69 / 70. Or are you claiming yet another "conspiracy"?

So Jim, using neo-Nazi websites now?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Metapedia

Kevin West says: "The Apollo astronauts said they could see stars when standing in the LM's

shadow."

Neil Armstrong said: "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight

side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."

They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong. http://en.metapedia....wiki/Moon_Hoax:

"On the Moon, the sky is black—even during the day—and the stars are always visible.[1][1]"

How about the lunar samples -- which provided proof that the U.S. samples weren't from the Moon.

More reason for the Russians to not waste billions trying to accomplish the impossible dream of

landing a man on the Moon and returning safely to Earth? Reply: Kevin, Evan, Dave, Len, Dolva?

You're talking about cosmonauts in earth orbit, not on the surface of the moon, and they say they can see just the brightest stars by looking away from the light source (Earth). Standing on the moon, the bright light source is taking up half of your field of view, and looking up puts the sun in your field of view.

The only way to easily see stars on the moon is either at night, or standing in a shadow to block the sun and looking up far enough to get the Moon's surface out of your field of view. And guess what? The Apollo astronauts said they could see stars when standing in the LM's shadow.

Since Evan is in contact with the authors, he should ask if they could explain what protection the Apollo astronauts and their spacecraft had against the constant bombardments of small space rocks (tiny meteorites).

I am not the only one, by the way, who would like to know what protected their spacesuits from being "flooded" with heat / cold seeping through the tiny holes in the zippers of their uniform? Since they pose as experts, questions such as these should be child's play. And be sure to quote them verbatim for posterity.

Don't need to ask the people whose expertise is in radiation, as the information is freely available on the web or in publications (if one cares to look).

Integrated Thermal Micrometeroid Garment

Covering the Torso Limb Suit Assembly was an Integrated Thermal Micrometeroid Garment (ITMG). This garment protected the suit from abrasion and protected the astronaut from thermal solar radiation and micrometeoroids which could puncture the suit. The garment was made from thirteen layers of material which were (from inside to outside):rubber coated nylon, 5 layers of aluminized Mylar, 4 layers of nonwoven Dacron, 2 layers of aluminized Kapton film/Beta marquisette laminate, and Teflon coated Beta filament cloth.

Additionally, the ITMG also used a patch of "Chromel-R" woven steel (the familiar silver-colored patch seen especially on the suits worn by the Apollo 11 crew) for abrasion protection from the Portable Life Support System (PLSS) backpack. Chromel-R was also used on the uppers of the lunar boots and on the EVA gloves. Finally, patches of Teflon were used for additional abrasion protection on the knees waist and shoulders of the ITMG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L

The "zippers" had layers to prevent significant leakage of suit atmosphere (though there was some, about 0.3 lbs per hour)

The A-7L zipper:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/MitchellSuit31.jpg

Perhaps Jim claims that all the Gemini flights were faked, too, since their EVA suits also used zippers? As did most Soviet and many modern day Russian suits?

http://www.kuriositas.com/2010/06/apolloskylab-a7l-lets-start-with-design.html

So every EVA that occured in manned spaceflight Jim? Is that what you are saying?

Edited post by Jim Fetzer (and quote of post, made by John Dolva) to remove swearing.

Posted warning to Jim Fetzer regarding use of foul language.

Jim,

Swearing is not allowed. First and only warning about using foul language in posts.

Don't try and put words into my or their mouth Jim. We have seen how you tend to inadvertently change the meaning. Let me make this very clear, so that even you can understand:

Not only is human space travel possible through the Van Allen radiation belts, it was done on every single Apollo flight to & from the moon, and will continue to be done on every future human mission beyond low Earth orbit.

Is that clear enough for you?

While this is not on the order of other misrepresentations by Evan Burton,

when he writes, "I contacted the authors of the paper Duane quoted ("The Risk

for Radiation to Space Explorers") and have received a reply. I haven't got

permission to quote the e-mail I received as yet, but I can say this much:

They utterly refute any suggest that the Apollo landings were faked or that

travel through the Van Allen Belts is not / was not possible."

his language is sloppy. The term "refute" implies success in argumentation,

where what he really means is "rebut" or "deny", since it is most unlikely

that they have provided a thoroughly grounded argument whose premises and

reasoning is beyond dispute. Indeed, Burton is further imprecise insofar as

the question is not "travel" but "safe travel" and the entities for which it

would be "safe traveling" should be identified. Thus, his claim should read,

"They utterly deny [rebut, disavow, etc.] any suggest that the Apollo landings

were faked or that safe travel by humans through the Van Allen Belts is not /

was not possible."

