I can't begin to prove any point i am trying to make.
Because you have no understanding of the science behind the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately for you, most of the posters here not only do have a good understanding of the sciences involved with Apollo, but many have been doing it as a job for a good many years. That means when they tell you that your point is wrong and explain why, it'd be a good idea to learn from what they tell you.
Quote:
All i can say is that i feel after looking at the Apollo landings, that there are so many questionable things that it just finally became obvious that the landing on the moon in 1969 was impossible and is just a made up story.
Gut feeling is no substitute for learning and understanding the science. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it wrong. Instead of going "I can't understand that, so I don't believe it" try instead going "I don't understand that, so I want to learn what the science says about it." In the long run it'll improve your life.
Quote:
look you wouldn't be here yourself if you were 100% sure, why would you bother with fools.
Most of us are here now to dicuss things we have a passion for with other members of the group who have similar passions. For a while now the odd Hoax believer that turns up and get mentally beaten to a pulp before exploding and departing has just been a bonus.
Quote:
The problem is there's too many questions and no satisfactory answers.
A satisfactory answer doesn't always mean an answer that you will understand, especially when you don't have a good understanding of the basics. Learn the basics first, and then if you can't already see the answer, you'll have a better chance of understanding it.
Quote:
maybe there is one huge influence on our thought processes that make the difference here.
The difference is that we understand the science behind the program, whereas you admittedly have no idea. That's what influences our thought processes.
Quote:
answer me this truthfully Would the American government ever tell a false story? Would the American government lie to its citizens
Except the answer is totally irrellevant. It is demonstratable that the American Government tells the truth about some things, hence the only way to determine if Apollo was the truth is on the merits of the programme itself, and not the behaviour of the US Government.
Quote:
if you answer yes that it does, then all we have to do is negotiate as to how big a lie they would tell and could get away with it.
We already know that they are pretty bad at lying and getting away with it. Clinton couldn't keep a secret that involved just two people in the Oval Office from getting out to an International public. If they couldn't stop that, how would they stop one that was known by 400,000 people?
Quote:
For an instant... if they lied about the moon landings, how easy do you think it would be to prove it a lie.
Very. There are too many things that simply aren't able to be faked without being found out over the past 40 years as the sciences have improved. The hoaxers would have had to create things that would withstand the scrutiny of multiple analytical sceince techiques had they would never even have concieved. They might have been smart, but no-one is that smart.
Quote:
now think of this we captured German rocket technology say 1945 1957 - 12 years to just put a satellite into orbit 1961 - 4 more years to put a man in space 1961-1966 : 16 manned mission / docking 3 times / 3 missions with a space walk. that's it 1969 - 21st manned space mission we land on the moon. the leap is just too great, with too many unproven technologies.
Not to people who have studied the record. Don't forget that the US was already well on the way to having a rocket program before WW2. Robert Goddard began launching liquid fueled rockets in the US in 1926, that's 20 years before Von Braun's V2 arrived there. The arrival of Von Braun and his team (not just the rocket, but the designers went to the US) helped to accelerate and complement the US program, it didn't start it. Even then it still took 24 years for Von Braun to achieve his goals with US backing. If anything it was slow, had the US thrown their weight behind Von Braun in 1946, they'd have made the moon by the end of the 1950's.
Quote:
they had to lie, Americans would have been crushed if after setting this a national goal, to discover that the goal was not possible may have been a crushing blow to American society. they had to lie.
Would it be more crushing to Americans to be told "sorry, the goal is impossible. We tried, and no-one can do it" or for them to find out that their Government tried to fool them?
Quote:
and because they lied they can't change the story.
Or perhaps the story doesn't change because it's true.
Quote:
figure it out for your self.
I did, many years ago.
Quote:
i can be wrong.
You are, and the reason is, as you admitted at the start of your post, you don't understand enough about it to make a learned and reasoned decision.
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
"On two occasions, I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
can anyone tell me what Armstrong meant in a interview on "the sky at night" with Patrick Moore BBC 1970 Armstrong was talking about the space between the earth and the moon. he used a term that sounded like "sisteller inter-space"
i can not find sisteller or systeller or other variations i have thought of.
