What if the moon landings went wrong? Deep fake videos and misinformation capabilities

Without even bothering to Google it I imagine that was in case the module landed in the Soviet wilderness and the astronauts needed to protect themselves from the nasty local fauna.

Never knew that though. Surprising in some respects for a vehicle in outer space with an exterior made out of panel beaten coke cans.
Yep. Cosmonauts worried about bears and wolves.
Also, as a signalling device
 

Slime

LE
Without even bothering to Google it I imagine that was in case the module landed in the Soviet wilderness and the astronauts needed to protect themselves from the nasty local fauna.

Never knew that though. Surprising in some respects for a vehicle in outer space with an exterior made out of panel beaten coke cans.

Yes, exactly for that purpose.
I mentioned the guns in a light hearted manner :)
 
Yes, exactly for that purpose.
I mentioned the guns in a light hearted manner :)
I'll be honest, I cannot recall reading of guns in ny of the astronaut memoirs I've read.
Probably a weight issue?
The Case astronaut knife, however, is pretty well known

 
Without even bothering to Google it I imagine that was in case the module landed in the Soviet wilderness and the astronauts needed to protect themselves from the nasty local fauna.
When Voskhod 2 landed well off target in 1965 the two man crew spent a night waiting for rescue forces to arrive with only with a 9mm as protection from the local wolves. AFAIK they didn’t end up firing any shots but the purpose built weapon described upthread was provisioned as a result of that experience.
 

Slime

LE
I'll be honest, I cannot recall reading of guns in ny of the astronaut memoirs I've read.
Probably a weight issue?
The Case astronaut knife, however, is pretty well known


Astronauts didn’t need them so didn’t carry them.
Cosmonauts carried them.
 
The Almaz space station actually carried a 23mm cannon


gallery-1447437515-screen-shot-2015-11-10-at-32900-pm.jpg
 
Function over form was the order of the day because they were in a race to beat the Soviets. Which they did.

They were not interested in making it look sexy, that could come later.

Anyone who believe the Apollo moon landings were faked needs to get their brains scanned for a tumour. If one isn't found they should practice killing themselves until they get it right. It would assist with raising the average planetary IQ.

Quite. Another point rarely considered when looking at the Apollo Programme is the generation involved and who were the high level decision makers. And just what experiences got them there. Werner von Braun aside.

My father (who I have mentioned many times on this site), following a period of unemployment after his WW1 and post war service, found himself unemployed. He punted up his engineering experience (two years of a pre-war apprenticeship at the Pulsometer Pump Works and service in The Tank Corps) to get a job with a small aircraft builder in Swindon. As a result he met Geoffrey de Havilland, who poached him, put him through his flying school at Croydon and appointed him to his development department. The theory of the time was: If you want to build aircraft, you should be able to fly them.

This intro into aircraft development led him to spend much of the World War 2 years working on The Beaufort and its progeny, the Mosquito in most of its forms and eventually to switching to the emerging jet engine technologies. He worked on several projects including TSR2 and the Avro Arrow. The latter took him (and the family) to the US and Canada. A little known fact is; at the demise of the Avro Arrow programme, many of the (mostly British) team were poached by JPL and were known round the Passedena works as "The Arrow Gang". Stuff they worked on was mostly part of the Mercury and Gemini Programmes. Some went forward to the Apollo Programme but we were back in UK by then.

While watching the Apollo stuff on television and all over the papers, I would ask idiot questions based on myths I had heard. Remember I had fairly recently been at school with the sprogs of people on the programmes at all levels. I wish I could remember some of the answers he gave. Even better, I wish I could ask him again, now.:sad:

Anyway, enough of setting the scene. Gems I do recall are:

When asking about the safety of the astronauts; the response was that the Mercury programme was "Armstrong engineering"* and Apollo was "Gerry built". He blamed Kennedy and his rush for the Moon.
When I said that the landing module didn't 'look right' (he'd often said that if an aircraft doesn't look right, it won't fly right): he said that it wasn't Dan Dare it was "real engineering".
And he once said that I should remember that the people who designed and built the moon lander "Had first built biplanes in a cycle repair shop". Like he had.

It's an interesting discussion but we really cant judge.

By the way. The crews knew and were ready to take the risks. Some kids in my school had lost father's in accidents and they moved away pretty fast. Just after I joined the school a boy that I was just teaming up with, was called away to see the Principle. I never saw him again and I've forgotten his name. I found out weeks later that his father had been killed in a flying accident. He was a test pilot. Those were the risks in the 60s and they knew it.

I apologise for another long post.

*Armstrong engineering - i.e. strong arm. He wouldn't let my mother learn to drive on the Humber Hawks he liked so much because they had "Armstrong Steering".
 
Quite. Another point rarely considered when looking at the Apollo Programme is the generation involved and who were the high level decision makers. And just what experiences got them there. Werner von Braun aside.