He should be more accurate in his assertions / claims if he wants them to be

taken seriously. Since Evan is in contact with the authors, he should ask if

they could explain what protection the Apollo astronauts and their spacecraft

had against the constant bombardments of small space rocks (tiny meteorites).

I am not the only one, by the way, who would like to know what protected their

spacesuits from being "flooded" with heat / cold seeping through the tiny holes

in the zippers of their uniform? Since they pose as experts, questions such as

these should be child's play. And be sure to quote them verbatim for posterity.

I contacted the authors of the paper Duane quoted ("The Risk for Radiation to Space Explorers") and have received a reply. I haven't got permission to quote the e-mail I received as yet, but I can say this much:

They utterly refute any suggest that the Apollo landings were faked or that travel through the Van Allen Belts is not / was not possible.

The point was the difficulties that long duration spaceflight or lunar / Mars missions will pose to crews unless a suitable shielding material is found that can protect explorers for repeated EVA where they will receive repeated doses of radiation.

I'll post the text from the e-mail if and when I get permission.

I contacted the authors of the paper Duane quoted ("The Risk for Radiation to Space Explorers") and have received a reply. I haven't got permission to quote the e-mail I received as yet, but I can say this much:

They utterly refute any suggest that the Apollo landings were faked or that travel through the Van Allen Belts is not / was not possible.

The point was the difficulties that long duration spaceflight or lunar / Mars missions will pose to crews unless a suitable shielding material is found that can protect explorers for repeated EVA where they will receive repeated doses of radiation.

I'll post the text from the e-mail if and when I get permission.

The Forum rules have been revised; please read them.

Thank you.

The Spirit of the Law

The purpose of all of these rules is to ensure that this forum remains a law-abiding, civil, and congenial place to engage in discussion. That a post complies with that spirit is a greater consideration than whether it can be defended as being within the rules.

Civility and Decorum

Politeness is paramount. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That's fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be civil.

Members are forbidden from questioning the motives of posters, nor should members research abilities be questioned.

At no time may a forum member call another forum member a xxxx, nor accuse them of posting / telling lies. Infraction of this rule will result in the immediate deletion of the offending post and the immediate moderation of the offending poster. The duration of moderation (or possible expulsion of the member) will be determined by consensus amongst moderators and / or administrators.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators, preferably via the reporting mechanism described here, or by PM or email. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.

Language

No cursing. What is defined as cursing is determined by the best judgment of the moderators and may be amended by moderator or admin consensus. No cursing goes along with being polite. This website is read by school children and young adults - consider that at all time and let it be a guide for you. Attempts to express bad words or phrases in messages or screen names, by any means such as (but not limited to): replacing key letters with different characters, misspellings homonyms, sound-alikes, abbreviations, or any other trick obvious enough to be noticed by a moderator will not be tolerated. Same goes with adult topics -- talk about them somewhere else. If you do need to post something risqué, stick with acceptable terminology. Contact a moderator or administrator if you have any doubts.

Avatars and biographies

All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature

All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar. If you find you have problems with this please contact a moderator and they will help you with this.

References

Wherever possible - especially if an issue or point being made is being disputed - members should attempt to give references or document source material. This will provide assistance to those carry out academic research into the subject matter.

Copyright

Be cautious when posting copyrighted material here. Post small, relevant quotes or sections, and include the URL to the source. Alternatively, if you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further. Posting copyrighted material wholesale without attribution or linking to the source can open the Forum to legal action.

Privacy Issues

Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated. Do not post private email you have gained access to without the express permission of the sender. There are legal and copyright reasons for this, not to mention that doing so is very impolite. The same caveat applies to private messages, whether they're from this forum or anywhere else. If you receive rude or abusive private messages on this forum, you can report them via the same mechanism as inappropriate posts.

However, private messages to a moderator about forum administration issues are an exception to this rule. These may be shared with other moderators (but only with other moderators) unless you have a prior agreement with the moderator not to do so. To put it another way, think of the moderator team as a single entity. A PM to one is a PM to all, at least when it comes to official business.