Cislunar is the word. Broadly speaking, it refers to space between earth and moon.
The Ascent engine had unique fuel, it was hypergolic in nature.
Actually, every single engine on the LM burned the exact same combination of propellants: Aerozine-50 (fuel) and nitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer). Aerozine-50 is a trade name for a 50-50 mixture of straight hydrazine (N2H4) and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH). This combination is indeed hypergolic.
Both the descent and ascent engines were originally designed to burn these fuels. The small reaction control thrusters were originally designed for monomethyl hydrazine (MMH, used for the RCS thrusters on the CSM) but they were modified to burn Aerozine-50 so that they could cross-connect the RCS engines to the propellant supplies for the ascent engine.
As you can see, some of us have actually spent quite a bit of time studying Apollo. Now I'm not asking that you take what we say solely on faith. But I do encourage you to spend a little more time investigating Apollo for yourself instead of accepting hoax claims at face value just because they seem "obvious" to you. Unless you've actually been to the moon, or worked with rocket engines and spacecraft, or at least have a very good understanding of science and technology, your everyday earthbound experience is a very poor guide to how machinery you've never used behaves in alien places where you've never been.
It wasn't that the fuels were corrosive (they certainly were to humans and to the wrong structural materials) but that the LM engines were designed with "ablative" cooling. A lining inside the nozzle and combustion chamber is designed to burn away, carrying heat with it.
A much better known use of ablative cooling in Apollo was the heat shield on the bottom of the Command Module. It also ablated during re-entry to the earth's atmosphere, carrying away much of the heat that would otherwise soak into the structure. If you're ever at the Air & Space Museum in DC, take a look at the Apollo 11 command module. It should be obvious that the heat shield was good for only one use.
So for the same reason that the heat shield on each command module could not be fully tested prior to flight, neither could each LM engine be fully tested prior to flight.
But that's hardly the same as saying that the engines weren't tested. Identical engines were extensively tested on the ground, in vacuum chambers and in space (on LM test flights Apollo 5, 9 and 10) prior to the first landing, Apollo 11. Any problems found were analyzed and corrected. Strict quality control measures were used to ensure that the flown engines were built the same way as those that had been tested.
Can an engineer then please tell me. on the lm descent engine, if at full throttle, how quickly and how wide did the exhaust flame get?
Watch video of almost any launch from earth. Right after liftoff the plume is relatively narrow. If kerosene/LOX or solid fuel is used, the plume will be quite bright.
As the rocket ascends through the atmosphere, the plume will spread out very noticeably and become much more diffuse. Even kerosene and solid rocket plumes will become dimmer and more transparent. The reason, of course, is that atmospheric pressure drops quickly with altitude.
The movement of the gas from the LM descent engine during landing can be described fairly accurately as hitting the surface and spreading out horizonally in every direction along the ground. It does not billow or bounce back up to the LM because there is no atmosphere to interfere with it. If you look at the last few seconds of any Apollo landing, you will see fine streams of dust being blown away along the ground at a very shallow angle. These streams are entrained in the exhaust gases so they are a visible sign of how the invisible exhaust gases are also moving.
Venus thank you --Cislunar ok now this. sorry about the caps, this was a cut and paste. BBC SHOW "THE SKY AT NIGHT" 1970, PATRICK MOORE INTERVIEWS NEIL ARMSTRONG
PATRICK MOORE: "CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE SKY ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE FROM THE MOON?"
NEIL ARMSTRONG: "THE SKY IS DEEP BLACK WHEN VIEWED FROM THE MOON AS IT IS WHEN VIEWED FROM CISLUNAR INTER-SPACE, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE MOON. THE EARTH IS THE ONLY VISIBLE OBJECT OTHER THAN THE SUN THAT CAN BE SEEN, ALTHOUGH SOME REPORTS SEEING PLANETS…"
What does Neil Armstrong mean ?
All CAPS do not add weight to your argument.
What Neil is referring to is that in the full light of the sun, both cameras and the human eye contract such that stars cannot be seen or imaged. This is elementary physics.
I think his meaning is quite clear; when you're in sunlight, your eyes are adjusted for sunlit objects like the earth and moon so you cannot see the far dimmer stars. You might, if you were lucky, see the brighter planets like Venus or Jupiter. Only after you've been in eclipse for a while will your eyes dark adapt and let you see the stars directly.
