|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 30, 2005 12:44:27 GMT -4
Helicopters on the moon can't fly because there is no air. That's not the point. They can hover without the aid of computers. The fact that there is air on Earth only makes the task of hovering a helicopter more difficult because the pilot has to deal with the effects of wind. From The history of the Harrier: "Preparations continued at Dunsfold over the summer and autumn of 1960, with engine running trials and system tests conducted ahead of the initial set of hovering flights. The first of these finally took place on 21 October, with Bill Bedford at the controls. For this initial series of tests the aircraft was tethered to the grid with short cables to limit the height it could rise to. Limited by one-foot tethers, and with Bill Bedford's right leg in plaster following a car accident, the first hover was successfully completed." So, the first hover test of an early ancestor of the Harrier took place on October 21, 1960... almost nine years before the Apollo 11 moon landing.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 13:47:51 GMT -4
Hey, don't be angry. "Put a rocket engine under that ugly old crock (lunar module) and try to keep it in hovering seated inside".
"That was done several times. Qualified engineers from all countries don't seem to have a problem believing it was done, so what makes you special?"
PLease go to Google.com and write: "we never went to the moon" You can visit 4,150,000 websites that say you never went to the moon because of many reasons. Instead of listing a lot of errors in the images of fake lunar landing, I prefer to talk about the most evident fact: nobody in 1969 could pilot that heavy piece of metal (or plastic?) thrusted from the bottom by a rocket engine. As in 1969 there were not softwares to fake images like Photoshop, Softimage and so on, Nasa filmed lunar module hanging to that big crane in the darkness, covering the structures with black tissues and using spot lights to show lunar module flying in the darkness of universe.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 30, 2005 13:57:09 GMT -4
Having 4 million websites backing you up means nothing. Anyone with a computer and internet access can create a website that spreads misinformation. If you ruled out every one of those websites that was created by a 15 year old then you'd probably be left with about 3.
Saying that flying the Lunar Module was impossible doesn't make it true. We have shown you examples of vehicles that operate under basically the same principles as the LM, so there is no reason to believe that it wasn't possible.
|
|
|
Post by martin on May 30, 2005 14:20:24 GMT -4
Having 4 million websites backing you up means nothing. Anyone with a computer and internet access can create a website that spreads misinformation. If you ruled out every one of those websites that was created by a 15 year old then you'd probably be left with about 3. Unknown does not have four million website backing him up. When I search on google, the first two sites are sarcastic, and are ridiculing people who believe moon landings are hoax. The third one says belief that Apollo landings are a hoax is "silly and damaging urban myth." Here is my favourite: www.thespacereview.com/article/184/1Saying that flying the Lunar Module was impossible doesn't make it true. We have shown you examples of vehicles that operate under basically the same principles as the LM, so there is no reason to believe that it wasn't possible. There are other examples also, aircraft which are called "tail-sitter" have existed from early 1950s, maybe from 1940s also. Before this time, engines are not powerful enough for aircraft to take off in this way. Martin
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 30, 2005 14:36:56 GMT -4
When I did the Google search that Unknown suggested it only found 888 sites... far short of 4,150,000. And you're right, Martin, most of those sites belong to people who believe the landings really happened.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 30, 2005 14:41:32 GMT -4
PLease go to Google.com and write: "we never went to the moon" You can visit 4,150,000 websites that say you never went to the moon because of many reasons.
Find me one of them that was written by a qualified, competent person. I've read quite a number of those sites, and they mostly just quote from each other or from a handful of books and videos written by people who have no qualifications in science or engineering or photography.
It doesn't take much to show that those people really have no clue what they're talking about and are just out to get your money. As I said, I'm an engineer. I'm also a photographer. I don't need those self-proclaimed "expert" authors to tell me about how flying works or what the space environment is like. I know it for myself. And I know that they get it wrong.
I prefer to talk about the most evident fact: nobody in 1969 could pilot that heavy piece of metal (or plastic?) thrusted from the bottom by a rocket engine.
You keep saying it is impossible, but the reasons why you say it were impossible were actually solved many decades before Apollo. And apparently you don't know about that. You say it was impossible without computers, yet the problems of VTOL, rocket, and airborne flight were all solved prior to computers, as were many problems that we now solve out of convenience, not necessity, with computers. You say no human pilot could do it, but we have examples of human pilots that do it all the time.
Plus, your physics is basically all wrong. We worked through the "balance an object on your finger" scenarios, which isn't really what happens in a rocket, physically speaking. It's a poor analogy because your finger and the object are really in different inertial reference frames. In rocketry the engine and rocket body are in the same reference frame for inertial purposes -- that greatly simplifies things. Goddard figured that one out in about 1930 or 1935 and Oberth and von Braun followed suit.
I am an expert in rocket propulsion. So is Bob. There are lots of other people here who, while not experts, are considerably well read in the field and speak about it intelligently. All that hoax garbage may be able to fool your general gullible guy on the street, but it doesn't fool me.
Now you're simply begging us to believe you when you say flying the LM was impossible. What exact experience or qualifications give you the expertise to look at rocket or aerospace technology and render a usable opinion on whether it works or not? Alternatively, what opinions of other experts can you bring to bear? Or what objective experience? You're just begging the question.
To those of us properly trained in engineering and physics it's not "obvious" that the LM can't fly. So you'll have to do better than just insisting over and over that it can't, or that it can't be controlled.
...Nasa filmed lunar module hanging to that big crane in the darkness, covering the structures with black tissues and using spot lights to show lunar module flying in the darkness of universe.
