|
Post by gillianren on Mar 29, 2008 15:02:24 GMT -4
Explain something, Turbonium. I have long since stopped being fussy about what. But stop whining about being misunderstood and explain how something was faked. In detail.
Because here's the thing. I don't understand a lot of the science, and I admit that. But the one time I ever asked a question about Apollo, something I legitimately hadn't a clue about, I got an answer. When you get asked how something happened, your answer seems to be "it just did." So tell me again why I should trust your view of things more?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 29, 2008 15:21:11 GMT -4
As for needing two rockets in the future? It's a little known fact that Apollo capsules were literally running on fumes by the time they got back to Earth. Next time, we'll have a second, fully fueled-up rocket waiting for us in Earth orbit.
It isn't a "little known fact." Fuel left in a rocket after its maneuvers are complete is just useless baggage. The perfect rocket finishes its mission with perfectly dry tanks. Since nearly every rocket works by bursts of propulsion followed by long periods of ballistic coasting, the notion of one "running on fumes" (and this being a dangerous thing) is pretty misleading.
It would do little good for an orbiting rocket to await a ship returning from the Moon. The only way the returning ship could rendezvous with it is to execute an Earth orbit capture maneuver -- with what fuel?
I may be missing some important context here, but this sounds like a non-functioning solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 29, 2008 16:05:32 GMT -4
Turbonium, you've been asked this before, and I'm asking you again now.
Would you please lay out a scenario of exactly how and why Apollo was hoaxed. Rockets, tracking, moon rocks, photography, the works. You've been at this long enough so you must have thought about this at one time or another.
I would like to compare your "how and why Apollo was hoaxed" scenario with what was recorded and accepted by history.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 29, 2008 16:25:39 GMT -4
For example, space radiation can be lethal nowadays. In 1969, it was just as lethal. But, since we didn't know that, it wasn't that big a deal. Rubbish. We knew just how lethal it was in 1969, and designed missions accordingly. Once again you fail to grasp the simple concept that radiation is a danger now because NASA is planning on spending considerably longer in space and on the Moon than in Apollo, and that means more exposure and an increased likelihood of being caught by a major solar particle event. [/b][/quote] You made a false statement, claiming NASA coined aphrase that made them seem reckless when in fact they did no such thing. If you intended it as a joke then you should have made that clear. An 'appropriate behavioural response' is not always easy to judge from reading written words, especially in the context of a line that makes NASA seem incompetent from a man who has made it his life's work on these fora to accuse them of faking, well, just about everything. How exactly was anyone reading it to know you intended it as a joke? Er, no its' not. They didn't need any more fuel once they got back to Eartrh, so why should they have had excess fuel? A rocket in Earth orbit is doing 17,500mph and a rocket coming back from the Moon is doing near 25,000mph by the time it gets back to Earth. How do you propose a link-up takes place? And for what purpose? That would be like giving your car a full tank of petrol just before taking it to the scrapyard. Project Constellation is using two rockets because the whole mission plan is different and the spacecraft are bigger. The Saturn V was just capable of lofting everything need for a short lunar stay and return. With Constellation there are bigger craft, more people and more consumables. One rocket won't get it all up there.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 29, 2008 16:26:45 GMT -4
And, Turbonium, on a subject related to my last post, do you have an answer to my question relating to these two photos, which on the UM forum you claim were of props used to fake the lunar landings: My answer to your claim: "If you're going to fake a Lunar mission, why would you before, during, and after, proudly display the props you intend to fake the missions with?
Isn't that kind of...stupid?
I thought that "Evil NASA", the agency that bumps off astronauts and technicians (not caring that in the process they destroyed millions of dollars of hardware and brought the scrutiny of Congress down on them), would know better than to release photos of the props that they "faked" the landings with."
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 29, 2008 16:42:49 GMT -4
My post, as it turned out, lacked the "smileys" that these people are so utterly dependent upon. Actually, I think your post lacked any semblance of intelligent and rational thought. You really don't know very much about this stuff, do you, Turbonium?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 29, 2008 16:44:05 GMT -4
I tend to assume that all the things Turbonium says are jokes. Some of them may even be intentional...
