Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 15, 2005 8:27:44 GMT -4
The debate thread is open to rebuttal, not questions.
When you make an assertion like, "the batteries were designed for 5 days", it is not inappropriate to ask what your source of information is or how you arrived at that figure. Thus questions are necessary to get at the truth, so please answer them.
Furthermore, part of the rebuttal is to help you understand and correct the mistakes you are making. It is therefore necessary for us to find out why you think certain things are true and others are not. This can only be done by asking you questions, so please answer them.
I have posted by submission on the batteries and waiting for replies.
You have received replies, so please respond to them.
I orginally agreed to debate one person, not twenty. I don't mind everyone offering replies but so far it's just more questions. It's not possible for me to keep up to 10-20 people as I simply don't have time.
The were not 20 people in that thread the last I looked. Furthermore, you'd probably have the time to respond if you quit allowing yourself to become distracted by other topics. I'm just asking you to do what you promised to do, and that is focus on one issue until it is resolved.
Edited to add:
I apologize Moon Man, it does look like there are 10 to 20 people in that thread. I hadn't looked at it in several hours.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 15, 2005 8:56:13 GMT -4
That's okay, Bob, I enjoy it, but people need to realize I'm only one person trying to answer everyone. This is the second day in the last three days that I've gone without sleep because of this debate. I'm doing to my best to answer everyone but even I get burnt out on a topic and need to give it a rest for a bit so I read and respond to other threads. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 15, 2005 8:59:20 GMT -4
This thread is about the lift off footage. It drifted to movies. I posted evidence that the NASA director at Marshall Space centre wrote fictional books and made fictional movies about space and moon landings. All relevant to this thread, which directly relates to fictional footage of the lift off. By that logic, every aspect of the history of lunar exploration is "directly related" to every thread on the board, which totally defeats the purpose of specialized threads! Is that what you're trying to tell us? No, not at all. I'm not discussing the batteries in this thread and I'm not discussing the video mentioned in this thread in the debate thread.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 15, 2005 11:29:47 GMT -4
I've given a detailed explanation on my theory of the batteries. No one has answered it, because they can't, so they throw a bunch of meaningless questions in the thread in their attempt to bury the truth. What happened or was said on BA has nothing to do with this debate. That was the mods rules and not mine. No, you have given unsupported assertions. Nothing more.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 16, 2005 11:37:43 GMT -4
That was the mods rules and not mine.
Statements like this piss me off.
Would you go into a country and commit murder, then say, "That's the country's laws, not mine!"
Or go into a bar and harrass the bartender, annoy him, get kicked out, and then say, "that's his rules, not mine!"
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 17, 2005 13:56:48 GMT -4
This is 1/6 gravidity and it took off like a rocket.
It is a rocket.
I'll represent to you that the lunar module ascent stage had a mass of 4,500 kg at liftoff. I'll represent to you that the APS nominal thrust is 15,500 N. Please compute for us the upward acceleration from the lunar surface with those figures.
I think it should've been a slower ascent just like it was a slow descent, if it were real.
The DPS had a throttle precisely so it could soft-land. That involves balancing upward thrust with downward weight in a controlled fashion. The APS had no such need and therefore no such equipment.
The flag was planted in the moon dust by hand, down maybe 6 or 8 inches.
Proof of this depth?
Once they lift off you can see the flag pole bend over almost 45 degrees yet it remained planted in the moon dust.
They aren't looking straight down at the flag. Why do you say it's "bent over"?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 17, 2005 13:59:40 GMT -4
That's okay, Bob, I enjoy it, but people need to realize I'm only one person trying to answer everyone.
That's what happens when you say dumb things in public. You attract the attention of lots of people. The lesson to learn here is to think before speaking.
This is the second day in the last three days that I've gone without sleep because of this debate.
