|
Post by james on Mar 14, 2006 0:44:46 GMT -4
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. When I was referring to the CM I ment with the Saturn IVB stage and the thrust from its rocket. I assumed ASDF did too (but then again you never know). But yeah I should have been more precise, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by jovianmoon on Mar 14, 2006 2:01:11 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. It never ceases to amaze me just how many people are willing to make complete fools of themselves on the internet. I suppose it must be the anonymity thing. I mean, it's not like any of us is likely to recognise asdf in a shopping centre somewhere and yell out "Hey! That's the guy who thinks rockets don't work in a vacuum!" Pity, really. I rather like the notion of people being held fully accountable for their ludicrous beliefs - with tar, feathers and all.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 14, 2006 5:28:24 GMT -4
Speaking of restarting the TV cameras, what about the post LM liftoff videos that were made. Adsf...please tell me you knew about that footage? Oh yeah, your theories about satellites is really in depth. In fact, I offer you a trip out to RTL TV here in Germany to explain your ideas to our uplink-downlink technicians. You stand to make millions with your ideas. Surely that money could be put to good use to further expose the hoax of, well, pretty much everything, so have at it.
Dont worry, all the folk in the TV station speak english, so the only thing you'll need to worry about is jet lag. I double triple dare you to come out and prove us all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 14, 2006 6:21:12 GMT -4
I believe they sent unmanned vehicles to collect rock samples and pictures and just kept mannned missions in low Earth orbit.
That requires that several launches took place in secret. Who built the unmanned sample return craft? What were they launched in? How were the launches kept secret.
Further, if the manned missions were kept in low Earth orbit, the CSM stack would have been a naked-eye object, and very bright. How did they keep it hidden?
Sound stages out at Area 51. Possibly?
Handwaving and speculation is not a valid way of casting doubt on historical record. If you wish to convince anyone that the Apollo was faked you have the burden of proof to demonstrate evidence that it was.
They didn't land a live person on the moon. It was impossible and the Soviets new it. That's why the Soviets never made it.
The Soviets never made it because their launch vehicle failed repeatedly.
Isn't it odd that no other country in the world has even given it a try and that the Soviets after almost 40 years have never made it.
Which other countries would you have expected to try going to the Moon? Which other countries had the economic ability and political will to do it? The Soviets never made it because they stopped trying after failing to get there first. Isn't it odd that Nasa never even suggested taking the shuttles to the moon.
No more odd than you not driving across the Atlantic. The shuttle was designed to operate and return from low Earth orbit. It is simply not capable of going to the Moon.
Isn't it odd that not even the Hubble telescope or any other telescope or satellite ever made has the resolution to acquire images of the landing sites on the moon?
Not at all. Why don’t you calculate the size of aperture required to obtain such resolution. What’s that? Can’t do it? Then you have no business passing judgement on the abilities of current technology.
I'll bet they had to hoax most of it because they realized their rockets weren't that effective in the vaccuum of space.
Now you’re just throwing stuff out randomly and hoping something will stick. In your first post you proposed automated sample returns. Now you’re suggesting rockets aren’t that effective in a vacuum. Leaving aside the utterly incorrect nature of this suggestion, if they could make automated sample return craft, why not a manned craft?
They probably couldn't produce enough thrust to leave lunar orbit in the command module.
And how much thrust would be needed? How much thrust could the SMS produce?
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.
And what about other probes like Voyager, Cassini, Messenger, New Horizons, Pioneer, Magellan, Mars Express, etc.? 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.