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Mar 29, 2008 18:18:59 GMT -4
Turbs... aren't your wrist and ankles sore yet from being up on that cross so long...? What I now realize, sadly, is that some people depend entirely on "smiley face" emoticons after any comment that requires a modicum of insight, or intelligence a notch or two above primates. The "smiley" assists these unfortunate people in making the appropriate behavioral response. My post, as it turned out, lacked the "smileys" that these people are so utterly dependent upon. If only I'd added a "laughing smiley", then none of this would have happened.... No smiley = serious comment Lets look at this with the benefit of something Tubs knows next to nothing about... actual evidence. You made your original post here: (I won't bother to repost it since you already have and we all know the contents anyway)The 7 or so posts that follow deal with most of the allegations in your post, but none mention the quote you "jokingly" attributed to NASA. Then... 6 days later, you post this: Interesting how NO ONE had made any comment about your "joke" to that point yet you feel the need to explain to everyone that it was mean to be "tongue-in-cheek". So, the "smiley" group challenged me on my comment about NASA coining the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you!" "I've never heard that. Who said it?", I was asked. The actual question was this: So, while technically in line with what you have claimed here, the actual message was a lot more "gentler" than you make it sound. I replied that I had said it. That it was intended as a joke. Also reasonably accurate to your post here: Which brought on this response: Now here's where your believability starts to plummet: "No, you're just saying that 'cause we caught you!", declared one of the brighter members of the group. The exact quote was this from Waspie Dwarf: And here is where your believability crashes and burns: The others realized the remarkable insight shown by their fellow "smiley", and joined in the accusation that I was "lying" after "being caught". There were only two more direct responses about your "tongue-in-cheek" remark, and both were from MID. Neither of them are accusatory in any way. The rest of this DID NOT HAPPEN: Since it was impossible to explain concepts such as humor to them, I tried a different approach. I asked them "Why would I lie? For what purpose? What possible reason? They were stumped, as one would expect. So they just kept on repeating the comment "you're just saying that 'cause we caught you!" - over and over. Finally, one of them said I lied "because it was a false statement". I explained that a lie is a false statement deliberately intended to deceive. The "smiley" replied - "No, it isn't. I define a lie as a false statement, regardless of the intent." No one "kept on repeating the comment "you're just saying that 'cause we caught you!" - over and over".
No one posted that you "lied "because it was a false statement"".
You did not post anything saying "that a lie is a false statement deliberately intended to deceive."
No one else posted ""No, it isn't. I define a lie as a false statement, regardless of the intent." "Anyway, that was how it all ended, sort of... No, how it ended is how you always end a discussion in which you are proven completely incorrect: you changed the subject. For the next month the only posts you make were about the VLT and interferometry. Months later, a couple of "smileys" briefly noted how I had "lied". I wasn't surprised by that, and knew it was futile to try and explain something beyond their ability to grasp. Since I don't have the time or desire to go through two hundred or more pages of posts to find this supposed "second accusation", perhaps you could actually, for once, provide the evidence yourself...? And no, I'm not holding my breath. Are you able to advance beyond the level of a "smiley", gwiz? Are you able to ever discuss anything with any semblance of rationality, accuracy, scientific basis, truth, honesty or anything approaching integrity...? This one issue here certainly proves that, at least at the moment, you can't. Cz EDITED... to remove UM hot-linked images (smilies)
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 30, 2008 5:03:21 GMT -4
Turbonium, it appears that no-one here can see how it is a joke, just as no-one on UM could either. You sense of humour is obviously too sophisticated for the likes of us. Perhaps you could explain it to us, instead. From personal experience, I was well aware that sarcasm and irony can be difficult concepts for some people to grasp. But I am surprised that the entire AH group missed it. Anyway, I'll try to explain it in simple, direct terms that (almost) everybody can understand... .. It's always best to look at sarcasm / irony within its context - the entire post. 38 years ago, it wasn't that difficult to put men on the Moon.
In 1961, JFK announced men would land on the Moon before the end of the decade. And so we did, 8 years later.
But times have really changed since then. And hardly for the better.
In 2004, Bush announced men would return to the Moon by 2015......well, by 2020, tops.
To the casual observer, it may seem quite odd that it could take up to twice as long to return to the Moon as it did the first time, several decades ago.
