NASA's Don Pettit says that they cannot go to the Moon. How come?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,213
Reactions
16,792
What is your opinion on what NASA's Donald Ron Pettit stated during one of his interviews? He said, "I'd go to the moon, but we don't have that technology anymore". How is it possible that we do not have the technology in the 21st century?

Allegedly in 1969 we landed on the Moon. Yet 49 years later we lost the technology. Weird and strange it is.

 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Reactions
699
they lost the money and funding to do it, and with the current focus in mars, an take 2 is unlikely
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,213
Reactions
16,792
That’s not what the guy says.
they lost the money and funding to do it, and with the current focus in mars, an take 2 is unlikely
I don't think so. If they can not pass through the van Allen Belt today, how could they do it 50 years ago? They are currently developing the Orion Capsule allowing to pass through this van Allen Belt.


And the we have this jam from Terry Virts


And no matter how much I would like to believe that NASA is being honest, they lost all credibility with little stunts like this.

 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Reactions
699
That’s not what the guy says.


I don't think so. If they can not pass through the van Allen Belt today, how could they do it 50 years ago? They are currently developing the Orion Capsule allowing to pass through this van Allen Belt.


And the we have this jam from Terry Virts


And no matter how much I would like to believe that NASA is being honest, they lost all credibility with little stunts like this.

the van allen is just an dumb excuse so that elon musk and other organizations dont go there and see the "fun" stuff
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,213
Reactions
16,792
the van allen is just an dumb excuse so that elon musk and other organizations dont go there and see the "fun" stuff
I think Elon Musk knows way more than you and I ever will.

I doubt Van Allen’s belt is needed to place restrictions on space travel. There are plenty of much easier ways.

I also think that our knowledge about space as was presented to us, is purely based on the provided unverifiable information. We do not have any personal space experiences.

If we were born next to an egg-shaped globe, and the egg-shape was supported by the educational system, today we would have a totally different common perception of our planet. I think.
 

LordAverage

Well-known member
Messages
83
Reactions
288
I'll copy a reddit post I made recently here.

Time Spent Getting to Moon (Comparing Apollo 11 manned mission to Exploration Mission 1 unmanned mission)
Apollo 11
Launch- July 16, 13:32:00 UTC Passes moon- July 19, 17:21:50 UTC
Exploration Mission 1
Launch- 0:00:00 Passes moon (enters lunar gravity assist phase, 100km from moon)- 4 days 17 hours 18 minutes
Earth-Moon Time
Apollo 11 in 1969- 75 hours 50 minutes~
Exploration Mission 1 in 2023- 113 hours 18 minutes~

Edit: Forgot to convert to speeds here. Average distance to moon, 384,400 KM.
Apollo 11 = 5125 km/h (Distance of moon in KM / hours from earth to moon)
Exploration Mission 1 = 3401 km/h

Payload/Cost/Height of rockets.
Payload of Saturn V to LEO- 140,000 KG
Project cost- 6.4 billion in 64-73 dollars (adjusted for inflation, $44 billion in 1969 terms, compared to 2018)
Additional $1.3 or so billion in 2018 dollars per launch. Remember the saturn V was used many times.
Height- 110.6m
Payload of SLS (Space Launch System) to LEO- 95,000-130,000 KG
Project cost- $7 billion (2014-2018) to $35 billion (until 2025)
Height- 111.25m
Project cost of SLS includes the Block 1, Block 1B and Block 2. The proposed block 2 (won't be ready until 2029, there will be a supposed manned mission later down the road in 2023 or so, exploration mission 2. The Block 1 used in Exploration Mission 1 is even weaker) will have lift capacity of 130 metric tons, similar to that of the Saturn V. Saturn V lifted 140 metric tons during Apollo 17 mission.
Thrust/Specific Impulse of each stage. Put in quotes since it's just numbers to compare, read ahead for analysis/point of the post here.
Stage 1- Saturn V​
Thrust 7,891,000 lbf (35,100 kN) sea level Specific impulse 263 seconds (2.58 km/s) sea level Burn time 168 seconds​
Stage 2- Saturn V​
Thrust 1,155,800 lbf (5,141 kN) vacuum Specific impulse 421 seconds (4.13 km/s) vacuum Burn time 360 seconds​
Stage 3- Saturn V​
Thrust 225,000 lbf (1,000 kN) vacuum Specific impulse 421 seconds (4.13 km/s) vacuum Burn time 165 + 335 seconds (2 burns)​
Boosters- SLS​
Total thrust 7,200,000 lbf (32,000 kN) Specific impulse 269 seconds (2.64 km/s) (vacuum)[citation needed] Burn time 124 seconds​
First Stage, Core Stage- SLS​
Thrust 7,440 kN (1,670,000 lbf) Specific impulse 363 seconds (3.56 km/s) (sea level), 452 seconds (4.43 km/s) (vacuum)​
Second Stage (block 1 SLS)​
Thrust 110.1 kN (24,800 lbf) Specific impulse 462 seconds (4.53 km/s) Burn time 1125 seconds​
Second Stage (block 1b, block 2 SLS) Thrust 99,000 lbf (440 kN)​

