|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 1, 2005 22:54:12 GMT -4
Just so it's clear: I do apologize for getting your name wrong, Margamatix. It's not a matter of observation but rather memory (lack of) and haste (lots of).
Let me tell you about gravity. To engineers it's just a number. It's a term in the calculations. We deal with a number of "loads", gravity included. For deep space the number is zero. For Earth gravity it's a certain number. For lunar gravity it's one sixth of that number. It goes into the calculations and life goes on. It's not a big conceptual nightmare or anything like that which would cause engineers to become uncertain.
Let's talk air pressure. Private jets go up to 45,000 feet. The air pressure there is about one-tenth that of sea level. Yet I recall only one instance where a pressure vessel has failed despite hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of flights. Commercial airliners fly in a realm of about one-fourth sea-level pressure. How many airliners do you see spontaneously explode or decompress. Is it really that hard to contain a mere few pounds per square inch of pressure? Further, Apollo used a single-gas environment that required a pressure gradient of only 5 psi. That's about one-fourth the pressure of the average bicycle tire. We routinely engineer critical pressure vessels -- chemical reactors, etc. -- that must withstand many times that pressure. When you become an engineer (or a pilot), you cease to fear the mere 5-15 psi that comprise the difference between Earth and space.
Let's talk heat. In many ways space is a godsend. The lack of conductive or convective heat transfer makes the thermal design somewhat easier than designing stuff for Earth. Putting the ship on the lunar surface doesn't change it much. Radiatively, you have the reflected energy from the lunar surface. Aside from that easily considered factor, you have only the same "pure" problems you had in space. Laymen are fond of scaring people with the notion that "temperatures on the moon" fluctuate between fantastic extremes. In practice an Apollo mission would never encounter them. The temperature of the top few inches of lunar dust has almost nothing to do with building machines to operate on the lunar surface. They have, individually, their own thermal properties.
Let's talk radiation. X-class solar events are pretty rare. So let's leave those aside. What kind of radiation exists in space, especially in the Van Allen belts? Particle radition. Contrary to x-rays and gamma rays, particles are pretty easy to shield against. You don't need dense material. A little polyethylene does wonders. In fact, the low-energy lot of that proton soup can be stopped by a sheet or two of cardboard.
So what exactly makes the Apollo spacecraft so impossible to build and operate? What makes you think the "doom-and-gloom" problems you cited were insoluble?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Aug 2, 2005 0:55:28 GMT -4
I can't speak for sts60, but my reply is simply an observation... something I have noticed in most hoax theory believers. If the shoe fits... Indeed, the same applies to many on The Black Vault or Jack White on the Education board forum. There are other patterns as well such as starting a topic and then , when being soundly thrashed by someone, changing to topic. This also becomes a loop as several pages/days/months later the topics repeat.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 4:24:26 GMT -4
G'day Margamatix I was wondering if you'd like to return to the Rocks thread and discuss my latest post, please. Cheers I didn't start that thread, and I have not speculated on the origin of the rocks in question, other than to point out that rocks *could* be collected robotically. I have made no suggestion that the rocks are artificial for example, so it is pointless giving me reasons why they might not be. I have not, and will not present myself as an "expert" on Moon geology. So I really don't see any point in my returning to it.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 2, 2005 4:59:09 GMT -4
I didn't start that thread, and I have not speculated on the origin of the rocks in question, other than to point out that rocks *could* be collected robotically. But I've also pointed out the problems with the theory that they were collected robotically, and I was hoping that you might be able to address those problems. Okidoke. That's fine. Neither am I. However, I've learned enough from my research that the problems with a theory of robot collection make it effectively impossible. I've got a book at home about the construction, about 10 years ago, of a copy of an ancient Athenian trireme - a warship powered by rowers. Before construction began, there was a vigorous debate between the enthusiast and the expert. The enthusiast was convinced the rowers were arranged on three separate levels, while the expert said the rowers were on one bench, with three rowers pulling the one oar. Each side presented its evidence, and the debate seemed to be going nowhere. Then the enthusiast uncovered a piece of art which seemed to suggest he was right and the expert was wrong. The expert's response was, in effect, "My position is based on all the evidence which has been available until now. Therefore I'm going to ignore this new piece of art. So you still haven't proven I'm wrong." Margamatix, you're sounding very much like the expert in that story. You've presented some evidence to support your argument, and that's fine. I've presented some evidence to support my argument, but you're giving the impression that you're refusing to consider it, allowing you to still doubt the reality of Apollo. I suppose I have only one more question to ask you: What would convince you that Apollo happened as NASA said it happened? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 6:42:37 GMT -4
I suppose I have only one more question to ask you: What would convince you that Apollo happened as NASA said it happened? In fact, the answer to this is simpler than you might think, in theory at least. If any of the twelve was capable of looking me in the eye and telling me that they had walked on the surface of the Moon, then I would believe it. I understand that they all have far better things to do with their time than to chew the fat with some Margate truck driver, but there's the answer.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 2, 2005 7:12:45 GMT -4
Thanks for that.
I don't know whether they visit sunny Britain that often, though I went to a talk by Jack Schmitt here in Canberra a couple of years ago.