Others are puzzled as to why the return trip apparently will require two rockets, when they only needed one rocket, back then. My basic points so far... - it wasn't difficult to send men to the Moon back in the 1960's. - it seems to be much more difficult to do now, by comparison. - this seems very odd to the casual observer. The answer is really quite simple - we now know much more than they did in the 1960's!This is the kicker. I'm basically saying... "The more you know about putting men on the Moon, the harder it is to do it!" Or, put it the other way around... "The less you know about putting men on the Moon, the easier it is to do it!" It should be painfully obvious- my so-called "answer" is totally ridiculous. But nobody noticed it (At least, nobody who commented on it did.) And none of you noticed it, either. To continue my post... For example, space radiation can be lethal nowadays. In 1969, it was just as lethal. But, since we didn't know that, it wasn't that big a deal. In fact, it was during the Gemini program in the mid-60's when NASA coined their now-famous phrase...."What you don't know can't hurt you!"I'm taking a sarcastic jab. NASA's limited knowledge of space radiation during the 1960's was resolved by coining the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you!" NASA is spending big bucks on VA Belt radiation studies, to be concluded by 2010 or 2011. The VA Belts are more hazardous than they were known to be during Apollo. In any case, all I accused you of here was making up a quote. There is no doubt at all that you did just that, so your denials and talk of false accusations is disingenuous at the very least. Not quite. This is what you said... "Even you got caught on UM making up a quote which you claimed came from NASA, then trying to excuse it as a joke."You claim that I "got caught...making up a quote.."I was not "caught" - that is false. It also infers that I was attempting to deceive people. I said it was a joke, which is the truth. You claim that I was "trying to excuse it" as a joke, and that is false. It also infers that I am lying by making up an excuse. To falsely claim that I was caught, and to falsely claim that I tried to make up an excuse for it, is essentially the same thing as falsely accusing me of lying. I am now requesting that you post a retraction for those false claims.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Mar 30, 2008 5:23:02 GMT -4
I am now requesting that you post a retraction for those false claims. Perhaps you should post a retraction of these claims - which have been proven to be blatantly FALSE and misleading - first: Since it was impossible to explain concepts such as humor to them, I tried a different approach. I asked them "Why would I lie? For what purpose? What possible reason? They were stumped, as one would expect. So they just kept on repeating the comment "you're just saying that 'cause we caught you!" - over and over. Finally, one of them said I lied "because it was a false statement". I explained that a lie is a false statement deliberately intended to deceive. The "smiley" replied - "No, it isn't. I define a lie as a false statement, regardless of the intent." Again, though, I'm not holding my breath... Cz
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Mar 30, 2008 7:10:02 GMT -4
Triple bonus points to the first one who can explain the joke. Another point if you know why it's of no value as a lie.. If you can grasp those concepts, then you're just one step away from leaving the Ozarks... I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 30, 2008 13:03:40 GMT -4
In any case, all I accused you of here was making up a quote. There is no doubt at all that you did just that, so your denials and talk of false accusations is disingenuous at the very least. Not quite. This is what you said... "Even you got caught on UM making up a quote which you claimed came from NASA, then trying to excuse it as a joke."You claim that I "got caught...making up a quote.."I was not "caught" - that is false. It also infers that I was attempting to deceive people. I said it was a joke, which is the truth. You claim that I was "trying to excuse it" as a joke, and that is false. It also infers that I am lying by making up an excuse. To falsely claim that I was caught, and to falsely claim that I tried to make up an excuse for it, is essentially the same thing as falsely accusing me of lying. I am now requesting that you post a retraction for those false claims. No retraction necessary. You were "caught" in the sense that once someone asked for the source of that quote, you had to admit to fabricating it. As Czero 101 has posted, your account of the subsequent happenings on UM was way off the mark, and there is still no sign of the person you claim was making false accusations against you. Your credibility is not helped by the way you are trying to wriggle out of this.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Mar 30, 2008 13:36:55 GMT -4
The answer is really quite simple - we now know much more than they did in the 1960's!HB post ridiculous statements all the time. Some are commented on, some are not. It does seem like a lot of fuss here devoted to something that was said on another forum though. Now, if the post had appeared here...