To clarify, I'm not a rocket scientist, I don't know the exact implications of specific impulse and the different types of fuel used by each system, further, I'm aware the projects could have different requirements/goals in mind BUT REGARDLESS I find it quite interesting that we are building a craft that is going to get to the moon SLOWER than the craft from 1969, cost about the same if you consider total project costs across both and seemingly has similar or even slightly worse total lift/power. Are the stats of this Saturn V too good to be true? It seems we can hardly build something as good as it 50 years later
Of course this will have better life support systems and computers and technology, at least you'd hope. But still, just comparing raw power and size we've apparently made no progress? If someone more educated can explain why I'd love to hear some reasons. I know the moon landing hoax debate can divide the community or at least reading older threads there seems to be heated moments but I've been really questioning it lately and I wonder what people think about this analysis of a 50 year old rocket vs. planned upcoming rockets. It only really scratches the surface since rockets are very complex machines but it leaves me wondering.
I tried to present the info to contrast these two specific missions as best as possible but there are some varying numbers and ideas on the SLS side, between different rocket designs (the blocks) and different planned missions. I hope none of it is outrageously wrong.

Some replies/counterpoints I got

"Modern SLS will have way more emphasis and space given to life support systems especially since it is designed to possibly go even further out"
"We have the plans for the 60s rocket engines but apparently don't have the people with the right manual skills anymore to get them built (yeah right) and these engines were better than the ones we make now"
"You should compare Saturn V to something like BFR from SpaceX instead" (I wanted to compare just moon trips but fair point)
"Using the time it takes to get to the moon as a metric is silly, too many variables"

To most of this I say, almost 50 years later I would think all these points should STILL have our expensive top of the line rockets far ahead of the 60s. But that is not the case evidently. As a final note this is just the rockets I looked at mainly, I imagine the crew pods or whatever you call them will have more differences favouring modern times, but then again I think my position is that they didn't go to the moon so yea...
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reactions
525
We could go back to the moon if Stanley Kubrick was alive! I'm sure the sets could be recreated and fancy new moon buggy could be built! Instead of golf they could play soccer on the moon! Seriously no human has been to "outer space"...it's all a masonic distraction to siphon money from the public and to deceive. There are no nuke bombs either! All deceptions!
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
575
Reactions
3,015
We could go back to the moon if Stanley Kubrick was alive! I'm sure the sets could be recreated and fancy new moon buggy could be built! Instead of golf they could play soccer on the moon! Seriously no human has been to "outer space"...it's all a masonic distraction to siphon money from the public and to deceive. There are no nuke bombs either! All deceptions!
Exactly. This is the foundation. When people start seeing this reality, we could start asking the really important questions. There are no astronauts. There is no "space". I always try to find evidence for the official narrative, because the scale of the lies would be so massive, but everything points towards lies.

Just watch the above videos, without sound, and look those people into their eyes, observe them and try to get a feeling of what they really say. Except maybe David Williams, all of them are paid actors.