Note that if you do report a private message that you consider inappropriate, you should provide background information regarding any private discussions that preceded that message, since the moderators (unlike with public message posts) cannot establish context without such information. Members who report inappropriate messages without revealing that they sent messages that might have goaded the sender into writing such a message will be dealt with severely.

Advertising, Solicitation, and Spam

Using the forum to promote your own website, blog or forum is quite acceptable but it is not acceptable to promote nor to sell merchandise (except for scholarly works such as books or documentary videos, etc). These offenses will result in the deletion of the offending posts.

Do not submit threads/posts containing identical text in multiple forum categories; that's considered spamming the board, and likewise will be dealt with accordingly.

If you have any doubts that it may break one of these rules, contact a moderator or administrator first.

Second & Third Party Posting

Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it. Think of them as a copyrighted source: you can quote them in short amounts, but if there is something substantial they want to add, they must do it themselves. The exception to this is if new memberships are temporarily suspended and you have confirmed with the administrators that the third party posting is acceptable. Posting on behalf of a moderated, suspended or banned member is strictly forbidden.

Hotlinking and large images

Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone elses website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on another site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly unless you believe it is central to a post you are making. If you really want an image in your post, the preferred option is to put the image in a public site someplace (e.g. Photobucket) and link to it from there. One exception would be from government sites, large corporate sites or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue. If you own the image, then you can upload it to the board yourself.

Additionally, don't embed a huge image (meaning an image that's over 100k or extends beyond the right-hand edge of a typical display) inline using the tag but link to it instead. We still have dialup users and others with limited bandwidth for whom downloading a large image would be a significant annoyance.

If you have images which may be considered offensive by some but you feel they are central to an argument or issue you are making, the Forum has a website which can be used to host such restricted images. contact a moderator for further information.

"Hit & Run"

The technique of posting a single provocative statement (or, commonly, a URL to a controversial website) and then never posting again in that thread is greatly frowned upon. This is only a step above trolling. Barely.

Editing & Revisionism

Edit your posts with care. There's no problem with editing a post later to change the tone or to correct spelling and the like. But changing content is not allowed! This is a slippery path that can be seen as revisionism. Also, when quoting other posters, trimming down the text to brief snippets to address something in particular is encouraged, but do not misquote others or alter their content to suggest they've stated things which they haven't.

Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. If you do not wish your credibility to be questioned, you should be prepared to defend your arguments. Direct questions should be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Those that are strong will survive, and be stronger for the process.

Disruptive Behavior

The moderators and administrators reserve the right to take action against a poster who is disrupting the normal flow of the board. This includes violations listed in the other rules (trolling, use of ad hominems, etc.), but may also include behavior we have not yet foreseen. Since this rule is perforce general, we will attempt to correct the problem by warning the violator (via PM, email, or posting in the thread) and giving him/her a chance to explain his/her behavior, and we will take further action only if proven necessary.

Reporting Bad Posts

If you feel a post breaks one of these rules, please report it by clicking the 'report' button. Do not talk about bad posts, start threads complaining about posts or anything else you consider to be inappropriate user behavior in the forum itself nor suggest, speculate on, or threaten what the moderator response should be. All reported posts are reviewed by moderators or administrators, and are treated very seriously (so do not report frivolously). If you have concerns, please PM a moderator or administrator.

Moderator Actions

If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action they believe is required. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, placing a member on moderation and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. Banning of a member will only be taken by collective collaboration of moderators and at least one administrator. If a moderator gives you advice, we recommend you to heed it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. If it's a post by a moderator that you disagree with, you can report the post using the usual mechanism. We will review the case and take action as needed. Complaints can be made in the relevant complaints thread (if one exists) if required but do not start thread complaining about the actions taken about a moderator. Such threads will be deleted without warning.

Rule Additions & Revisions

The administrators reserve the right to modify existing rules and/or add additional rules as they see fit. In many ways, this board is like a living thing, subject to change. Situations sometimes arise which cannot be anticipated, and thus, rules must be added to accommodate them.

The Forum rules have been revised; please read them.

Thank you.

The Spirit of the Law

The purpose of all of these rules is to ensure that this forum remains a law-abiding, civil, and congenial place to engage in discussion. That a post complies with that spirit is a greater consideration than whether it can be defended as being within the rules.