But you don't need that big a crane to hold up a lunar module. So what you're saying is they built an overly huge, overly obtrusive crane just so they could go to great lengths to cover it up. Can't you see how ridiculous that sounds? They go to all those unnecessary lengths to build something just so they have to go to more effort to cover it up.
You're trying to make the "evidence" fit your preconceived notions, regardless of how absurd it sounds on its face. You don't need the Langley crane to fake it, so why are you arguing that they used the Langley crane?
It's like saying you need to hire a short, young female actor to play an older tall male stage role, and so you describe all these intricate procedures by which the actress is artificially aged, made to look taller, and made to sound like a man. It doesn't matter that this transformation might be credible; it matters only that it is completely unnecessary and therefore absurd. You just hire a tall male actor.
The conspiracy theories are so badly thought out that they are full of absurd irrelevancies like the Langley crane.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 15:12:30 GMT -4
Hey, don't be angry. "Put a rocket engine under that ugly old crock (lunar module) and try to keep it in hovering seated inside". "That was done several times. Qualified engineers from all countries don't seem to have a problem believing it was done, so what makes you special?" Please go to Google.com and write "We never went to the moon". You can find 4,150,000 websites in which they say Americans never went to the moon and they list many errors in the imagines of lunar landing, images that could not be faked with Photoshop or Softimage. For this reason Nasa built that big crane hanging lunar module, covering the structures with black tissues and taking photoghraphs in the darkness, using spot lights in an almost intelligent way. Unfortunately they have done too many errrors in those images. But I prefer to talk about the most evident fact: nobody in 1969 (and perhaps even today) could keep in hovering that heavy piece of metal (or plastic?) and land it without crashing, driving it seated inside without seeing vertical attitude, thrusted from the bottom by a rocket engine. Nobody would have been able to land going backwards with that orrible rickety vehicle, ridiculous, the contrary of aerodynamics and not able to contain 3 astronauts and "safety" moon car. I'm sorry but things stay this way Big spot light or the sun? On the moon there is no air. They could see many more stars than on the earth. And, instead NO STAR, INCREDIBLE. AND, SORRY, BUT THE BACKGROUND IS TOO SMALL TO BE REAL
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 30, 2005 15:25:57 GMT -4
Hey, don't be angry.
We're not angry. Just skeptical of your claims. And please don't repeat your posts. If you're not interested in reading our responses, fine. But please don't keep banging the drum.
Big spot light or the sun?
How do you propose to tell the difference?
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 15:31:18 GMT -4
I had problems with my computer, I could not read what you have replied. Excuse me for my last post, the same of the previous one. But see this movie: origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20050308a/MER_Spirit_navcam365-390_anim-A419R1_br.gifYou have done 500 million kilometers to go to Mars, you spent 7 months to arrive there, you spent a lot of money to build 2 probes, Spirit (the human-eyed ostrich similar to a famous science fiction character), and you decide to film tons of stones? Why doesn't Spirit raise its head to look at horizon all around?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 30, 2005 15:33:07 GMT -4
Nobody would have been able to land going backwards...
It was not designed to go backwards. Unless, perhaps, you mean lowering vertically. Why is that a different problem than going upwards in a vacuum, from a guidance standpoint?
...with that orrible rickety vehicle...
Why do you say it was "rickety"? Are you familiar with the principles of the LM's construction? Further, it was naturally stable thanks to the ingenious location of mass concentrations like fuel tanks.
You simply calling it rickety doesn't make it so.
...the contrary of aerodynamics
But you yourself said that aerodynamics were irrelevant on the moon. Please make up your mind.
...and not able to contain 3 astronauts
It was only designed to carry two.
..and "safety" moon car.
The lunar rover was strapped, folded up, to the exterior.
I'm sorry but things stay this way
Yes, they do. And the way things are, you have amply demonstrated you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 30, 2005 15:34:45 GMT -4
...and you decide to film tons of stones?
Yes.
Why doesn't Spirit raise its head to look at horizon all around?
It has. But its primary purpose is geological observation. Therefore it looks at stones. In any case, why is the choice of viewing material evidence of your claim that the photographs are digital fakes?
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 15:52:55 GMT -4
It was not designed to go backwards. Unless, perhaps, you mean lowering vertically. Why is that a different problem than going upwards in a vacuum, from a guidance standpoint?
Have you ever seen aerobatic rc model aircrafts when they stay in hovering? They can do that because the engine is up. It's a gravity question.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 16:08:56 GMT -4
...and you decide to film tons of stones?Yes. Why doesn't Spirit raise its head to look at horizon all around?It has. But its primary purpose is geological observation. Therefore it looks at stones. In any case, why is the choice of viewing material evidence of your claim that the photographs are digital fakes? It is as if you go to see New York and instead of raising your head, you concentrate on asphalt.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 30, 2005 16:15:10 GMT -4
Unknown: please stick to one subject at a time. We are discussing Apollo not the Mars rovers.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the reason the Apollo LM wouldn't work is because the rocket engine is on the bottom instead of the top of the vehicle. Is that what you mean?
If that is really what you mean then that's your problem right there... you simply don't understand how rockets work. To put it as simply as possible, rockets create thrust that pushes the spacecraft in the opposite direction. If you throttle back the engines to just the right amount the thrust and the mass of the vehicle balance perfectly and you are able to hover. It's not that complicated.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 30, 2005 16:19:18 GMT -4
Maybe you didn't notice that in your second photo the astronaut (David Scott, I believe) is about 2 or 3 feet off the ground. Where are the wires?
|
|