No sympathy from me. You are the one opening cans of worms. You told us you had it all figured out. It's not our fault that you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 17, 2005 15:29:21 GMT -4
There is a thermal shield between the ascent and descent modules. The ascent thruster produced a flame when it is said a flame would not be seen in space. There was no exhaust (maybe not the right word) prior to lift off like on every other NASA rocket -- it just took off -- 3, 2, 1 lift off. The fuel mixture is the same used on other applications that produce exhaust fumes prior to lift off.
The video camera that shot this event is well documented. This was 1969. The panning up so quickly was not possible. The camera would've been huge. While I don't presently have links to post, or time to find them, you can in fact find info on how large cameras were back in 1969. The gentleman to start this thread has worked in the biz for several years and he's questioning it as well.
The flag was planted by hand. How deep it was might be evidenced on the video when they planted it, I'm not sure. I say the flag pole bend over because that is what the video evidence depicts. Whether it bent over 30 degrees or 45 is not important. If in fact the pole was only planted by hand 6, 8 or 12 inches in the loose moon dust then it should've been blown completely out of the surface when the rocket engine fired. I don't know but maybe you do; how many pounds of thrust did the ascent rocket produce upon lift off..?
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 17, 2005 15:39:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 17, 2005 15:51:16 GMT -4
The ascent thruster produced a flame when it is said a flame would not be seen in space. There was no exhaust (maybe not the right word) prior to lift off like on every other NASA rocket
Make up your mind. Did it produce a flame or not?
-- it just took off -- 3, 2, 1 lift off.
Have you actually seen the ascent footage? It goes 3,2,1 bright flash, mylar blasted out in all directions by rocket exhaust, lift-off. If it was just lifted up on wires like you seen to think, pray tell what blew all that mylar everywhere? In the film of the Apollo 15 ascent you can see a bit continue flying for some considerable distance before hitting the ground somewhere near the ALSEP site, some hundred metres from the LM.
The fuel mixture is the same used on other applications that produce exhaust fumes prior to lift off.
In an atmosphere. You cannot directly compare, say, the ignition of a Titan II from the pad with the ignition of the LM on the lunar surface because the environment is very different.
The flag was planted by hand. How deep it was might be evidenced on the video when they planted it, I'm not sure.
So once again you state something as fact, then admit you don't have the evidence to base that fact on.
Incidentally, the first mission to use a remote controlled camera on a lunar rover was Apollo 15 in 1971, and the Apollo 17 footage being discussed was produced in 1972. Your inability to get basic things like the years of the missions correct speaks volumes about the basic level of ignorance you have about Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 17, 2005 15:53:11 GMT -4
I don't know but maybe you do; how many pounds of thrust did the ascent rocket produce upon lift off..?
Even if you were given that data, would you then know how to translate it to the effective force acting on an object the size of the flag at whatever distance it was from the exhaust? Previous experience leads me to doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Nov 17, 2005 15:55:39 GMT -4
All rockets exhaust, or they do not work. Maybe you mean visible exhaust? What other applications use the same fuel mixture as the Apollo ascent modules and have been filmed at launch? Have any video of these other applications so we can see for ourselves?
The Apollo film you watched was filmed in 1972 I believe. Why was the panning of the camera not possible as shown? It is a simple matter to pan a small camera with a remotely controlled motor. It just took some practice and a few times to get it right. And here you are again making a claim and only admitting ignorance as to how it was done, and asking for help to prove it one way or the other. Be an adult and come prepared for once.
Why don't you know how powerful the engine was before making a claim?