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Mar 30, 2008 13:52:42 GMT -4
My basic points so far... - it wasn't difficult to send men to the Moon back in the 1960's. Yes, it was. The physics is the same, then and now. What is different is the political climate. Back in the 60s, the USSR had racked up a few spectacular space "firsts," and the US was looking bad by comparison. So it was decided on "the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." This started a methodical, phased program with that end in sight. Mercury was already deep in planning at that point. In fact, the visible part (what the public cared about anyway) had already started: Alan Shepard flew 20 days before JFK made that speech. As well, planning for Apollo had started over a year before. Gemini was started so the US could learn how to control ships in space and how the human body reacted to long-term microgravity and space exposure. Apollo was the end of the line, as it were. It was intended to go to the moon, stay a short while, and come back, and nothing else. Not really. Now we know how to maneuver ships in space, and we know how human physiology reacts. What is lacking is a reason of some sort that the US public will accept. The attitude then was, "We gotta beat the Rooskies to the moon!" Now the USSR has collapsed, GWB & Co. have created a atmosphere of "fear the terrorists" and have a money-sucking war on their hands, and there really is no profit to be made on the moon. Going to the moon for pure science and little else is a hard sell in this climate. In addition, Apollo was a short-term mission. The new missions are to be longer stays, with larger crews, which means that more supplies are needed, thus bigger ships to move those supplies and the crews, thus more fuel, etc. The longer duration also means a greater radiation dose. Apollo missions lasted 8-12 days. For a period that short, radiation dose was not that big a concern. The new missions will be longer, thus the dose will be (on average) greater. Others have noted the reasons for using two launches, so I won't go into that here. Only if the casual observer can't be bothered to learn learn about either project, and ignores the political and social contexts in which they were/are being done. Which, frankly, fits you to a T. Fred
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 30, 2008 18:19:18 GMT -4
it wasn't difficult to send men to the Moon back in the 1960's.
Rubbish, it was very hard. They had to work extremely long hours for 11 years (1958-1969, Apollo didn't start with Kennedy's announcement,) create new technologies, and in the process killed at least 3 people (only counting Apollo crew here) and very nearly killed 3 more. That doesn't count as "wasn't difficult".
it seems to be much more difficult to do now, by comparison.
No, it's easier to get them there; it's more difficult to keep them there longer.
Look at it this way. Imagine that you want to go to the beach. Now in 1908 you just wanted to go for the day, so you would have just had to get hold of a brand new hand made Model T Ford, pack the family in, and trundle on down to the beach where you could throw out the blanket, have your picnic and then when finished come on back home. While the trip was arduous and uncomfortable, the technology in the car pretty lame by today's standard, it was enough to get you there for your day trip and get you home again safely.
Now today in 2008 you decide that you want to go back, but this time you're not going for the day, but for a month. Suddenly it's a whole new ball game. Getting there is a lot easier, you just throw what you need into your assembly line produced, very comfortable, Ford Falcon Orion (name is actually coincidental) and drive there, but.... Since you are going to be there for a month however, you are going to need to consider some more things. What do you need to take with you for days that it is raining? What is a hurricane turns up? Since you want to build a permanent holiday house there what are you going to take with you to achieve that? Is the coastline in that area safe enough to build a permanent structure? How will you get electricty, gas, and water to it? How will you park your car for that time without it getting damaged? Suddenly you have a whole bunch of questions that you didn't have to worry about before. Not only that, but since you went last time, your wages have been cut considerably when compared for inflation, so it'll take you longer to pay for the trip. So while it's easier to get there, you have to spend a lot more time planning and organising, seeing how the conditions there will affect you long term and working out the best way to do it, all with a lower budget than your day trip.
Does this all mean that you never went for that picnic in 1908 though? Of course not, it just means that you're trying to do something very different today than you did then, the only thing that's the same is the destination.
this seems very odd to the casual observer.
That's because all you are doing is seeing the destination and assuming that it should therefore be the same. It's not, the new missions are vastly longer and more complex that the Apollo missions. They are the month long beach house-building trip as opposed to the day trip picnic.
The answer is really quite simple - we now know much more than they did in the 1960's!
Yes the answer is simple, but that's not it. The real answer is because the Orion missions are longer and more complex than Apollo and are being done on what is by comparison a far smaller budget.
|
|