We are in a very dangerous situation. With so many people ignoring the obvious, the PTB can basically invent any story, if it is fed through academia and the media, it will work. This is frightening.

After decades of "research" by alternative media, all we know is that they are lying. We don't really know why, and we don't really know what they know and want to hide. The reason for the space fake could be profane, or it could be profound.

But it's really easy to see why Donald Ron Pettit is saying what he is saying. They are backpedaling, for whatever reason. You have to wonder why NASA keeps "failing" with everything on a grand scale even though NASA controls the entire narrative.
 
Last edited:

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reactions
525
dreamtime: Yes people are so bamboozeled by infotainment and deceptions they can't even begin to recognize reality! Even science with it's "gravity", relativity, particle physics, astronomy, etc all deceptions! I couldn't attend a talk given by a "string theorist" given by the astronomy dept. here at the university as I would ask embarassing questions. How many millions of dollars are spent to support this quack physics professor? ARGGGG!
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
651
Reactions
1,347
I'm not a rocket scientist either, and I do not believe the Apollo missions ever went to the moon, but I agree with the response that said using time to the moon to compare rockets is a not a reasonable metric, especially if using a default moon distance rather than the actual (alleged) course distance in each instance.

The moon one always bugged me, because I would go back and forth. I've been to the air and space museum many times. They have a lot of stuff from both the US and Russian space programs. I should get back there and take a bunch of pics and do a thread. They have a whole section devoted to the rocketry.
I'll copy a reddit post I made recently here.
Time Spent Getting to Moon (Comparing Apollo 11 manned mission to Exploration Mission 1 unmanned mission)
Apollo 11
Launch- July 16, 13:32:00 UTC Passes moon- July 19, 17:21:50 UTC
Exploration Mission 1
Launch- 0:00:00 Passes moon (enters lunar gravity assist phase, 100km from moon)- 4 days 17 hours 18 minutes
Earth-Moon Time
Apollo 11 in 1969- 75 hours 50 minutes~
Exploration Mission 1 in 2023- 113 hours 18 minutes~

Edit: Forgot to convert to speeds here. Average distance to moon, 384,400 KM.
Apollo 11 = 5125 km/h (Distance of moon in KM / hours from earth to moon)
Exploration Mission 1 = 3401 km/h

Payload/Cost/Height of rockets.
Payload of Saturn V to LEO- 140,000 KG
Project cost- 6.4 billion in 64-73 dollars (adjusted for inflation, $44 billion in 1969 terms, compared to 2018)
Additional $1.3 or so billion in 2018 dollars per launch. Remember the saturn V was used many times.
Height- 110.6m
Payload of SLS (Space Launch System) to LEO- 95,000-130,000 KG
Project cost- $7 billion (2014-2018) to $35 billion (until 2025)
Height- 111.25m
Project cost of SLS includes the Block 1, Block 1B and Block 2. The proposed block 2 (won't be ready until 2029, there will be a supposed manned mission later down the road in 2023 or so, exploration mission 2. The Block 1 used in Exploration Mission 1 is even weaker) will have lift capacity of 130 metric tons, similar to that of the Saturn V. Saturn V lifted 140 metric tons during Apollo 17 mission.
Thrust/Specific Impulse of each stage. Put in quotes since it's just numbers to compare, read ahead for analysis/point of the post here.
Stage 1- Saturn V​
Thrust 7,891,000 lbf (35,100 kN) sea level Specific impulse 263 seconds (2.58 km/s) sea level Burn time 168 seconds​
Stage 2- Saturn V​
Thrust 1,155,800 lbf (5,141 kN) vacuum Specific impulse 421 seconds (4.13 km/s) vacuum Burn time 360 seconds​
Stage 3- Saturn V​
Thrust 225,000 lbf (1,000 kN) vacuum Specific impulse 421 seconds (4.13 km/s) vacuum Burn time 165 + 335 seconds (2 burns)​
Boosters- SLS​
Total thrust 7,200,000 lbf (32,000 kN) Specific impulse 269 seconds (2.64 km/s) (vacuum)[citation needed] Burn time 124 seconds​
First Stage, Core Stage- SLS​
Thrust 7,440 kN (1,670,000 lbf) Specific impulse 363 seconds (3.56 km/s) (sea level), 452 seconds (4.43 km/s) (vacuum)​
Second Stage (block 1 SLS)​
Thrust 110.1 kN (24,800 lbf) Specific impulse 462 seconds (4.53 km/s) Burn time 1125 seconds​
Second Stage (block 1b, block 2 SLS) Thrust 99,000 lbf (440 kN)​

