Hello,
You are in error when you report the mission duration and lunar orbit counts on your "Apollodata" website. Here are some corrections.
Apollo 11: Mission duration (from launch to splashdown = 195:18. Lunar orbits = 30 over 59.5 hours. In this case, the TLI (trans lunar injection, the burn that sent them from Earth orbit to the moon) occurred 2:50 after launch, and Lunar orbit was entered at GET 75:55 (GET, or Ground Elapsed Time, indicates time since launch) for a trip time of just over 73 hours. The TEI (trans Earth injection, or the burn that sends them from the moon to earth) was performed at GET 135:23, and splashdown occurred at GET 195:13, for a trip time of just under 60 hours. Total travel time = 133 hours. While you were close on the travel time and duration, you were completely off on the number of lunar orbits, and slightly off on the time in lunar orbit. This is likely because you seem to neglect the fact that the Apollo missions orbited the Earth at least once before leaving LEO for the moon.
Apollo 12: Duration = 224:36. 45 Lunar orbits over 89.5 hours. Total travel time (not counting the Earth orbit before TLI) was 132 hours.
Apollo 13: Duration = 139 hours. ZERO Lunar orbits. This was a fly-by due to a damaged Service Module.
Apollo 14: Duration = 216 hours. 34 Lunar orbits over 67 hours. You were close on this one.
Apollo 15: Duration = 305 hours. 74 Lunar orbits over 145 hours.
Apollo 16: Duration = 265:51 64 orbits over 126 hours.
Apollo 17: Duration = 301:52 75 lunar orbits.
So, the vast difference in travel times you cite is actually just a result of the bad data you used to make these calculations, as well as your lack of accounting for the time spent in LEO before the TLI burn. Perhaps you should get your data from sources other than a children's book author. BTW, it's "[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology", not [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Space & Technology"
Please study up on Newton's Laws of Physics, and Keppler's orbital mechanics. If you did, you would have learned that a "Trans Lunar Orbit" is, in fact, a valid way to get to the moon. The most efficient type of transfer is called a Hohman Transfer, however, due to the long travel time (about two and a half weeks each way) and higher risk factor this was not used. The Apollo missions used a "Free Return Trajectory". This allowed a much faster trip with an increased safety factor. Please look up both terms.
The "spiral" path you claim is the only way to get to the moon has NEVER been used by any manned spaceflight. It is designed for vessels with very low thrust that can sustain that thrust for extremely long periods, such as vessels using Ion propulsion (not rocket engines).
The reason "inexperienced" people were allowed to do spacewalks and other complex tasks was that there were next to no experienced people. It's not like there was a big pool of experienced astronauts. Using different astronauts for the different missions was also a way to limit the exposure to radiation for each astronaut. It was also deemed important to have as many people as possible get that experience, since it's rarely wise to place all your eggs in one basket. It was also considered risky to subject people to too many reentries, due to the excessive G-forces involved. The same way fighter pilots are taken off fighter duty after they've had to use an ejection seat.
As to the quotes from "One Small Step", I again remind you that Tim Furniss is a CHILDREN'S book author, not a scientist, much less an astrophysicist. Any predictions he made weren't educated estimates, by any means. As to the quote by Von Braun, he was a rocket scientist - not a politician. He, like many scientists, assumed that since the technology would be available by then, that people would be doing it.
And no, the Space Shuttle has never gone to the moon. It isn't capable of the velocity needed to get there, nor could it land if it did.
As for how long it takes the Space Shuttle to get to the ISS, you seem completely uninformed about Orbital Mechanics. Please let me simplify. It requires a lot of fuel to change your orbital plane (look that up if you don't know the term). Therefore, the Shuttle launches when the ISS's orbital path passes over Cape Canaveral, even though the ISS may be on the other side of the planet. The Shuttle initially enters a much lower orbit than the ISS. This means that the Shuttle is Orbiting faster than the ISS (it has the "inside lane") so it eventually catches up to the ISS. This can take several orbits. Then the Shuttle ascends to the ISS's altitude in steps, this is more fuel efficient, safer, and more accurate. That's why it takes so long to get to the ISS. The vast majority of that time is spent "coasting", waiting for the conditions to be right for a rendevous.
Also, traveling to the Moon is NOT leaving Earth's orbit. The Moon orbits the Earth.
Cosmic Radiation is one of the reasons that a free return trajectory was chosen for the Apollo missions. The faster trip time helped reduce the exposure to radiation. The Magnetoshere does NOT block all of the radiation, only most of it. We are all exposed to this radiation on a daily basis. Prolonged exposure to high levels would likely cause harm. This will be a factor on a Mars trip that takes over a year each way, but not on a shorter week to ten day trip. One of the reasons we haven't gone back is because of this radiation, we've learned much more about how dangerous it is. We used to give people X-rays a lot more than we do now, because our understanding of the dangers has increased.
And a comment on your NASASCAM page - the Imperial measuring system is not ALWAYS used in the US. The metric system is used in the scientific community because it makes the math easier (since it's based on a decimal system, not an arbitrary system. It eliminates the need to covert inches to feet, feet to miles, etc. It has been used by NASA quite often for this reason.
Of course the pictures were "altered". Not many photo's are published that haven't been. The photo's were altered for image clarity, gamma correction, and even to make them more visually appealing. That doesn't mean they are entirely fake. Tuttle has admitted "improving" the images, but contrary to your assertion, has always maintained that the photo's are not faked, but only enhanced. Really, with the technology available to him, he certainly could have done them all in color. 2001: A Space Odyssey certainly managed to "fake" it in color pretty well, and that was in 1968.
In short, you have demonstrated a complete ignorance of physics and Orbital Mechanics. You also chose references created by completely unqualified people (Furniss). On the one hand, you called his book "fictional" and "fantasy", and then attempted to use data from it to prove your point. Do you not see the contradiction here?
From the sheer number of websites you've created on this topic, you are clearly obsessed with your notion that the moon landings were faked. Yet you provide no evidence that you are in any way qualified to accurately comment on this issue. In fact, you have demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge of spaceflight and photography in general.
Please do a little research and update your sites with actual facts, not the misinformation and erroneous data you have been using.
I suspect you'll find that difficult, since truthful data like the mission times I presented above don't support your claims.
[/FONT]