Civility and Decorum

Politeness is paramount. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That's fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be civil.

Members are forbidden from questioning the motives of posters, nor should members research abilities be questioned.

At no time may a forum member call another forum member a xxxx, nor accuse them of posting / telling lies. Infraction of this rule will result in the immediate deletion of the offending post and the immediate moderation of the offending poster. The duration of moderation (or possible expulsion of the member) will be determined by consensus amongst moderators and / or administrators.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators, preferably via the reporting mechanism described here, or by PM or email. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.

Language

No cursing. What is defined as cursing is determined by the best judgment of the moderators and may be amended by moderator or admin consensus. No cursing goes along with being polite. This website is read by school children and young adults - consider that at all time and let it be a guide for you. Attempts to express bad words or phrases in messages or screen names, by any means such as (but not limited to): replacing key letters with different characters, misspellings homonyms, sound-alikes, abbreviations, or any other trick obvious enough to be noticed by a moderator will not be tolerated. Same goes with adult topics -- talk about them somewhere else. If you do need to post something risqué, stick with acceptable terminology. Contact a moderator or administrator if you have any doubts.

Avatars and biographies

All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature

All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar. If you find you have problems with this please contact a moderator and they will help you with this.

References

Wherever possible - especially if an issue or point being made is being disputed - members should attempt to give references or document source material. This will provide assistance to those carry out academic research into the subject matter.

Copyright

Be cautious when posting copyrighted material here. Post small, relevant quotes or sections, and include the URL to the source. Alternatively, if you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further. Posting copyrighted material wholesale without attribution or linking to the source can open the Forum to legal action.

Privacy Issues

Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated. Do not post private email you have gained access to without the express permission of the sender. There are legal and copyright reasons for this, not to mention that doing so is very impolite. The same caveat applies to private messages, whether they're from this forum or anywhere else. If you receive rude or abusive private messages on this forum, you can report them via the same mechanism as inappropriate posts.

However, private messages to a moderator about forum administration issues are an exception to this rule. These may be shared with other moderators (but only with other moderators) unless you have a prior agreement with the moderator not to do so. To put it another way, think of the moderator team as a single entity. A PM to one is a PM to all, at least when it comes to official business.

Note that if you do report a private message that you consider inappropriate, you should provide background information regarding any private discussions that preceded that message, since the moderators (unlike with public message posts) cannot establish context without such information. Members who report inappropriate messages without revealing that they sent messages that might have goaded the sender into writing such a message will be dealt with severely.

Advertising, Solicitation, and Spam

Using the forum to promote your own website, blog or forum is quite acceptable but it is not acceptable to promote nor to sell merchandise (except for scholarly works such as books or documentary videos, etc). These offenses will result in the deletion of the offending posts.

Do not submit threads/posts containing identical text in multiple forum categories; that's considered spamming the board, and likewise will be dealt with accordingly.

If you have any doubts that it may break one of these rules, contact a moderator or administrator first.

Second & Third Party Posting

Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it. Think of them as a copyrighted source: you can quote them in short amounts, but if there is something substantial they want to add, they must do it themselves. The exception to this is if new memberships are temporarily suspended and you have confirmed with the administrators that the third party posting is acceptable. Posting on behalf of a moderated, suspended or banned member is strictly forbidden.

Hotlinking and large images

Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone elses website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on another site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly unless you believe it is central to a post you are making. If you really want an image in your post, the preferred option is to put the image in a public site someplace (e.g. Photobucket) and link to it from there. One exception would be from government sites, large corporate sites or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue. If you own the image, then you can upload it to the board yourself.

Additionally, don't embed a huge image (meaning an image that's over 100k or extends beyond the right-hand edge of a typical display) inline using the tag but link to it instead. We still have dialup users and others with limited bandwidth for whom downloading a large image would be a significant annoyance.

If you have images which may be considered offensive by some but you feel they are central to an argument or issue you are making, the Forum has a website which can be used to host such restricted images. contact a moderator for further information.

"Hit & Run"

The technique of posting a single provocative statement (or, commonly, a URL to a controversial website) and then never posting again in that thread is greatly frowned upon. This is only a step above trolling. Barely.

Editing & Revisionism

Edit your posts with care. There's no problem with editing a post later to change the tone or to correct spelling and the like. But changing content is not allowed! This is a slippery path that can be seen as revisionism. Also, when quoting other posters, trimming down the text to brief snippets to address something in particular is encouraged, but do not misquote others or alter their content to suggest they've stated things which they haven't.

Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. If you do not wish your credibility to be questioned, you should be prepared to defend your arguments. Direct questions should be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Those that are strong will survive, and be stronger for the process.

Disruptive Behavior

The moderators and administrators reserve the right to take action against a poster who is disrupting the normal flow of the board. This includes violations listed in the other rules (trolling, use of ad hominems, posting copyrighted materials, etc.), but may also include behavior we have not yet foreseen. Since this rule is perforce general, we will attempt to correct the problem by warning the violator (via PM, email, or posting in the thread) and giving him/her a chance to explain his/her behavior, and we will take further action only if proven necessary.

Reporting Bad Posts

If you feel a post breaks one of these rules, please report it by clicking the 'report' button. Do not talk about bad posts, start threads complaining about posts or anything else you consider to be inappropriate user behavior in the forum itself nor suggest, speculate on, or threaten what the moderator response should be. All reported posts are reviewed by moderators or administrators, and are treated very seriously (so do not report frivolously). If you have concerns, please PM a moderator or administrator.

Moderator Actions

If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action they believe is required. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, placing a member on moderation and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. Banning of a member will only be taken by collective collaboration of moderators and at least one administrator. If a moderator gives you advice, we recommend you to heed it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. If it's a post by a moderator that you disagree with, you can report the post using the usual mechanism. We will review the case and take action as needed. Complaints can be made in the relevant complaints thread (if one exists) if required but do not start thread complaining about the actions taken about a moderator. Such threads will be deleted without warning.

Rule Additions & Revisions

The administrators reserve the right to modify existing rules and/or add additional rules as they see fit. In many ways, this board is like a living thing, subject to change. Situations sometimes arise which cannot be anticipated, and thus, rules must be added to accommodate them.

Yep, NASA doesn't like to reveal anything about the Apollo EMUs, do they?

Title: Apollo EMU garment program Author(s): NONE Abstract: No Abstract Available NASA Center: NASA (non Center Specific) Publication Date: Sep 1, 1968 Document Source: CASI No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 19770075463 Accession ID: 77N76682 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 50 Report Number: NASA-CR-152764; REPT-8812700411-13 Contract-Grant-Task Number: NAS9-6100 Keywords: APOLLO PROJECT; EXTRAVEHICULAR MOBILITY UNITS; SPACE SUITS; DESIGN ANALYSIS; FLIGHT CLOTHING; HELMETS; PRESSURE SUITS; PROTECTIVE CLOTHING; Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Monthly Progress Report Updated/Added to NTRS: 2004-11-03

Title: Extravehicular mobility unit Author(s): Carson, M. A.; Rouen, M. N.; Lutz, C. C.; Mcbarron, J. W., II Abstract: The Apollo extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) consisted of a highly mobile, anthropomorphic pressure vessel and a portable life support system. The EMU used for the first lunar landing is described along with the changes made in the EMU design during the program to incorporate the results of experience and to provide new capabilities. The performance of the EMU is discussed. NASA Center: Johnson Space Center Publication Date: Jul 1, 1975 Document Source: CASI No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 19760005607 Accession ID: 76N12695 Publication Information: Biomedical Results of Apollo, p 545-569, Number of Pages = 25 Keywords: APOLLO PROJECT; EXTRAVEHICULAR MOBILITY UNITS; PORTABLE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS; PRESSURE SUITS; Notes: In its Biomedical Results of Apollo p 545-569 (SEE N76-12668 03-52) Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2004-11-03

Title: Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) Author(s): Bottomley, T. A., Jr. Abstract: No Abstract Available NASA Center: NASA (non Center Specific) Publication Date: Jan 19, 1967 Document Source: CASI Online Source: View PDF File Document ID: 19790073601 Accession ID: 79N73109 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 7 Report Number: NASA-CR-154442 Contract-Grant-Task Number: NASW-417 Keywords: ASTRONAUT MANEUVERING EQUIPMENT; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; EXTRAVEHICULAR MOBILITY UNITS; LUNAR LANDING MODULES; APOLLO PROJECT; ASTRONAUT LOCOMOTION; PRESSURE SUITS; SPACE SUITS; Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2005-11-09