Ranb
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 17, 2005 16:10:26 GMT -4
There is a thermal shield between the ascent and descent modules. The ascent thruster produced a flame when it is said a flame would not be seen in space. There was no exhaust (maybe not the right word) prior to lift off like on every other NASA rocket -- it just took off -- 3, 2, 1 lift off. The fuel mixture is the same used on other applications that produce exhaust fumes prior to lift off. No one ever said it is impossible to see a flame in a vacuum; flames are just much less visible in a vacuum. I have always maintained that a brief flash of light can be seen under the LM’s engine for about a second just as the ascent stage lifts off the descent stage. There is also something known as an ignition transient, at which time the flame is more easily visible. This occurs very briefly at engine ignition when the oxidizer to fuel ratio has not yet settled in to its optimum steady state mixture. The video camera that shot this event is well documented. This was 1969. The panning up so quickly was not possible. The camera would've been huge. While I don't presently have links to post, or time to find them, you can in fact find info on how large cameras were back in 1969. The gentleman to start this thread has worked in the biz for several years and he's questioning it as well. Regarding the pan rate being too quick: Hogwash. Regarding camera size: Video cameras *prior* to Apollo were large. The Apollo program pioneered the engineering of small video cameras.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 17, 2005 16:23:53 GMT -4
There is a thermal shield between the ascent and descent modules. I've already explained the blast deflectors on the descent stage, and what thermal shielding on the ascent stage was for. Did you read my explanation? The video camera that shot this event is well documented. This was 1969. The panning up so quickly was not possible. The camera would've been huge. No. Why in the world would a purpose-built camera with a tilt (not pan) motor have to be "huge" in 1972 (not 1969)? While I don't presently have links to post, or time to find them, you can in fact find info on how large cameras were back in 1969. Yes, you can see how large they were by looking at the documentation here. Not very large; the cameras itself were small enough to be handheld. The gentleman to start this thread has worked in the biz for several years and he's questioning it as well. I seriously question that he is really a professional camera operator. The idea that one can't time the motion to track a predictable event, especially given a couple of tries, is just wrong. dwight dismantled this claim on page 2 of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 17, 2005 17:18:15 GMT -4
Mush, I don't think I'm going to trust Wiki anymore after they posted incoorect info. I realize it's probably outside links you've posted. I'll read it all eventually. Thanks for posting it.
Jason, yes, it produced a flame but it is only seen after the module lifted off a few feet. There is no flame seen in any video while the ascent module is still sitting on the descent module. I have seen the clip. My 3, 2, 1 comment was a quote from that lift off. If you watch the mission where the flag bends over as I described earlier, they count down and take off as soon as they hit one. There is no ignition switch. They open two valves, or whatever, to mix two chemicals and bang it's gone. The chemicals come through a hose or pipe, whichever you prefer. It would take a large amount of chemicals to lift it off so fast, as it's heavy, even in lunar atmosphere. Do I have the diameter of the pipe, the chemical compounds reserached, the test results varified, etc., etc, to make this claim..? No I don't, it's simply my theory.
I apoligize for getting the date wrong, i.e., 1969 v. 1972. However, can you confirm that the camera was built in 1972..? Maybe you can but you haven't done so in this message and yet you bash me for saying something without providing the proof you claim I am required to provide before opening my mouth. There are double standard tests when it comes to an HBer and an Aber on this board sometimes.
Ranb, Yes, I mean visible flame. I will research the questions you posed when I have time. I wouldn't want to say something without proof again or I'll be deemed a grade school educated troll again. I'm not sure if the camera was capable of panning so quickly. I don't believe it was. Can I scientifically prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt..? No, I cannot. But has an ABer proved that it was doable without relying on links..? No, they hve not. I'm not the only one in this thread to question it but I am the only one being attacked, so be it though.
Bob, some Abers have claimed you cannot see a flame. Maybe no one on here claimed this but it was been claimed. Thanks for the proper explanation of the mixing of chemicals. I'm not however going back to edit my explanation above. I do not believe you would be able to see any flame or flash proir to live off because the ascent module is sitting on the descent module. You only see te flame once it has litfed off.
sts60, Why is it some doubt what others claim to do for a living but we're all suppose to believe what some say on here..?
Why would the thread starter lie just to ask a question or make a comment..?
Thanks for the links and comments everyone.
|
|