|
Post by ivan on Jan 9, 2006 14:11:39 GMT -4
never implied nasa as being evil with the way they ran the show,they were just simply trying to scare the Russians with USA's longer range missle tech over theirs,by this hoax they were trying to deter the russions form attacking during the cold war era,so i have nothing against nasa and what they have accomplished, I won't be posting no more as i have no more to say,wish you guys many happy new years,i have to get working on my Mustang
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 9, 2006 15:38:34 GMT -4
Good luck with the 'stang.
I didn't mean "evil" literally. But the notion espoused in most conspiracy theories is that there's an overriding, omnipotent cabal that is able to influence pretty much anything they need to. Although not evil per se, it is theorized to be self-serving at the expense of the rank and file.
Your notion of NASA geologists being able to dictate to the geological community what moon rocks should look, feel, and taste like is a manifestation of exactly that general hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 9, 2006 16:53:35 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. So far from my reading here and elsewhere, HoaxBelievers have a pretty serious lack of scientific understanding as a group. Starting with a basic comprehension of a domestic refrigerator would be a great. It isn't rocket science, it's easy to research, and it applies to many different things.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 9, 2006 18:06:57 GMT -4
...they were just simply trying to scare the Russians with USA's longer range missle tech over theirs,by this hoax they were trying to deter the russions form attacking during the cold war era... American missile technology caught up with the Soviets by the early 1960s and nuclear deterrents were already in place. If you want to deter an attack, you aim a couple thousand warheads at your enemy, you don't go to the Moon.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 9, 2006 18:18:46 GMT -4
Even by the time Kennedy was inaugurated, the "Missile Gap" was to the detriment of the Soviet Union.
|
|
|
Post by mitrabor on Jan 9, 2006 18:21:25 GMT -4
. Starting with a basic comprehension of a domestic refrigerator would be a great. It isn't rocket science, it's easy to research, and it applies to many different things. Easy. A domestic refrigerator works on the same principle as the diesel engine- when you compress a gas, it heats up. So, in a fridge, you compress this gas with a compressor. It gets hot. Then you pump it through those wiggly black pipes at the back of the fridge, and by the time it gets to the end of its run, it has cooled down to room temperature. It is then at room temperature but it is still compressed. When you un-compress it, it becomes colder than room temperature. That's how a fridge works. Oh, and by the way, we never went to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 9, 2006 19:00:30 GMT -4
Nice start, but then you follow with the usual unsupported glibness.
So if we never went to the moon then
a) who did go to the moon? (somebody did, if rocks came back) b) where did we go instead? c) Why did they let Armstrong flub his lines? d) have we sent probes anywhere or is that fake too?
The point of this thread started as how much the Apollo program touched and how much touched it. A hoax would have been as unnecessary as it was impossible.
|
|
|
Post by mitrabor on Jan 9, 2006 19:08:11 GMT -4
No, hang on Bub.
You asked how a fridge worked. I explained it to you.
Say "thank you"
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 9, 2006 19:29:26 GMT -4
I think you're confused.
I know how a refrigerator works.
Thanks for responding for the lurkers.
If the shoe fits, wear it, but it's not my fault you tried it on. What I'm talkin' about here is a general lack of understanding.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 9, 2006 20:34:40 GMT -4
Ivan said:
Absolutely true.
Please read what I said earlier. There is no way you can sand-blast a rock, then chemically weather it, in a way which would not be detectable. This sort of contamination would be easily picked up. Yet in more than 30 years of examination, the only evidence of contamination which has ever been found was from the teflon lining of the rock boxes the rocks were carried in.
These rocks are covered in tiny craters for which the logical source is microscopic dust particles striking the rocks at speeds of several kilometres per second. Now, according to a link provided recently, it appears we can now simulate these impacts, but we certainly couldn't back in the 1960s, 1970s,1980s or 1990s.
Also remember, these rocks have been subjected to tests which weren't invented until more recent years. If someone faked these rocks, they had to be able to predict ever more technological tests ahead of time.
And anyway, as JayUtah said, the geologists were telling NASA all about those rocks, not the other way around.