Though three of the twelve might have some troubles looking you in the eye, unless you'd like to look a zombie in the eye. Alan Shepherd (cancer), Pete Conrad (motorbike accident) and Jim Irwin (heart attack) have died since the days of Apollo.
I also take it that you won't be discussing rocks, radios or other aspects of Apollo any further.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 2, 2005 7:18:43 GMT -4
If any of the twelve was capable of looking me in the eye and telling me that they had walked on the surface of the Moon, then I would believe it. I understand that they all have far better things to do with their time than to chew the fat with some Margate truck driver, but there's the answer. You'll have your chance to meet three moonwalkers in <3 months, but be sure to get your tickets soon! October 28 - 30, 2005 Heathrow, England (United Kingdom) TBA - Buzz Aldrin (Gemini 12, Apollo 11) Alan Bean (Apollo 12, Skylab 2) Charles Duke (Apollo 16) Jack Lousma (Skylab 2, STS-3) AutographicaRadisson Edwardian Hotel Other astronaut appearances can be found at: www.collectspace.com/sightings/home.html
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 7:43:27 GMT -4
Thanks for the link, although it seems it is an event purely for obtaining autographs and photos, rather than a Q & A session.
I doubt very much that Buzz Aldrin would wish to discuss suggestions that the moon landings were faked, and as I do not particularly fancy being assaulted, I think I'll give it a miss. I've heard he has quite a punch for an old fella.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 2, 2005 8:02:28 GMT -4
I doubt very much that Buzz Aldrin would wish to discuss suggestions that the moon landings were faked... You don't have to. To meet your previously stated criterion, all you have to do is ask any one of the three, "Did you walk on the surface of the Moon?" and listen to his reply. I'm envious of the opportunity that is before you.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 2, 2005 8:44:22 GMT -4
If any of the twelve was capable of looking me in the eye and telling me that they had walked on the surface of the Moon, then I would believe it.
Until you go to an astronaut appearance, then, is there any point at all in discussing your claims?
I'm serious. None of us can arrange such a meeting for you; the only thing we can do is discuss evidence.
You do have the opportunity to go and ask one in person, though. Nobody's going to punch you if you go ask politely, so that' s not a reason to stay away.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 8:47:58 GMT -4
Until you go to an astronaut appearance, then, is there any point at all in discussing your claims? . That's a bit like saying I shouldn't post messages on an IndyCar forum if I have never met an Indycar driver. I will have a think about it though, it might be an interesting experience.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 8:49:54 GMT -4
Just so it's clear: I do apologize for getting your name wrong, Margamatix. It's not a matter of observation but rather memory (lack of) and haste (lots of). Yeah, I knew that. It was wrong of me to pick you up on it and I apologise.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 2, 2005 9:23:54 GMT -4
Until you go to an astronaut appearance, then, is there any point at all in discussing your claims?
That's a bit like saying I shouldn't post messages on an IndyCar forum if I have never met an Indycar driver.
No, not really. Unless you deny the existence of Indy cars. ("NASA faked the Indy 500!")
I'm not trying to get you to leave. I'm just curious what you expect to get out of the forum. It doesn't seem like you're going to be convinced by anything we say. Do you expect to convince one of the regulars?
Really, that's all I wanted to know. Well, that, and to get a fix on your location so as to vector in the black NASA helicopters. (twirls Snidely Whiplash-style mustache with evil smirk...)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 2, 2005 9:25:23 GMT -4
I didn't start that thread, and I have not speculated on the origin of the rocks in question, other than to point out that rocks *could* be collected robotically.
But they can't. We have (and had) some sample-return capacity, but the samples we have in hand are not consistent with robotic sample return capability, both in quality and in quantity. So robot samplers can't be the explanation for the moon rocks.
Further, suggesting that something was possible (or rather, not impossible) is a very far cry from showing that it was actually done. It is not impossible that space pixies brought us the moon rocks. Does that make it a credible alternative to the Apollo story?
I have made no suggestion that the rocks are artificial for example...
Let's be absolutely clear: do you agree that the Apollo samples are actual moon rocks taken from the surface of the moon?
So I really don't see any point in my returning to it.
Because it represents a hole in your theory. It is utterly irrelevant whether you brought it up or whether one of us brought it up. If you have a faked-Apollo hypothesis that cannot explain 840 pounds of genuine, hand-sampled moon rocks, then we must reject your hypothesis. The moon rocks represent an observation your hypothesis does not explain. You can't just sweep it under the carpet as an inconvenient detail.
If your explanation for ignoring the moon rocks is that you personally lack the expertise to discern whether they're real or fake, or even to explain in space engineering terms how they might otherwise have been obtained, then the best you can say is that you don't yet have all the information you need in order to propose alternate theories for Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 2, 2005 9:27:40 GMT -4
Yeah, I knew that. It was wrong of me to pick you up on it and I apologise.
"Pick you up." Not a familiar expression to me, but the meaning is clear from the context.
Heh, my wife knew of a lady from England visiting the U.S. She wanted a wake-up call at 6 AM, so she asked the desk clerk if they would "please send someone around to knock me up". The poor desk clerk was somewhat flustered, as here "knock up" means "make pregnant". ;D
|
|