Venerable
Mercury
Irrefutable photographic proof that Gandalf was indeed a pimp.
Posts: 6
|
Post by Venerable on Aug 29, 2006 5:58:31 GMT -4
I'm new to the boards and have read many threads. Although I have my own resources you have all shown yourselves to be enlightened and intelligent people. You consistently come up with evidence from a variety of sources. Your expertise in this area is what I need.
Now to explain. I am most definetly not an HB, but my best friend is. Over the course of a few weeks I have given him irrefutable evidence to support our landing on the moon, in many cases evidence to questions I expect him to ask.
However I have run up against a few things I cannot explain and something he mentioned that has forced me to do things from a very scientific point of view, not just presenting evidence from sites such as these.
First here are the questions.
1. Why did Apollo 13, after losing power begin to get cold instead of overwhelmingly hot?
2. Why do the suits seem so flexible, as if they were not pressurized? (I have an idea on this one regarding how pressurized suits would behave in vaccum vs atmosphere but have yet to find evidence to support this claim)
3. Why didn't the astronauts overheat on the moon? (I have found a little bit on this but nothing I can really pin down and hand to him)
4. Why will it cost so much to get to the moon now when according to simple math it is relatively easy and should therefore be inexpensive to get an object from here to the moon? (I have stated to him that the amount of money <30 billion> for the space program in 1969 is huge in comparison with what is available now and that we had many more people working on it, but I need more)
5. Why is there little to no delay between mission control and the apollo astronauts audio while on the moon? It should have been close to 3 seconds delay there and back I believe.
Now here is the other problem. He says most evidence presented on sites like this are supported by the grand conspiracy to keep us in the dark as it were. He says our national pride is what makes people like us defend our going to the moon. Therefore this evidence isn't pure. I need truly the real science behind why they wouldn't have died in the van allen belts, the math behind parabolic arcs to present to him why the moon dust can ONLY act as it does on the apollo videos and could not be simulated on Earth.
Emotionally it strikes me deeply to see people doubt one of the most amazing achievements of humankind. I consider it my duty as I am sure you all do, to debunk these HB's. I ask everyone I meet if they believe we went to the moon or not. Far too many think we didn't all because of some media show they watched. They don't study it, they have no idea the science behind it. I need ideas on how to approach ignorance and get them back on the right track.
One of the many arguments made say that a government that has lied to us, irradiated our army during tests, lied to go to war etc ad nauseum would most definetly lie to us about the moon. I always argue that although some of that has been proven and yes we have darkness even in the greatest government on this Earth, the level of evil and conspiracy involved to fake the moon landing is so large that it would implode on itself. They will refute me by stating simply that the government has the resources to do so. At this point I know I am talking to someone so blind and deaf to what I have to say that I should stop and just move on. But it is hard to do. I need help.
Thanks in advance folks.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 29, 2006 6:27:46 GMT -4
1. Why did Apollo 13, after losing power begin to get cold instead of overwhelmingly hot?
<snip>
3. Why didn't the astronauts overheat on the moon? (I have found a little bit on this but nothing I can really pin down and hand to him)Since both of these questions are about heat management, you might want to look at posts in this thread.
|
|
Venerable
Mercury
Irrefutable photographic proof that Gandalf was indeed a pimp.
Posts: 6
|
Post by Venerable on Aug 29, 2006 6:46:50 GMT -4
Perfect! That is exactly what I am looking for. So in the case of Apollo 13 it was the lunar module doing a wonderful job of reflecting the light that caused it to cool down inside? Or was it in shadow?
I am also looking for good sites for explanation of the science behind it other than teaching myself everything I would need to know to break it down to a layman in regards to the laws of thermodynamics.
Hmmm...come to think of it I sound a bit lazy there. I think I will begin some study of my own on how it would work to better explain it to him. Any help in that vein would be wonderful
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 29, 2006 9:30:18 GMT -4
1. Why did Apollo 13, after losing power begin to get cold instead of overwhelmingly hot?
Because most of the heat in the spacecraft is generated by the electronics. Without power the spacecraft cooled rapidly. The external surfaces were reflective, and when the astronauts put the shades up to try to get some sleep they blocked the sunlight from the cabin so blocked a heat source.
2. Why do the suits seem so flexible, as if they were not pressurized? (I have an idea on this one regarding how pressurized suits would behave in vaccum vs atmosphere but have yet to find evidence to support this claim)
This sounds like a case of someone having a misconception about the suit that a little common sense would sort out. If it was a single garment that was just sealed and pumped full of air it would indeed be very infexible. However, a suit that became inflexible when pressurised would be useless. It was designed to be flexible, incorporating accordion joints and other ways to ensure the astronauts were able to bend their legs and elbows and use their hands properly.
You might ask your friend what he thinks of other space flights. Spacesuits used now are very flexible. Does he think tat all space flight EVA is faked because the suits don't look right?
3. Why didn't the astronauts overheat on the moon? (I have found a little bit on this but nothing I can really pin down and hand to him)
Because the spacesuit incorporated a coolant system.
4. Why will it cost so much to get to the moon now when according to simple math it is relatively easy and should therefore be inexpensive to get an object from here to the moon? (I have stated to him that the amount of money <30 billion> for the space program in 1969 is huge in comparison with what is available now and that we had many more people working on it, but I need more)
Because you have to redesign and remake the hardware and, more especially, the tooling to make the hardware.
5. Why is there little to no delay between mission control and the apollo astronauts audio while on the moon? It should have been close to 3 seconds delay there and back I believe.
There is a delay, but remember that the recording is happening at one end only. The recorder is at Mission Control. You will not expect a delay between an astronaut saying something and Mission Control responding. You will expect a delay between Mission Control asking a question and an astronaut responding, and indeed you always hear that delay. Sometimes you even hear the comment from Mission Control coing back when an astronaut keys his mike while he is still receiving the communication.
Now here is the other problem. He says most evidence presented on sites like this are supported by the grand conspiracy to keep us in the dark as it were. He says our national pride is what makes people like us defend our going to the moon. Therefore this evidence isn't pure.
Right, first of all you might point out to him that several of us are not American and have no national pride invested in the success of Apollo.
Secondly, this attitude makes me think that you might be wasting your time. Before you bust a gut looking for evidence I strongly advise you to ask him what evidence he would accept.
This is a question you need to ask because we have seen several HBs who continually shift the goalposts because they have some other motive for convincing themselves it was faked. If your friend cannot supply a reasonable standard of evidence that would convince him then really you are wasting your time.
Also, ask him how much of the Apollo record he has seen, and where his arguments come from. Did he come to the conclusions himself or did he read a few conspiracist websites and swallow their crap whole? If so, point out that they are very selective about what they show.
One of the many arguments made say that a government that has lied to us, irradiated our army during tests, lied to go to war etc ad nauseum would most definetly lie to us about the moon.
Argue that the person making that argument has probably lied in his life, and that therefore you should not believe anything he says either.
I always argue that although some of that has been proven and yes we have darkness even in the greatest government on this Earth, the level of evil and conspiracy involved to fake the moon landing is so large that it would implode on itself. They will refute me by stating simply that the government has the resources to do so.
Ask them why their resources don't allow them to actually go to the Moon in that case.
|
|
Venerable
Mercury
Irrefutable photographic proof that Gandalf was indeed a pimp.
Posts: 6
|
Post by Venerable on Aug 29, 2006 10:15:17 GMT -4
I found the thread with Lunatic in it and read the whole thing. That helped quite a bit. I will continue to read the forum as I believe the questions I have beyond what I asked here will be answered over time.
However, your specific answers are perfect. I do need to set a standard with him. I'll give you one more though.
He said and I quote, "I believe we got to the moon in many ways, I have no problem with the science behind it. I just find it hard to believe that a human could get there."
I went pretty hard into that. I told him how much training the Apollo astronauts had. I told him about all of the missions that trained our astronauts during Mercury and Gemini to be able to land on the moon. He just can't seem to believe humans could do this.
Maybe you are right, but damnit this guy is not a stupid man. Its like he has let science fiction movies overwhelm him to the point that he cannot imagine humans could go into space in anything less than a shuttlecraft from the Enterprise. I need to be able to say just the right thing for him to come around. It is a challenge that I may be wasting my time on, but it just seems so wrong that he doesn't believe. Maybe this is how an evangelist of (insert religion here) feels.
Again my thanks.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 29, 2006 10:22:30 GMT -4
4. Why will it cost so much to get to the moon now when according to simple math it is relatively easy and should therefore be inexpensive to get an object from here to the moon? Your friend is badly misinformed if he thinks it is cheap to go to the Moon. The European Space Agency (ESA) currently has a probe, named SMART-1, in orbit around the Moon. The total cost of the program, including launch and operations, will be approximately 110 million Euros ($126 million US) which is relatively cheap for a space mission. Now consider that the inert mass of this spacecraft is just 287 kilograms. That works out to $439,000 per kilogram. Consider now that Apollo sent about 40 metric tons to the moon, and the new plans are calling for about 55 metric tons. Do the math and we're looking at about $20 billion per mission. Also consider that SMART-1 was launched using an existing launch vehicle. Future moon missions will have to absorb the cost of developing an entirely new launch system, as did Apollo with the Saturn V.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 29, 2006 11:14:54 GMT -4
Now here is the other problem. He says most evidence presented on sites like this are supported by the grand conspiracy to keep us in the dark as it were. He says our national pride is what makes people like us defend our going to the moon. Our motives for defending Apollo shouldn't really matter. Can he prove that our answers are wrong? If what we say is correct then it doesn't matter whether we are unemployed geeks in our parents basement, or highly paid government employees.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 29, 2006 12:18:51 GMT -4
He said and I quote, "I believe we got to the moon in many ways, I have no problem with the science behind it. I just find it hard to believe that a human could get there."