But stars could be and were regularly seen by the Apollo astronauts even in the daytime through the navigation optics on both the CSM and LM. They relied on these star sightings to keep their inertial navigation platform aligned. They also determined their own position as a backup to radio tracking from Earth by sighting stars against the limbs of the earth or moon. The optics were carefully designed to block both direct and indirect sunlight from reaching the astronauts' eyes. Even so, many complained that the stars could be dim and hard to see, and on Apollo 13 the sunlit debris surrounding the spacecraft kept them from sighting stars at all.
the human eye contract such that stars cannot be seen or imaged.
While the iris of the eye does account for some of its adaptability to different light levels, most of it actually comes from changes in the sensitivity of the retina.
By way of analogy, it's not so much that your eye changes its f-stop between day and night but that its "film speed" changes.
This is why it can take many minutes to fully dark adapt even though the iris of your eye reacts in just a few seconds. Photopigments are depleted by bright light, and it takes time for your retina to build up enough of them to detect very dim light. I believe there are other neurological changes that happen as well, but I'm not as familiar with them.
I can't begin to prove any point i am trying to make.
Well then you have a problem. As the one making the claim it was faked it is your burden to prove it, not ours to prove you wrong.
Quote:
All i can say is that i feel after looking at the Apollo landings, that there are so many questionable things that it just finally became obvious that the landing on the moon in 1969 was impossible and is just a made up story.
But you have already admitted you don't actually understand any of the technical details of space flight, so how are you concluding it was faked? You don't understand how it could be done therefore it couldn't be done? Do you have any idea how amazingly arrogant that sounds? I don't understand exactly how microelectronics work, but I can accept that they do and that other people understand it.
Quote:
look you wouldn't be here yourself if you were 100% sure
That is simply not true. I am 100% sure. The reason I am here is to help those who are not 100% sure.
Quote:
The problem is there's too many questions and no satisfactory answers.
Satisfactory to whom? And how do you propose that we give you satisfactory answers when you admit to lacking the basics of the technical knowledge required?
It is far easier for someone to question and sow doubt about something than it is for any of us to explain in detail sufficient to satisfy those with no technical background. Questions like 'how could they survive the intense radiation in the van Allen belts' sound good to someone who knows little of radiation and its effects beyond hollywood science. Explaining how they did it requires explaining the different types of radiation, the different ways to shield them, the different environments in space, and even orbital mechanics. There are a few threads here filled with detail about such things, but bogged down by the person we are explaining it to unable to grasp the notion of a fluid, dynamic belt and the 3D trajectory of a spacecraft. Do you see why it is hard to provide 'satisfactory' answers?
Quote:
answer me this truthfully
Would the American government ever tell a false story? Would the American government lie to its citizens
The answer to both is yes, but that is irrelevant. Do you claim you have never lief in your life? If not, would you be happy if you were on trial for a murder you did not commit but the jury was swayed by evidence that you had lied in the past and therefore inferred you were lying about your innocence?
The important question is not whether they have lied ever, it is whether they are lying in this case.
Quote:
if you answer yes that it does, then all we have to do is negotiate as to how big a lie they would tell and could get away with it.
No, all we have to do is assess the evidence. Speculation about lying is a waste of time unless you can prove they actually did.
Quote:
For an instant... if they lied about the moon landings, how easy do you think it would be to prove it a lie.
According to most hoax proponents, so easy that they, with their total lack of qualification in any relevant field, are able to expose it despite everyone who does possess the relevant knowledge being fooled completely. Does that sound even slightly likely to you?
Quote:
1961-1966 : 16 manned mission / docking 3 times / 3 missions with a space walk. that's it
Where are you getting these numbers from? There were 16 manned missions, yes. But five of them included space walks (Gemini 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12) and four of them involved docking (Gemini 8, 10, 11 and 12), and an additional two involved rendezvous within a couple of feet of docking (Gemini 6A/7 and 9). What's more these involved repeatedly rendezvousing and docking with the targets, making for a lot of practice.
Quote:
1969 - 21st manned space mission we land on the moon.