To clarify, I'm not a rocket scientist, I don't know the exact implications of specific impulse and the different types of fuel used by each system, further, I'm aware the projects could have different requirements/goals in mind BUT REGARDLESS I find it quite interesting that we are building a craft that is going to get to the moon SLOWER than the craft from 1969, cost about the same if you consider total project costs across both and seemingly has similar or even slightly worse total lift/power. Are the stats of this Saturn V too good to be true? It seems we can hardly build something as good as it 50 years later
Of course this will have better life support systems and computers and technology, at least you'd hope. But still, just comparing raw power and size we've apparently made no progress? If someone more educated can explain why I'd love to hear some reasons. I know the moon landing hoax debate can divide the community or at least reading older threads there seems to be heated moments but I've been really questioning it lately and I wonder what people think about this analysis of a 50 year old rocket vs. planned upcoming rockets. It only really scratches the surface since rockets are very complex machines but it leaves me wondering.
I tried to present the info to contrast these two specific missions as best as possible but there are some varying numbers and ideas on the SLS side, between different rocket designs (the blocks) and different planned missions. I hope none of it is outrageously wrong.

Some replies/counterpoints I got

"Modern SLS will have way more emphasis and space given to life support systems especially since it is designed to possibly go even further out"
"We have the plans for the 60s rocket engines but apparently don't have the people with the right manual skills anymore to get them built (yeah right) and these engines were better than the ones we make now"
"You should compare Saturn V to something like BFR from SpaceX instead" (I wanted to compare just moon trips but fair point)
"Using the time it takes to get to the moon as a metric is silly, too many variables"

To most of this I say, almost 50 years later I would think all these points should STILL have our expensive top of the line rockets far ahead of the 60s. But that is not the case evidently. As a final note this is just the rockets I looked at mainly, I imagine the crew pods or whatever you call them will have more differences favouring modern times, but then again I think my position is that they didn't go to the moon so yea...
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,213
Reactions
16,792
I've heard somewhere that the diameter of the lunar module hatch is several inches smaller than would allow astronauts to get in and out. There were shoulder to shoulder space suit measurements on the internet somewhere. Apparently measuring the hatch size is not allowed at the Boeing Museum.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
651
Reactions
1,347
I've heard somewhere that the diameter of the lunar module hatch is several inches smaller than would allow astronauts to get in and out. There were shoulder to shoulder space suit measurements on the internet somewhere. Apparently measuring the hatch size is not allowed at the Boeing Museum.
I'm not sure which one they have at the museum here or if it is meant to be a model or an original, but I'd have no problem holding a tape measure up to it, from what I recall. I have a laser measure which could give me the vertical height from a distance if I couldn't, and at the distances and lengths we are talking, I trust my eye to within plus or minus an inch.

The suit is behind glass, to preserve the moon dust on it (haha), but it wouldn't be hard to measure either. They've got a Russian suit to compare as well. I can tell you it looks small. Next time I want to look to see what is visible of the foot treads. I've seen talk of the suit foot treads not matching the moon photos.
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
752
Reactions
3,229
I did go back and forth a lot on the did we or didn't we go to the moon. But the more I learn new things, especially in light of what NASA personnel have been saying in these videos. What a joke, only I'm not laughing! I am confident we did not go to the Moon.

What has always pretty much clinched the deal for me, was the demeanor of the Astronauts when they gave their first press conference. And now these subsequent videos seal the deal for me.

These are deeply disturbed men, incase there is somebody who has never watched this.