Title: Abrasion Testing of Candidate Outer Layer Fabrics for Lunar EVA Space Suits Author(s): Mitchell, Kathryn C. Abstract: During the Apollo program, the space suit outer layer fabrics were badly abraded after just a few Extravehicular Activities (EVAs). For example, the Apollo 12 commander reported abrasive wear on the boots, which penetrated the outer layer fabric into the thermal protection layers after less than eight hours of surface operations. Current plans for the Constellation Space Suit Element require the space suits to support hundreds of hours of EVA on the Lunar surface, creating a challenge for space suit designers to utilize materials advances made over the last forty years and improve upon the space suit fabrics used in the Apollo program. A test methodology has been developed by the NASA Johnson Space Center Crew and Thermal Systems Division for establishing comparative abrasion wear characteristics between various candidate space suit outer layer fabrics. The abrasion test method incorporates a large rotary drum tumbler with rocks and loose lunar simulant material to induce abrasion in fabric test cylinder elements, representative of what might occur during long term planetary surface EVAs. Preliminary materials screening activities were conducted to determine the degree of wear on representative space suit outer layer materials and the corresponding dust permeation encountered between subsequent sub -layers of thermal protective materials when exposed to a simulated worst case eight hour EVA. The test method was used to provide a preliminary evaluation of four candidate outer layer fabrics for future planetary surface space suit applications. This Paper provides a review of previous abrasion studies on space suit fabrics, details the methodologies used for abrasion testing in this particular study, and shares the results and conclusions of the testing. NASA Center: Johnson Space Center Publication Date: [2010] Document Source: CASI Online Source: View PDF File Document ID: 20100016326 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 14 Report Number: JSC-CN-20038 Contract-Grant-Task Number: 903184.04.01.01 Meeting Information: International Conference on Environmental Systems, 11-15 Jul. 2010, Barcelona, Spain Keywords: ABRASION; THERMAL PROTECTION; SPACE SUITS; FABRICS; SPACECREWS; LUNAR SURFACE; DUST; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2010-05-10

Title: Biomedical Support of U.S. Extravehicular Activity Author(s): Gernhardt, Michael L.; Dervay, J. P.; Gillis, D.; McMann, H. J.; Thomas, K. S. Abstract: The world's first extravehicular activity (EVA) was performed by A. A. Leonov on March 18, 1965 during the Russian Voskhod-2 mission. The first US EVA was executed by Gemini IV astronaut Ed White on June 3, 1965, with an umbilical tether that included communications and an oxygen supply. A hand-held maneuvering unit (HHMU) also was used to test maneuverability during the brief EVA; however the somewhat stiff umbilical limited controlled movement. That constraint, plus difficulty returning through the vehicle hatch, highlighted the need for increased thermal control and improved EVA ergonomics. Clearly, requirements for a useful EVA were interrelated with the vehicle design. The early Gemini EVAs generated requirements for suits providing micro-meteor protection, adequate visual field and eye protection from solar visual and infrared radiation, gloves optimized for dexterity while pressurized, and thermal systems capable of protecting the astronaut while rejecting metabolic heat during high workloads. Subsequent Gemini EVAs built upon this early experience and included development of a portable environmental control and life support systems (ECLSS) and an astronaut maneuvering unit. The ECLSS provided a pressure vessel and controller with functional control over suit pressure, oxygen flow, carbon dioxide removal, humidity, and temperature control. Gemini EVA experience also identified the usefulness of underwater neutral buoyancy and altitude chamber task training, and the importance of developing reliable task timelines. Improved thermal management and carbon dioxide control also were required for high workload tasks. With the Apollo project, EVA activity was primarily on the lunar surface; and suit durability, integrated liquid cooling garments, and low suit operating pressures (3.75 pounds per square inch absolute [psia] or 25.8 kilopascal [kPa],) were required to facilitate longer EVAs with ambulation and significant physical workloads with average metabolic rates of 1000 BTU/hr and peaks of up to 2200 BTU/hr. Mobility was further augmented with the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The Apollo extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) was made up of over 15 components, ranging from a biomedical belt for capturing and transmitting biomedical data, urine and fecal containment systems, a liquid cooling garment, communications cap, a modular portable life support system (PLSS), a boot system, thermal overgloves, and a bubble helmet with eye protection. Apollo lunar astronauts performed successful EVAs on the lunar surface from a 5 psia (34.4 kPa) 100 oxygen environment in the Lunar Lander. A maximum of three EVAs were performed on any mission. For Skylab a modified A7LB suit, used for Apollo 15, was selected. The Skylab astronaut life support assembly (ALSA) provided umbilical support through the life support umbilical (LSU) and used open loop oxygen flow, rather than closed-loop as in Apollo missions. Thermal control was provided by liquid water circulated by spacecraft pumps and electrical power also was provided from the spacecraft via the umbilical. The cabin atmosphere of 5 psia (34.4 kPa), 70 oxygen, provided a normoxic atmosphere and because of the very low nitrogen partial pressures, no special protocols were required to protect against decompression sickness (DCS) as was the case with the Apollo spacecraft with a 5 psi, 100 oxygen environment. NASA Center: Johnson Space Center Publication Date: [2007] Document Source: CASI No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 20080000344 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 14 Related Information: To appear in Space Biology and Medicine; projected release date is January 2008 Keywords: ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; EXTRAVEHICULAR MOBILITY UNITS; HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING; LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS; OXYGEN; TEMPERATURE CONTROL; BIOASTRONAUTICS; AEROSPACE ENVIRONMENTS; BIOMEDICAL DATA; CABIN ATMOSPHERES; MANEUVERABILITY; MANNED MANEUVERING UNITS; PORTABLE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS; WORKLOADS (PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY); DECOMPRESSION SICKNESS; ASTRONAUTS; Accessibility: Unclassified; Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2008-01-10