If you're comparing NASA funding to funding for the ongoing conflict in Iraq, you won't get much argument from me. But that's politics, and doesn't alter what NASA did back in the 1960s and 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 9, 2006 23:21:58 GMT -4
never implied nasa as being evil with the way they ran the show,they were just simply trying to scare the Russians with USA's longer range missle tech over theirs,by this hoax they were trying to deter the russions form attacking during the cold war era... For starters, that assumes the Soviets would be fooled by a hoax, which considering the openness of the project, the known engineering challenges and the ability for them to track the missions, would have been flat-out impossible. Secondly, the technology for Apollo/Saturn moon-rockets was largely irrelevant to the arms race. Having the ability to launch satellites into Earth orbit meant that a nuclear-armed nation could drop a bombs anywhere on the globe <45 minutes after launch. Both the US & USSR proved that they could do this in the late 1950s, before the Moon race began. From then on, ICBM efforts concentrated on accuracy and (even more importantly) reducing the time and complexity of launching missiles. The early ICBMs used cryogenic fuels that were difficult to store at the launch sites. The missiles had to be raised into position and fueled before launch, and this could take an hour or more. The next generation of missiles (Titan & R-16, to name two examples) used storable liquid propellants. These missiles could be launched directly from their silos after fueling. In the mid-1960s, we started deploying the solid-fuel Minuteman ICBMs. These did not require fueling, and could be launched on just a few minutes' notice from very simple silos. In contrast, the Saturn V moon-rocket was an enormous bird that carried millions of pounds of cryogenic propellant. After assembly and roll-out to its huge launch pad, it required weeks of checkout time to make sure everything was ready to go. This technology simply had no direct military value (this was why the Soviet military did not fully support their manned moon program; they had no use for such large, complex rockets). In fact, the technology flow was in the other direction: the inertial platforms and guidance computers for ballistic missiles were adapted for use in the Apollo spacecraft.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 9, 2006 23:27:34 GMT -4
American missile technology caught up with the Soviets by the early 1960s and nuclear deterrents were already in place.
Well technically you could argument that they were already there in the 50's. The Soviet Nuke was a lot bigger then the American one, size-wise that it, not bang-wise, so to get the same bang, the US could have a smaller warhead, thus a smaller rocket to throw it. Hence why when it come to the space race, the Soviets started out with bigger rokects. Of course if ivan was being at all honest with himself, he'd realise that as of Explorer 1 the Soviets knew the US could put a nuke in orbit and have it re-enter above Moscow, so the idea of showing they hade bigger missiles by going to the moon is rather pointless. You don't have to go to the moon to prove that you can drp a nuke in the middle of the USSR, just as the USSR didn't have to get there to let the US know they could drop one in the middle of Nebraska.
Besides, it's been shown well enough that the Soviets tracked the Apollo missions and intercepted their communications. They knew what was going on and a hoax would have not fooled them. So much so that most HB's claim that the US used wheat to bribe the USSR to keep quiet. Don't you just love consistancy?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 9, 2006 23:47:13 GMT -4
This is where the conspiracy starts biting its own tail.
Assume the USA decided to fake the Moon landings.
Assume the USSR could tell if the USA was faking it.
Wouldn’t the USA know that the USSR knew it was a fake?
Why would the USSR go along with an American hoax landing? For a load of wheat? Is that all?
“Hey, Brezhnev, we’re faking a mission to the Moon to make you Russkies look bad. Wanna help?”
“Sure Lyndon/Richard, why not? We’ll just say we weren’t ever planning to go to the Moon, so you look like you were only ever racing against yourself anyway. Give us some wheat, and we’ll call it square.”
Heck, it wasn’t called the Cold War for nothing. Haven’t you seen the images from the times? Missile silos, huge military parades in Red Square in Moscow, protests about the deployment of missiles to Western Europe, proxy wars across Africa, Asia and Central and South America. Were these all faked too?
So if the fake was part of the Cold War, but the USSR could tell when it was being faked, why would they go along with it?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 10, 2006 1:28:14 GMT -4
Well technically you could argue that they were already there in the 50's. The Soviet Nuke was a lot bigger then the American one, size-wise that is, not bang-wise, so to get the same bang, the US could have a smaller warhead, thus a smaller rocket to throw it. Hence why when it come to the space race, the Soviets started out with bigger rokects. Of course if ivan was being at all honest with himself, he'd realise that as of Explorer 1 the Soviets knew the US could put a nuke in orbit and have it re-enter above Moscow, so the idea of showing they hade bigger missiles by going to the moon is rather pointless. You don't have to go to the moon to prove that you can drp a nuke in the middle of the USSR, just as the USSR didn't have to get there to let the US know they could drop one in the middle of Nebraska. I'm not sure Explorer 1 is a very good example. Explorer 1 was a very small satellite and the Jupiter C that launched it could never put something the size of a nuke into orbit. In fact, the Redstone, from which the Jupiter C was derived, was a short-range missile with a range of only 200 miles when carrying a nuclear warhead. I don't think the United States had a missile with intercontinental range until the Atlas. The first operational version, the Atlas D, made its maiden launch in September 1959. So, yes, we were building and testing ICBMs in the 1950s, but I don't think we really had anything operational that could drop a nuke on Moscow until nearly 1960, about 1-1/2 years after Explorer 1.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 10, 2006 1:52:52 GMT -4
Well 1958-1959, before 1960, and well before 1969
|
|