|
Post by dwight on Mar 11, 2006 5:20:05 GMT -4
I know, we all should prance around the daiseys when after an 80+ thread of ignored explanations testable by the person asking questions, someone comes along and asks the same questions. The nerve of us getting remotely ticked off.
I haven't seen our mate (punch gently in the shoulder as buddies do) Asdf return. I hope he/she isn't sitting on the white cliffs of Dover contemplating a jump because of our baseless and poorly handled frustration.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Mar 13, 2006 16:55:30 GMT -4
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space. They probably couldn't produce enough thrust to leave lunar orbit in the command module. That's probably why all navigational satellites, shuttles, skylabs, etc. stay within the Earth's exosphere. So atleast they have a little control with their thrusters. Here's an idea. Why doesn't somebody figure out how to reactivate the t.v. camera left on the lunar "rover" from the Apollo 17 mission. They might just get a good picture of the moon. Or maybe just the inside of some museum somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 13, 2006 17:01:30 GMT -4
Hmm, the satellites, shuttles, skylabs etc. are out of a large proportion of Earth's gravity, so theoretically going further wouldn't require that much thrust.
You're saying "they couldn't get off earth"; in that case all satellites/space stations etc. are a hoax and don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 13, 2006 17:03:33 GMT -4
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space. They probably couldn't produce enough thrust to leave lunar orbit in the command module. That's probably why all navigational satellites, shuttles, skylabs, etc. stay within the Earth's exosphere. So atleast they have a little control with their thrusters. Here's an idea. Why doesn't somebody figure out how to reactivate the t.v. camera left on the lunar "rover" from the Apollo 17 mission. They might just get a good picture of the moon. Or maybe just the inside of some museum somewhere. I truely lament the failure of our education system.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Mar 13, 2006 17:18:03 GMT -4
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space. Is this an attempt at sarcasm? Please say yes.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 13, 2006 17:39:05 GMT -4
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space. I’ll take that bet. How much do you want to wager? Since we can’t go test this ourselves and I know you wouldn’t like my selections, who do you propose to be the judge?
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Mar 13, 2006 17:40:56 GMT -4
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space. They probably couldn't produce enough thrust to leave lunar orbit in the command module. That's probably why all navigational satellites, shuttles, skylabs, etc. stay within the Earth's exosphere. Wow. So every nasa (and russian, and esa) mission that left earth orbit was faked, because rockets don't work in a vacuum? Oh I don't know, maybe because the batteries weren't designed to last 34 years?
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 13, 2006 17:56:12 GMT -4
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space. 'You bet'? So in other words you're just guessing? That whole sentence is complete speculation on your part. And just so incredibly wrong. Just why would their rockets not be effective in space? More speculation and conjecture without any substance or reason. Do you know how much thrust the CM puts out? And how much thrust is needed to leave lunar orbit? The rover would need a battery change first.
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Mar 13, 2006 18:02:03 GMT -4
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space. I must commend asdf for his understanding of Newton's Third Law of Motion: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, except in a vacuum." I'm not quite why Isaac Newton never got around to explaining that little caveat, but then again, being a paid disinfo agent of NASA (the National Alchemist and Science Administration), his contributions are best left ignored. Here, asdf concisely remarks on the sudden collapse of aerospace technology in the mid-60s. Personal computing power quadruples every two years. The first 1.5-million pound thrust engine was tested in 1961. Therefore, shouldn't the Service Module have at least a 24-million pound thrust SPS? For shame, NASA! Wikipedia says that the exosphere extends up to about 10,000 kilometers. Thanks for blowing the lid off everything from geostationary satellites, Cassini, Voyager, and hundreds of other NASA scam jobs! I was stationed in Libya with the 14th Marines Expeditionary Seaborne Brigade as part of their Battery Efficiency Unit during 1969-1972. Me and my team managed confiscate the Ford Pinto of terrorist Al-Jamal Zawahari. We soon became lost in the Sahara Desert, and drove the car endlessly in circles until the batteries almost died. For the next 34 years the Pinto endured the scorching hell heat and frozen winters of the Libyan desert. Just a couple months ago, I learned that a group of Tunisian nomads had stumbled across the car. Much to my surprise, it still worked perfectly! Is it any surprise that NASA stopped sending men to the Moon after we stole Zawahari's pinto? I don't think so!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 13, 2006 18:13:48 GMT -4