I went pretty hard into that. I told him how much training the Apollo astronauts had. I told him about all of the missions that trained our astronauts during Mercury and Gemini to be able to land on the moon. He just can't seem to believe humans could do this.
Then he needs to explain further. What exactly does he think was the limit of human capability assuming he finds nothing wrong with the science.
See, this makes no sense to me because getting to the Moon is not hard. Countless satellites have gone there, so why should it be any harder to send a satellite that just happens to contain a couple of humans? Landing on it is perhaps the hardest part, but if unmanned probes can land on the Moon or Mars, why can't a manned one land on the Moon?
I really do want to know what he finds so hard to believe about it.
|
|
Venerable
Mercury
Irrefutable photographic proof that Gandalf was indeed a pimp.
Posts: 6
|
Post by Venerable on Aug 29, 2006 15:29:15 GMT -4
I agree Jason and that is exactly what I am going to say. Why is it so hard to believe? Look at the world around you, we have pulled off some amazing things. He just seems to believe in 1969 we would have been hard pressed to actually get a human there. He is actually working on "evidence" to prove specifically why humans would not be able to land and survive on the moon.
I'll let you know what comes of it.
I presented exactly that to him btw, although the physics to get there is easy enough, why would someone think it is inexpensive. I think I need to at least come up with some sort of expense sheet for him for the new missions just as Apollo had its expense sheet.
Again my thanks.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 29, 2006 16:40:50 GMT -4
I presented exactly that to him btw, although the physics to get there is easy enough, why would someone think it is inexpensive. I kind of wondered about that myself. I'm a total layperson on the subject of, well, science, but it strikes me that going into space is just pretty much expensive. I'm not sure why anyone would think it's not, given all the stuff you have to build, all the engineering that needs to get done to build the stuff, all the machines you have to build to build the stuff, etc.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 29, 2006 18:07:31 GMT -4
Perhaps walking him through the space program might help. Apollo 11 wasn't created in a vaccum (excuse the pun), but rather was an extention of planning (starting in 1958) and an ongoing series of missions all designed to put a man on the moon. Kennedy bought into NASA's dream of getting there and fully funded it, but they had already had 3 years of research planning and development prior to that. Apollo had been announced under Eisenhower in 1960.
See if he believes that the Soviets managed orbital flight with Uri Gagarin and if he accepts Project Mercury as stated. See if he belives that the Shuttle really works, and that the ISS and Mir were real. Now you can backtrack slightly and ask about the Soviet Soyuz, a capsule that has remained relatively the same since the late 1960's. If he accepts all of these then go through Mercury from testing the rockets, to sub-orbital primate flights to sub-orbital Human flights. From there move on to the orbital flights and the extended orbital ones. Each step is small, but together they start to build up a long chain.
Next move on to Gemini, show how each mission again extended the skills and knowledge of the pilots and controllers, adding spacewalks, rendezvous, docking, firing extra stages in space, vastly extended stays in space and trips up into the VA Belts.
If he still has no problems with Gemini, then enter Apollo with the unmanned testing of the CSM, the Saturn V and the LM. Once he's satisfied that they worked, go onto Apollo 7, the manned CSM hardware test. From there is is a small step to Apollo 8, the first trip around the moon for people. You could note in here the Soviet Zond 5 mission which sent live animals about the moon and returned them to Earth. This is one of the tricky steps, but if he's willing to accept that the Soviets send living creatures through the VA Belts, and that Gemini and even today the ISS and Shuttle pass through the parts of the them, and that all the hardware actually did work, the step to Apollo 8 shouldn't be overly difficult.
From Apollo 8 you can go on with the manned LM testing of Apollo 9, noting that all of the engines and flight controls were tested in Earth Orbit, as was the docking, undocking and redocking of the CSM and LM. From there it's an easy step to Apollo 10 since this was just Apollo 8 and 9 mixed together. If he accepts 8, then there is no reason to not accept 10. Note that 10 did everything that 11 was going to do, except the landing itself, and previous to 10 a number of Suryevor craft had already done that, one of which had reignited its engine and taken off again for a short hop.
That leads us to 11. If you're still got his agreement that the chain is simply being extended a little with each mission, 11 slots in perfectly. All it was is Apollo 10, but actually landing the LM. That is the only thing they did differently.
To be honest, if he's willing to accept the early space program to Apollo, then he should accept Apollo 7 and 9. Apollo 8 is the tricky one, but by showing him that Humans had before in Gemini and have since in the ISS and Shuttle passed through parts of the belts and that the Soviets sent live specimens to the moon and back, then really the biggest objection to Apollo 8 vanishes. You could mention also that Dr Van Allen confirmed that the belts weren't an impossible barrier to manned flight, and he had studied them more than anyone else on the planet. Getting him to accept Apollo 8 is the clincher. Apollo 10 and 11 just fall into place after that. Sometimes just realising the planning and work it took to get there is enough. It was a long and hard process, but one that makes a lot of sense when viewed with an open mind.
|
|