Because, strange as this might seem, it’s dead. The battery was exhausted, and has been subjected to an environment it was not designed to withstand for over thirty years. The only way to reactivate the camera would be to go and get it and repair it, which would negate your proposed purpose for reactivating it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 14, 2006 7:48:44 GMT -4
They probably couldn't produce enough thrust to leave lunar orbit in the command module. One of the smaller velocity changes required for an Apollo mission. The Soviet unmanned sample return missions did the return trip from the lunar surface with a single stage vehicle. Do you understand orbital mechanics at all, asdf? How important is thrust when you want to leave lunar orbit? Can you work out how big a rocket is needed to launch a communications satellite into geostationary orbit? How would the same rocket perform on a lunar mission? Can you work out why the requirements for geostationary orbit and lunar orbit are similar? If you can do any of that, you'll be the first hoax believer to come here who could.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 14, 2006 7:59:28 GMT -4
Mmm. Maybe this belongs in the "robotic sample returns" thread instead, but are any of the hoax believers actually familiar with early robotics? I'm a big fan myself -- have several picture books filled with hulking things the size of cars (but many, many times slower). Oh, and the ramps and cable festoons and all the massive machinery just to get a 1960's robot unloaded and hooked up. I would not be at all surprised to find a robotic mission would require a more massive spacecraft than that simply carrying a few flexible multipurpose biological automatons. And the failure odds would be, well, astronomical!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 14, 2006 9:57:45 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. There is no need for speculation here, it is a well established fact that rocket engines perform better in a vacuum. An engine's thrust output and efficiency is always maximum when there is no ambient pressure. They probably couldn't produce enough thrust to leave lunar orbit in the command module. Did you know the European Space Agency's SMART-1 satellite made it all the way to the Moon using an engine with a thrust of only 70 milliNewtons? I can probably produce that much thrust myself after a big meal of Mexican cuisine.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 14, 2006 10:43:20 GMT -4
We moved our 6,000 lb satellite out around, oh, 50 or 60 nautical miles from the Shuttle (STS-69, -80) using a cold-gas (nitrogen) rocket engine with a whoppin' two ounces of thrust. It was affectionately known as the "mouse fart drive".
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 14, 2006 16:12:47 GMT -4
Meh, this sounds too much like a hit-hide-hit-again-and-run action.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 14, 2006 20:46:47 GMT -4
Asdf said: and
*puts hand up*
Uh, if rockets weren’t effective in the vacuum of space, how did the unmanned vehicles collect the samples?
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Mar 15, 2006 11:59:01 GMT -4
Asdf said: and *puts hand up* Uh, if rockets weren’t effective in the vacuum of space, how did the unmanned vehicles collect the samples? Asdf is referencing a liitle-known law of physics that states that only rockets that are not carrying (live) humans will function in the vacuum of space. This law can be found in the book "Physics for Conspiracists". Unfortunately it is not available for general perusal, and is a closely guarded secret of the HB community. I only know about it because a guy my brother knows has a cousin who was married to a guy that knew someone who'd read the book. Honest!
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Mar 15, 2006 13:12:45 GMT -4
They create most of their thrust against the surface of the earth's and the atmosphere. The velocity needed is reached during this time. The rest is just coasting through space and slingshotting. Using gravity of planets, moons, etc. to increase and decrease their velocitites and directions..
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 15, 2006 13:19:15 GMT -4
They create most of their thrust against the surface of the earth's and the atmosphere. The velocity needed is reached during this time. The rest is just coasting through space and slingshotting. Using gravity of planets, moons, etc. to increase and decrease their velocitites and directions.. How did the robot spacecraft return samples from the moon using the techniques you describe? And if robots can do it, why not humans?
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Mar 15, 2006 13:24:08 GMT -4
They create most of their thrust against the surface of the earth's and the atmosphere. The velocity needed is reached during this time. The rest is just coasting through space and slingshotting. Using gravity of planets, moons, etc. to increase and decrease their velocitites and directions.. You don't know how rockets work, do you?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 15, 2006 13:24:32 GMT -4
They create most of their thrust against the surface of the earth's and the atmosphere.
Absolute rubbish.
The rest is just coasting through space and slingshotting. Using gravity of planets, moons, etc. to increase and decrease their velocitites and directions..
Nope. Midcourse corrections are carried out when nowhere near planets. And this is done by virtually every probe sent out of Earth's orbit.
FACT: Rockets do NOT work by pushing against an atmosphere or a surface.
|
|