Title: Engineering and operational experiences related to lunar-surface thermal-vacuum qualification of the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit. Author(s): Maples, H. E.; Sanders, R. E.; Vincent, J. P. Abstract: Manned testing of EVA equipment in thermal-vacuum environment for qualification of Apollo extravehicular mobility unit, using lunar surface thermal simulator NASA Center: NASA (non Center Specific) Publication Date: Sep 1, 1969 Document Source: Other Sources No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 19690062381 Accession ID: 69A40370 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 12 Report Number: AIAA PAPER 69-992 Meeting Information: AMERICAN INST. OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS, AND INST. OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, SPACE SIMULATION CONFERENCE, 4TH, SEP. 8-10, 1969, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. Keywords: ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; LUNAR ENVIRONMENT; SPACE SUITS; THERMAL VACUUM TESTS; APOLLO PROJECT; CONFERENCES; ENVIRONMENT SIMULATION; Notes: AMERICAN INST. OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS, AND INST. OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, SPACE SIMULATION CONFERENCE, 4TH, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., SEP. 8-10, 1969. Accessibility: Unclassified; Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2004-11-03

Title: Guidelines for EVA development Author(s): NONE Abstract: Guidelines for Apollo and post-Apollo EVA NASA Center: Johnson Space Center Publication Date: Dec 14, 1967 Document Source: CASI No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips On Ordering Document ID: 19700003606 Accession ID: 70N12910 Publication Information: Number of Pages = 40 Report Number: NASA-TM-X-62554 Keywords: APOLLO FLIGHTS; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; SPACE EXPLORATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PORTABLE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS; SPACE SUITS; Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available; Updated/Added to NTRS: 2004-11-03

Yep - they hide everything, don't they.

Some of the reasons adduced here may explain why the design plans for the moon lander and the moor rover no longer exist, not to mention why NASA would have had to erase its original footage lest anyone take a close look and discern the use of front-screen projection and other problems that have been noted in the course of this thread. The explanations given -- that NASA was trying to save money by reusing old tapes and that Grumann did not have room for the designs of these incredibly expensive space vehicles -- defy belief. Burton, Greer, and their cronies, of course, will come up with more rubbish in their ongoing attempts to deceive the unwary. But I suspect serious readers have long since grown weary of the nonsense they have been peddling.

I think it is YOU who are doing the peddling. Just what it is I don't know. Facts and accuracy, it is certainly not.

DETAILED plans for every nut and bolt don't exist, but the general construction plans are still there - even on the internet (see my previous posts). Should this be strange? No! For instance - let's see the plans for the Concorde. Are quite detailed plans available? Sure. Are plans for every section, every component, available? Nope. So was Concorde a fake?

The tapes were erased because they were backups, no longer required after the landings. There was already footage available. You should read the facts:

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tapes/index.html