 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reactions
525
I am an older person almost 65 and I was 12 when we didn't land on the moon on TV but I thought it was real until 2010. I launched Estes rockets as a kid back in the last century. I liked Star Trek and went to the first showing on 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fast forward to 2010 the Japanese said they had taken pictures of the lunar landing sites and I told a very intelligent much younger friend who causally commented "So you think we landed on the moon do ya?" He was well informed on everything so I started trying to prove we did land on the moon and I started to find things didn't add up like moon rocks that turned out to be petrified rock. For me it was the biggest belief balloon I could pop and now other deceptions are much easier to navigate and disprove.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
651
Reactions
1,347
I am an older person almost 65 and I was 12 when we didn't land on the moon on TV but I thought it was real until 2010. I launched Estes rockets as a kid back in the last century. I liked Star Trek and went to the first showing on 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fast forward to 2010 the Japanese said they had taken pictures of the lunar landing sites and I told a very intelligent much younger friend who causally commented "So you think we landed on the moon do ya?" He was well informed on everything so I started trying to prove we did land on the moon and I started to find things didn't add up like moon rocks that turned out to be petrified rock. For me it was the biggest belief balloon I could pop and now other deceptions are much easier to navigate and disprove.
Did you happen to notice, when you saw 2001 space oddity many years ago, whether there were any interesting acknowledgments on the credits?

I had heard that originally there was a screen that thanks the air force, NASA, and a bunch of other govt and quasi govt organizations and corporations that was subsequently removed from the film after the first days or weeks of opening.
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reactions
525
Did you happen to notice, when you saw 2001 space oddity many years ago, whether there were any interesting acknowledgments on the credits?

I had heard that originally there was a screen that thanks the air force, NASA, and a bunch of other govt and quasi govt organizations and corporations that was subsequently removed from the film after the first days or weeks of opening.

ISeenItFirst I don't remember any military credits or corporate credits but I do know he got special cameras from NASA/military. It was the most expensive film ever made until that time and corporations lined up to get product placements in the film. IBM didn't like that the HAL 9000 went psychotic and withdrew funding from the film. Kubrick showed the Corp executives a voice over version where advances were discussed but dropped it when he got the funding required to finish the film. The executives were livid and wanted the narration back in but Kubrick refused. IMHO the cooperation of NASA/military with the film was due to Kubrick's directing the moon landings and the inspired Apollo 13 rescue. He always took Polaroids of the camera shots to see if lighting and direction was correct and he left a couple of Polaroids on the Apollo 17 LEM.
 

LordAverage

Well-known member
Messages
83
Reactions
288
I'm not a rocket scientist either, and I do not believe the Apollo missions ever went to the moon, but I agree with the response that said using time to the moon to compare rockets is a not a reasonable metric, especially if using a default moon distance rather than the actual (alleged) course distance in each instance.

The moon one always bugged me, because I would go back and forth. I've been to the air and space museum many times. They have a lot of stuff from both the US and Russian space programs. I should get back there and take a bunch of pics and do a thread. They have a whole section devoted to the rocketry.
Yeah it is a fair point for sure, I don't recall the course distance for each (IIRC it wasn't publicly available info at least that I could find in regards to the mission that hasn't happened yet). I still kinda maintain that you'd expect with so much time passed that we'd develop more power for cheaper like we have with basically every other industry. I'd also just figure with common sense that you would choose timings and launch locations to give you a fairly short trip distance wise to the moon, like it doesn't seem legitimate to say apollo took the really short route but they are choosing with the next mission to just launch whenever they want and take way longer to get there. Much cheaper if you plan it that way which I'd hope NASA could manage haha.

I guess consider it food for thought, what are the chances everything has lined up so that the numbers proposed actually make sense logistically and financially and what are the chances it's not a hoax at all and we really didn't go back and lost so much progress and technology and didn't do jack shit for so long. I honestly still have a part of me that wants to believe it did happen (in which case I think we have a situation where they saw some crazy shit on the moon and it wasn't the normal nice trip we saw) but it makes so much more sense that it was nixon war propaganda that is also linked into a bigger global conspiracy IMO.
 
Top