My father (who I have mentioned many times on this site), following a period of unemployment after his WW1 and post war service, found himself unemployed. He punted up his engineering experience (two years of a pre-war apprenticeship at the Pulsometer Pump Works and service in The Tank Corps) to get a job with a small aircraft builder in Swindon. As a result he met Geoffrey de Havilland, who poached him, put him through his flying school at Croydon and appointed him to his development department. The theory of the time was: If you want to build aircraft, you should be able to fly them.

This intro into aircraft development led him to spend much of the World War 2 years working on The Beaufort and its progeny, the Mosquito in most of its forms and eventually to switching to the emerging jet engine technologies. He worked on several projects including TSR2 and the Avro Arrow. The latter took him (and the family) to the US and Canada. A little known fact is; at the demise of the Avro Arrow programme, many of the (mostly British) team were poached by JPL and were known round the Passedena works as "The Arrow Gang". Stuff they worked on was mostly part of the Mercury and Gemini Programmes. Some went forward to the Apollo Programme but we were back in UK by then.

While watching the Apollo stuff on television and all over the papers, I would ask idiot questions based on myths I had heard. Remember I had fairly recently been at school with the sprogs of people on the programmes at all levels. I wish I could remember some of the answers he gave. Even better, I wish I could ask him again, now.:sad:

Anyway, enough of setting the scene. Gems I do recall are:

When asking about the safety of the astronauts; the response was that the Mercury programme was "Armstrong engineering"* and Apollo was "Gerry built". He blamed Kennedy and his rush for the Moon.
When I said that the landing module didn't 'look right' (he'd often said that if an aircraft doesn't look right, it won't fly right): he said that it wasn't Dan Dare it was "real engineering".
And he once said that I should remember that the people who designed and built the moon lander "Had first built biplanes in a cycle repair shop". Like he had.

It's an interesting discussion but we really cant judge.

By the way. The crews knew and were ready to take the risks. Some kids in my school had lost father's in accidents and they moved away pretty fast. Just after I joined the school a boy that I was just teaming up with, was called away to see the Principle. I never saw him again and I've forgotten his name. I found out weeks later that his father had been killed in a flying accident. He was a test pilot. Those were the risks in the 60s and they knew it.

I apologise for another long post.

*Armstrong engineering - i.e. strong arm. He wouldn't let my mother learn to drive on the Humber Hawks he liked so much because they had "Armstrong Steering".
Reference your point about the “Arrow Gang” - a few dozen Avro Canada engineers, including more than a few Brits,went direct into the NASA Space Task Force group at Langley/Canaveral during the run up to the Mercury program and stayed there, some taking up very senior positions.
Probably the most famous would be John Hodge, one of the very first Flight Directors (sadly died recently), he was the Flight Director in charge when Gemini 8 (Armstrong/Scott) had it’s emergency. To give the film “First Man” some credit they got the Brit accent into that (brief) part of the film…
 
It does indeed. The imagery and sets were very well done. Compare it with some of the other sci fi films of the same era and it’s streets ahead of most if not all of them.

Kubrick got advice from America's leading computer and aerospace engineers and asked them what they were working on in future development and got them to speculate what things might look like 15-25 years away rather than centuries away,

If you look at the Pan Am clipper which took Reggie Perrin into space it is pretty much the Shuttle with an added nose cone, longer wings and an engine on the back. Hardly surprising that at exactly the same time as the film was being made NASA invited tenders from aerospace companies for a reusable spaceship.
1633859516301.jpeg


The 2001 computers looked more like the racked systems we see nowadays whereas in reality computers of the time were boxy cabinets like this IBM S/370:
1633860020630.jpeg


The real irony that seems to be lost on the moon hoax tinfoilers is that if someone like Kubrick filmed it he would have made a damn site better fist of it than the clunky piece of heavy metal, nuts and bolts and dodgy graphics , comms etc that we actually got.
 
Last edited:

Chef

LE
What was that thing about a BMW seat has more computing power than the Eagle had?
In an interview with, I think Michael Collins, it was mentioned that the average tune playing birthday card has more computing power than was available on the lunar module.

'This is true' He agreed 'But it took the pilot to land the module safely with less than 30 seconds fuel left'
 
Aye statistically - theres going to bee 300 things wrong with your car as well.

Thats why I drive a landrover - statistically theres 300 faults, courtesy of Lucas I know thats going to be the wiring harness lights and fuse box - Mechanically im good.
Yebbut, when most of them fail, the Landy will keep going. And if not, you can get out and beat it into submission with a lump hammer.
 
The demeanour of the astronauts in their interview came across as lagubrious, ashamed, guilty, hesitant and downbeat.

So much so, that many claim this alone arouses suspicion



 
If some of the Apollo hardware, particularly the LEM, looks a bit of a hasty lash up, remember that it was under 7 years from JFK setting the goal of a manned moon landing, through the Gemini programme to develop the ability to dock spacecraft in orbit, to design, build and test Apollo, to "The Eagle has landed".
Now, how long has it taken the Army to specify, design and buy a new medium IFV?
Apollo was "good enough".
 
Top