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it How would you hoax "most of" a manned lunar landing? Exactly what do you think was hoaxed? This is an important question: if you can't answer this question, then you haven't thought much about your claim, and your arguments will be disorganized at best. because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space.No. Rockets are more effective in a vacuum. If your understanding of how things work is broken at this very fundamental level, the rest of your argument is in serious trouble. They probably couldn't produce enough thrust to leave lunar orbit in the command module. No. And, in fact, Bob B. refuted this claim, in detail with supporting calculations, in this thread. Please read his post and let us know if you retract your claim above, and if not, why not. That's probably why all navigational satellites, shuttles, skylabs, etc. stay within the Earth's exosphere. Wrong on two counts. First, navigational satellites, shuttles, etc., orbit the Earth because it is their purpose to observe, track, or provide reference signals to the Earth, or to do scientific and engineering research in space close to the Earth both in terms of distance and energy, or to place things into Earth orbit. Secondly, such Earth-orbiters operate both in orbits where drag eventually requires reboosting, and in orbits which are much harder vacuums, with orbital lives measuring tens of thousands of years. You clearly don't really understand what the "exosphere" is. So atleast they have a little control with their thrusters. No. You simply don't need "something to push against". This is perhaps the most fundamental fact underlying all of space travel, and if you can't get it straight, you're heading off into the weeds from the get-go. Here's an idea. Why doesn't somebody figure out how to reactivate the t.v. camera left on the lunar "rover" from the Apollo 17 mission. They might just get a good picture of the moon. Or maybe just the inside of some museum somewhere. Here's an idea. Why don't you tell us exactly how one reactivates a television camera powered by batteries which have been cycling through lunar day and night for over three decades? Even the nuclear power sources which powered the ALSEP experiment packages, and which returned data for years to receiving stations around the world, are long dead. asdf, if you really want to learn something about the subject, this is a good place to do it. Please read some of the longer threads and see if they answer some of your questions. Try the "Search" function too. Then feel free to ask questions if you can't find something.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 13, 2006 18:45:03 GMT -4
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space. They probably couldn't produce enough thrust to leave lunar orbit in the command module. That's probably why all navigational satellites, shuttles, skylabs, etc. stay within the Earth's exosphere. So atleast they have a little control with their thrusters. Here's an idea. Why doesn't somebody figure out how to reactivate the t.v. camera left on the lunar "rover" from the Apollo 17 mission. They might just get a good picture of the moon. Or maybe just the inside of some museum somewhere. Asdf, you are now just making up whatever you need to be true so that you can continue believing Apollo was a hoax. My suggestion for you is to look critically at the evidence and then follow that evidence to its logical conclusion. If the evidence indicates Apollo was real then be prepared to believe it was real. Stop trying to force the conclusion it was faked.
|
|
|
Post by Martina W. on Mar 13, 2006 20:08:04 GMT -4
Sorry to reply so late on this... The U.S. had one thing that the Soviets never had. One secret weapon. Hollywood! I got one thing to say to that.... Sergei Eisenstein. I think Pavel Klushantsev is a better example. If you ever get the chance, watch his "Road to the Stars" www.astronautix.com/articles/roastars.htmI've seen it twice and still think it's amazing - not only for 1956 when it was filmed. The stills on astronautix.com will only give you a weak impression. Too bad my VCR screwed up on taping it
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Mar 13, 2006 21:35:41 GMT -4
Hi, and welcome back asdf... Well, you came back with barrels blazing, but your science is wrong, as the above posts show. There is a lot about spaceflight, from earth orbiting satellites to missions out of the solar system, that sometimes doesent make sense to us laymen. The simple fact is that the basic principles of spaceflight, Newton's Laws of Motion, are hundreds of years old. Every time something goes up, whenever a orbit or trajectory is changed, it is done using these "ancient" laws of motion. Manking has had tens of thousands of opportunities to prove Newton wrong, all we have discovered has been how right his simple formulas are. Please stick around and learn more (as we all do). The more you learn about the science and engineering of the Moon missions, the more you will be in awe of this vast group of giants, those that actually made it happen.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 13, 2006 22:59:43 GMT -4
Do you know how much thrust the CM puts out?
It'd be rater remiss to let this go. The CM puts out very little thrust, it only had simple steering jets for re-enty.
The rocket that propelled the CSM/LM stack into Lunar orbit was of course the Saturn IVB stage, which is vastly more powerful than even the SM's main engine. The SM was used to slow the Stack into lunar orbit, then to break orbit once the LM had been jetisoned after the missions.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 13, 2006 23:18:13 GMT -4
Wow, Martina. That is a heck of a film. It's like George Pal had decided to _really_ stick tight to Chesley Bonestell and film his "Conquest of Space" as written -- with the most up-to-date technical materials possible.
Off topic, but it always makes me mourn that with all the SF films and anime shows very few have taken the chance to develop on those wonderful 50's conceptualizations of space colonies, undersea cities, and the like, and show them in all the glory possible with modern techniques.
On-topic, is anyone else getting a little suspicious that "asdf" might be a spoof?
|
|