Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 21, 2005 18:39:28 GMT -4
It is often the case, it seems, that arguments about the Apollo record will be made by HBs that extend into other areas of technology and historical record. The HBs do not seem to notice this, so I thought we should flag them up here. The examples I can think of off the top of my head are:
No stars
The lack of stars in lunar surface images is often brought up and throroughly debunked. However, I have never seen any photograph taken in space that includes properly exposed sunlit objects and stars. These include astronauts on shuttle EVAs, distant planets such as Neptune photographed by Voyager, even the sky in the Gemini 12 EVA footage remains stubbornly starless despite parts of it being filmed on the night side of Earth. Note also that thse photographs are taken by all space agencies, not just NASA.
Now, if the lunar surface photos 'must' have been faked because no stars show up, what about every other picture taken by any other probe of any other object that has no stars in?
Spacesuits could not work
Spacesuits now seem to have no trouble supporting people in extended EVAs, and they are basically unchanged since Apollo. Were the Gemini EVAs also faked?
We can't go to the Moon now, so we couldn't then
I can't get from London to New York in two hours on a passenger plane. Was Concorde therefore a hoax also? No piloted aeroplane in the world can currently match the Lockheed SR-71 for altitude and speed. Was this plane also faked?
Radiation in the Van Allen belts would have fried the crew
Leaving aside that James van Allen himself disputes this, even though he thinks manned spaceflight is a wasted effort, NASA does not hold a monopoly on the radiation data for the van Allen belts. Other countries, other space agencies, other private industries rely on accurate data about radiation in the belts for billions of dollars of enterprise. If the data now says they were survivable, then they were. Even if we assume that NASA was the sole source of information and they lied about the radiation and it is actually worse than they claim, then many hundreds of satellites would have had their electronics fried because they were not designed to be hardy enough to survive sitting in the belts for extended periods.
Thermal control would have been impossible and the astronauts would have fried or frozen (no-one seems too sure which)
Satellites sent to deep space spend far longer in unfiltered sunlight than the Apollo crews ever did. They don't overheat. Some of them, even before Apollo, were heading inwards to Venus, thus heading into even stronger unfiltered sunlight. SOHO sits in the sunlight constantly. These satellites did not and do not fry. The ones sent to the outer regions did not and do not freeze and become inoperative.
The Apollo spacecraft stayed in orbit
Look up on a clear night and see how many satellites you can see. Even better, check on websites like www.heavens-above.com first so you know where and when to look. Now check out how small some of those naked-eye-visible satellites were. Now compare that to Apollo. Now explain the lack of recorded observation of a bright object in orbit during the Apollo missions that disappeared when Apollo splashed down.
The LM descent engine should have gouged out a crater on landing
The Hawker Harrier is heavier than the LM, generates more thrust than the LM, and uses four much smaller outlets to direct this thrust. It does not routinely gouge craters out of the ground every time it lands or takes off vertically.
That's it for now. Any more for any more?
No stars
The lack of stars in lunar surface images is often brought up and throroughly debunked. However, I have never seen any photograph taken in space that includes properly exposed sunlit objects and stars. These include astronauts on shuttle EVAs, distant planets such as Neptune photographed by Voyager, even the sky in the Gemini 12 EVA footage remains stubbornly starless despite parts of it being filmed on the night side of Earth. Note also that thse photographs are taken by all space agencies, not just NASA.
Now, if the lunar surface photos 'must' have been faked because no stars show up, what about every other picture taken by any other probe of any other object that has no stars in?
Spacesuits could not work
Spacesuits now seem to have no trouble supporting people in extended EVAs, and they are basically unchanged since Apollo. Were the Gemini EVAs also faked?
We can't go to the Moon now, so we couldn't then
I can't get from London to New York in two hours on a passenger plane. Was Concorde therefore a hoax also? No piloted aeroplane in the world can currently match the Lockheed SR-71 for altitude and speed. Was this plane also faked?
Radiation in the Van Allen belts would have fried the crew
Leaving aside that James van Allen himself disputes this, even though he thinks manned spaceflight is a wasted effort, NASA does not hold a monopoly on the radiation data for the van Allen belts. Other countries, other space agencies, other private industries rely on accurate data about radiation in the belts for billions of dollars of enterprise. If the data now says they were survivable, then they were. Even if we assume that NASA was the sole source of information and they lied about the radiation and it is actually worse than they claim, then many hundreds of satellites would have had their electronics fried because they were not designed to be hardy enough to survive sitting in the belts for extended periods.
Thermal control would have been impossible and the astronauts would have fried or frozen (no-one seems too sure which)
Satellites sent to deep space spend far longer in unfiltered sunlight than the Apollo crews ever did. They don't overheat. Some of them, even before Apollo, were heading inwards to Venus, thus heading into even stronger unfiltered sunlight. SOHO sits in the sunlight constantly. These satellites did not and do not fry. The ones sent to the outer regions did not and do not freeze and become inoperative.
The Apollo spacecraft stayed in orbit
Look up on a clear night and see how many satellites you can see. Even better, check on websites like www.heavens-above.com first so you know where and when to look. Now check out how small some of those naked-eye-visible satellites were. Now compare that to Apollo. Now explain the lack of recorded observation of a bright object in orbit during the Apollo missions that disappeared when Apollo splashed down.
The LM descent engine should have gouged out a crater on landing
The Hawker Harrier is heavier than the LM, generates more thrust than the LM, and uses four much smaller outlets to direct this thrust. It does not routinely gouge craters out of the ground every time it lands or takes off vertically.
That's it for now. Any more for any more?