Yes, after another four missions in which the spacecraft were tested both in Earth orbit and lunar orbit.
Quote:
the leap is just too great, with too many unproven technologies.
Define 'unproven technologies'. The CSM had been through a number of unmanned test flights and four manned ones, while the LM had had one unmanned test and two manned ones. The spacecsuit had been tested. What was 'unproven'?
Quote:
they had to lie, Americans would have been crushed if after setting this a national goal, to discover that the goal was not possible may have been a crushing blow to American society.
And figuring out that it had been faked wouldn't? There is no shame in finding a goal to be unattainable. There is effective political suicide in having a fake uncovered.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.
Good question concerning 5000 degree temperature of exhaust flame...
A rocket engine is one example of a heat engine. Another one is your car, assuming it uses an internal combustion engine.
The function of every heat engine is to convert heat energy into useful work, usually mechanical. The heat energy is usually produced by burning a fuel, but it need not be. (A nuclear power plant generates heat from a nuclear reaction rather than the combustion of a fuel, but the rest of the plant is essentially the same.)
While the exhaust gas that comes out your tailpipe is certainly hot, it is nowhere near the original combustion temperature inside the engine cylinder. Unless there's something seriously wrong with your car, flames don't shoot out the tailpipe, right?
That's because the engine in your car converts much (but not all) of the heat energy in the very hot combustion products of gasoline or diesel fuel to mechanical energy. They're made to do work by expanding against a piston. As they expand, the gases cool substantially before they reach the exhaust pipe.
The same thing happens in a rocket engine. Although the temperatures in the combustion chamber are very high, as the gases expand in the nozzle some of their heat energy is converted into linear motion that results in thrust. In the process, the gases cool to temperatures well below those in the combustion chamber.
Rockets designed for operation in vacuum, like those on the LM, have longer nozzles than those designed for operation in our atmosphere. This provides a greater expansion ratio, thus increasing efficiency and further cooling the exhaust products.
they also make a distinction between the ascent engine being different technology then the descent engine.
It IS different technology. The descent engine could be throttled, while the ascent engine could not. They still burned the same propellants, however.
Quote:
sorry who am i going to believe?
It is not a question of who you believe, it is a question of understanding what you are being told. Do they at any time specifically say that the two engines burned different propellants?
Look, the J2 engine on the Saturn V and the space shuttle main engines are 'different technology', but they both run on liquid hydrogen and LOX.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.
so while the space craft was in cis-lunar inter-space, the port hole always faced the sun?
No.
Quote:
If Armstrong had looked out the port hole when it was faced away from the sun, would he have seen stars or not?
No, probably not, because he was inside a floodlit cabin, so his eyes were suitably adjusted. The construction of the window meant there was no way he could get close enough to it and prevent reflected light entering his eyes to allow them to adapt. The only place they could see stars was when looking out of the spacecraft optics for the navigation system.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.
so while the space craft was in cis-lunar inter-space, the port hole always faced the sun? If Armstrong had looked out the port hole when it was faced away from the sun, would he have seen stars or not?
No, during cruise in cis-lunar space the Apollo stack rotated slowly around its long axis for passive thermal control (the so-called "barbecue roll"). The sun shone at right angles to this rotation axis, so as seen by the astronauts it appeared to slowly circle the spacecraft, moving from one window to the next.
Even when the sun didn't shine directly in through one of the five windows, the cabin was usually brightly lit by fluorescent lights.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 1,845 Location: South East England
Re: The Waving Flag Theory Debunked « Reply #44 on Nov 13, 2011, 5:07am »
I am saying they both burned the same fuel. Grumman is saying they both burned the same fuel. Everyone is saying they both burned the same fuel.
There are many exmaples of things that are single use and cannot be tested before they are actually to be used. You get round that by making them in a very regimented way and testing a whole bunch of them to prove the technology works. If you make ten items and they all work, there is no reason to believe that the eleventh won't function if it is made in the same way.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
Author![[avatar]](http://apollo-history-and-hoax.com/images/phantomwolf2a.gif "[avatar]")
![[icq]](http://images.proboards.com/icq.gif "[icq]")
![[yim]](http://images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged