|
Post by heavenlybody on Oct 14, 2006 4:52:19 GMT -4
Hello everyone, NASA made the claim some 37 years ago that they had placed a man on the moon and returned him safely back to Earth. Please bare in mind the burden of proof is always with the ones making the claim. This being such an unusually large claim. I would need to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt, before I would even think about believing such a thing could really be true. I am from Laos and the Apollo moon landings are commonly believed to be a hoax in my country, we are not certain beyond all reasonable doubt of the reported version of events. We get many reports from China that suggest it was totally impossible with the technology of 1969. Please may I ask some questions? How did they maintain an even temperature inside the LM once positioned on the surface of the moon? Also please read the following taken from David Darling Encyclopaedia regarding Apollo 11 The fifth manned mission of the Apollo Project and the one that climaxed with the first manned landing on the Moon. During the final stages of the Lunar Module�s (LM) 12.5-minute descent to the Moons surface, Neil Armstrong took manual control of the spacecraft and piloted it to a suitable landing site. A warning that less than 5% of descent fuel remained gave Armstrong 94 seconds to land the LM prior to an abort and return to the CSM. As the LM came into land, dust was kicked up reducing Armstrong�s visibility to a few meters. At 10 meters above the surface, the LM lurched dangerously but Armstrong continued to guide the spacecraft toward a successful touchdown in the Sea of Tranquility at 20:17:40 GMT on Jul. 20, 1969, about 6.5 km from the designated target. www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Apollo_11.htmlHere it states that the dust was kicked up interfering with Armstrong's visibility. If that was indeed the case then surly there would have been some kind of crater or evidence of a rocket blast? Could any person/persons answering these questions please give their credentials and explain where they got their information from?
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Oct 14, 2006 6:03:39 GMT -4
Hello everyone, NASA made the claim some 37 years ago that they had placed a man on the moon and returned him safely back to Earth. Please bare in mind the burden of proof is always with the ones making the claim. This being such an unusually large claim. I would need to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt, before I would even think about believing such a thing could really be true. I am from Laos and the Apollo moon landings are commonly believed to be a hoax in my country, we are not certain beyond all reasonable doubt of the reported version of events. We get many reports from China that suggest it was totally impossible with the technology of 1969. Please may I ask some questions? How did they maintain an even temperature inside the LM once positioned on the surface of the moon? Also please read the following taken from David Darling Encyclopaedia regarding Apollo 11 The fifth manned mission of the Apollo Project and the one that climaxed with the first manned landing on the Moon. During the final stages of the Lunar Module�s (LM) 12.5-minute descent to the Moons surface, Neil Armstrong took manual control of the spacecraft and piloted it to a suitable landing site. A warning that less than 5% of descent fuel remained gave Armstrong 94 seconds to land the LM prior to an abort and return to the CSM. As the LM came into land, dust was kicked up reducing Armstrong�s visibility to a few meters. At 10 meters above the surface, the LM lurched dangerously but Armstrong continued to guide the spacecraft toward a successful touchdown in the Sea of Tranquility at 20:17:40 GMT on Jul. 20, 1969, about 6.5 km from the designated target. www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Apollo_11.htmlHere it states that the dust was kicked up interfering with Armstrong's visibility. If that was indeed the case then surly there would have been some kind of crater or evidence of a rocket blast? Could any person/persons answering these questions please give their credentials and explain where they got their information from? Welcome aboard, Heavenly body! Some background reading you might want to peruse which should answer your question re keeping the LM cool. This function was performed by the ECS (Environmental Control Subsystem). www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.engin.htmlwww.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LM-ECS.htmlwww.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-ECSFunDesHeat.htmlRe the dust being kicked up during the descent of the LM - the exhaust plume did indeed cause some of the lunar dust to be scoured away from the regolith underneath - you can see evidence of this during the last moments of the descent of each LM. There are also photographs taken of the area under the LM on various mission which shows some discolouration, and also evidence of "scouring" of the lunar dust by the exhaust plume. See the image I've linked below from Apollo 11 - looking under the LM you can clearly see rays emanating radially outwards, where some lunar dust has been blown away and scoured the surface. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5921HR.jpgSome things to bear in mind:- - the thrust from the descent stage engine of the LM was less than 3000 lbs (approx 2600 lbs is more accurate)
- the LM was moving across the surface of the moon as it descended, so the exhaust plume was not concentrated on one small spot.
- The diameter of the exhaust nozzle on the descent stage was 54 inches - which equates to a circular surface area of 2916 square inches - so the pressure exerted on the lunar surface wouldn't exceed 1 psi (1 pound per square inch).
Apollo 11 - www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11f.1024502.movYou can download movie footage of all the Apollo landings from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) - www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.htmlHope that helps to answer your questions, I'm sure others on here will be more than willing to answer any others you have, or to clarify or correct anything I've said which is wrong! As to my credentials, I've been studying the "Moon Landing Hoax Theory" for some years purely as a hobby. All the information I've supplied here is easily available, either on the ALSJ linked above, or form www.hq.nasa.gov.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 14, 2006 8:14:31 GMT -4
postbaguk, pleae don't post such large pictures to the forum. Link to them instead. I hate scrolling my browser window back and forth. H body, you can also check out www.clavius.org for more refutation of common "Apollo was a hoax" claims. Fred
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 14, 2006 9:14:06 GMT -4
Hello everyone,Hi. Welcome to the board. NASA made the claim some 37 years ago that they had placed a man on the moon and returned him safely back to Earth.Yep. Well, two men. The claim was acknowledged worldwide, including the U.S.'s Cold War and "space race" competitor, the USSR. Please bare in mind the burden of proof is always with the ones making the claim.Apollo is a historical fact with a truly enormous amount of detailed documentation, first-hand testimony, and international corroboration including a living scientific legacy. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with those who claim the historical and scientific record is so dramatically false. This being such an unusually large claim. I would need to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt, before I would even think about believing such a thing could really be true.There are a couple of flaws with this type of approach. First, it is much harder to fake such a "large event" such as Apollo than a "small", isolated, one-time event. Apollo involved the efforts of several hundred thousand people and spanned many years from initial development through termination of flight operations. It's even harder when the worldwide scientific understanding of the Moon was so dramatically advanced by the program, and when this process has been ongoing ever since. Moreover, the evidence from the Apollo missions has remained available to scientists ever since. Second, this means that any really significant historical event would be considered a priori unlikely. Were you there for World War II? The claim that a half-pint* beer-hall megalomaniac took over a good chunk of the planet and plunged the whole planet into bloody conflict is a "large claim", far larger than Apollo. But there are many, many inconsistencies in the record about WWII, and if you read the history books in various countries you'd think you were reading about different events altogether. Do you deny that World War II happened? The Holocaust? The deaths of tens of millions in China and Russia due to bungled policies and purges? If not, then your idea of "not even think[ing] about believing such a thing" is inconsistently applied. I am from Laos and the Apollo moon landings are commonly believed to be a hoax in my country,I'm sorry to hear that. I would be embarrassed for my countrymen if I were you. It's something like the embarrassment I feel knowing that about a fifth of Americans actually don't know the Earth revolves about the Sun. we are not certain beyond all reasonable doubt of the reported version of events. We get many reports from China that suggest it was totally impossible with the technology of 1969.That's odd, since the Chinese, AFAIK, acknowledged the Apollo landings when they happened, as did the Soviets. As far as being "impossible with the technology of 1969", I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Please may I ask some questions?That's why we're here! How did they maintain an even temperature inside the LM once positioned on the surface of the moon?The short story is that the LM was insulated to maintain a the internal temperature of the crew cabin within a given range, based on the thermal environment predicted for the flight (and experimentally verified by various spacecraft) and the heat loads planned for the mission. The environmental control used passive (structure, thermal shields and coatings) and active (internal heat generation, sublimative cooling) methods to control within this range. For more details, you might want to look at NASA TN D-6724, Apollo Experience Report - Lunar Module Environmental Control Subsystem. (Note! large PDF file.) Also please read the following taken from David Darling Encyclopaedia regarding Apollo 11 <snip> www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Apollo_11.html
Here it states that the dust was kicked up interfering with Armstrong's visibility. If that was indeed the case then surly there would have been some kind of crater or evidence of a rocket blast?As postbaguk pointed out, there was indeed some scouring out of the regolith under the engine bell. Could any person/persons answering these questions please give their credentials and explain where they got their information from?In addition to references provided, I've been a space engineer for 15 years. I've worked on various civil, commercial, and defense projects, including three Space Shuttle missions as a payload (satellite) controller. I've also worked for and with a number of Apollo engineers. I also have an undergraduate degree in space physics and master's degrees in electrical and system engineering. Could you give your backgroud? Not that you need to have relevant experience to ask questions. * Pun not intended, but appreciated nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Oct 14, 2006 9:55:27 GMT -4
postbaguk, pleae don't post such large pictures to the forum. Link to them instead. I hate scrolling my browser window back and forth. Fred Maybe you should shell out on one of these?
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 14, 2006 11:41:58 GMT -4
I know someone who'd like that! But thanks for fixing the picture.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by heavenlybody on Oct 14, 2006 22:13:22 GMT -4
Postbaguk, Thanks for those threads, I have read them and studied the photographs, unfortunately I could not get movie it would not down load, I would like to know how they filmed the LM landing? Regarding ECS. I would like to see some figure on just how efficient the cooling system was. It seems remarkable that it could keep the side exposed to the solar radiation from becoming very hot, and the other side from becoming very cold. The photograph linked to was showing very little disturbance from the rocket motor the surface appears hard and rocky. It was this mission that gave the famous foot print in which the surface appears soft and powdery? This would seem inconsistent. sts60, Apollo is a historical fact with a truly enormous amount of detailed documentation, first-hand testimony, and international corroboration including a living scientific legacy. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with those who claim the historical and scientific record is so dramatically false. It is a historical fact in your country, where I quote you "the embarrassment I feel knowing that about a fifth of Americans actually don't know the Earth revolves about the Sun" that is 50 million+ fellow Americans you openly admit are totally ignorant. Are you sure the figure is not in fact higher? I have read that 90% of American can not find the USA on a map, they point to Africa because it is in the middle. This raises another question, is a nation with inhabitants that are this uninformed capable of telling fact from fiction? We have seen President Reagan confusing movie scripts with real life events. From the top to the bottom there seem to be some confusion between reality and forgery. It is a historical fact that this was not a scientific mission simply political propaganda whether real or not. Would it have been necessary to provide these uninformed masses any more than a pantomime, statistics would indicate that that would be suffecent so why bother with the real thing at all? For the record administrator please note sts60 is trying to shift the burden of proof. veiw www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html There are a couple of flaws with this type of approach. There are a couple of flaws with your argument. First, it is much harder to fake such a "large event" such as Apollo than a "small", isolated, one-time event. Apollo involved the efforts of several hundred thousand people and spanned many years from initial development through termination of flight operations. It's even harder when the worldwide scientific understanding of the Moon was so dramatically advanced by the program, and when this process has been ongoing ever since. Moreover, the evidence from the Apollo missions has remained available to scientists ever since. I really appreciate your opinion on the size of a hoax and how hard you think it would be to be successful, but what are you basing it on? I think the size of the event is not as important as the competence of its perpetrators. It is perfectly possible it was faked and you and you friends here are gullible or NASA employees with a whole host of prefabricated information sources to back you up. Your first flaw was composition www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.htmlSecond, this means that any really significant historical event would be considered a priori unlikely. Were you there for World War II? The claim that a half-pint* beer-hall megalomaniac took over a good chunk of the planet and plunged the whole planet into bloody conflict is a "large claim", far larger than Apollo. But there are many, many inconsistencies in the record about WWII, and if you read the history books in various countries you'd think you were reading about different events altogether. Do you deny that World War II happened? The Holocaust? The deaths of tens of millions in China and Russia due to bungled policies and purges? If not, then your idea of "not even think[ing] about believing such a thing" is inconsistently applied. Sorry but this is not really worth answering. and this was your second flaw the slippery slope fallacy. www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.htmlI'm sorry to hear that. I would be embarrassed for my countrymen if I were you. It's something like the embarrassment I feel knowing that about a fifth of Americans actually don't know the Earth revolves about the Sun. Why are you sorry to hear I come from Laos? More fallacious arguments appeal to ridicule with a dash of appeal to pity www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.htmlwww.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-pity.htmlThat's odd, since the Chinese, AFAIK, acknowledged the Apollo landings when they happened, as did the Soviets. As far as being "impossible with the technology of 1969", I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. It is not odd if you understand anything about international politics, the Chinese had no way of verifying the event but did not want to let the Americans know they where behind with their technology. The short story is that the LM was insulated to maintain a the internal temperature of the crew cabin within a given range, based on the thermal environment predicted for the flight (and experimentally verified by various spacecraft) and the heat loads planned for the mission. The environmental control used passive (structure, thermal shields and coatings) and active (internal heat generation, sublimative cooling) methods to control within this range. For more details, you might want to look at I find it hard to believe that all these systems were sufficient to provide an environment that was suitable for humans to survive at all. Whist the LM was on the surface of the moon it would have been very hot on one side and very cold on the other, and there is no system present to compensate for this. I have a bachelors degree in Mathematics & English, I am studying for my master degree in English. I work as a translator for a publishing company translating technical manuals. I also work for the local police and court rooms translating legal matters. I went to high school in the USA and univeristy in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 14, 2006 23:36:50 GMT -4
You know, you're wrong when you say that there's no way of verifying the landings, and that's why the burden of proof is on you. Yours is the extraordinary claim, here, because there are literally tons of pieces of evidence that Apollo was real. (Note that it wasn't, "oh, too bad you come from Laos" but "oh, too bad so many Laotians are, according to you, ignorant of the truth of Apollo.") Tens of thousands of people worked on the missions. If it's the level of competence that's important, you must posit that all of the conspirators were at the level of competence that would enable them to keep the conspiracy. Thousands of them.
There are pictures. There are rocks. There's the tracking evidence provided by people from all over the world. There is the telemetry. There are the visuals--people on Earth, again all over the world, actually saw the capsules in orbit. Many, many people saw the Saturn V take off. The thing is, there's every bit as much evidence of Apollo as there is of many other historical events--and quite a lot more than there is of some.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 15, 2006 1:02:37 GMT -4
It is a historical fact in your country,It is a historical fact worldwide. It is as much a historical fact as, say, World War II. where I quote you "the embarrassment I feel knowing that about a fifth of Americans actually don't know the Earth revolves about the Sun" that is 50 million+ fellow Americans you openly admit are totally ignorant. Are you sure the figure is not in fact higher?My statement was based on a National Science Foundation poll. It wouldn't be 50 million plus because small children don't count and the population is not yet 300 million. ...This raises another question, is a nation with inhabitants that are this uninformed capable of telling fact from fiction? We have seen President Reagan confusing movie scripts with real life events.I am not Ronald Reagan, and I am not uninformed in this topic. From the top to the bottom there seem to be some confusion between reality and forgery.That does not mean that the two cannot be discerned from each other by the informed. It is a historical fact that this was not a scientific mission simply political propaganda whether real or not.Incorrect. Apollo was both a scientific program (not "a mission") and a political one. Our knowledge of the Moon, our solar system, and the early history of the Earth has been greatly advanced as a direct result of the Apollo effort. Would it have been necessary to provide these uninformed masses any more than a pantomime, statistics would indicate that that would be suffecent so why bother with the real thing at all?Because there are many, many people who are informed. Moreover, such a "pantomime" would inevitably be exposed by one of the participants, international observers, or scientists either at the time or in the future as additional knowledge was gained. For the record administrator please note sts60 is trying to shift the burden of proof. veiw www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.htmlEverybody here knows what "burden of proof" means. The burden remains on you, because of the enormous scientific and historical evidence of Apollo. The simple claims "Apollo happened" and "Apollo was faked" simply do not carry equal weight. I might as well say "Laos doesn't exist" and say the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. I really appreciate your opinion on the size of a hoax and how hard you think it would be to be successful, but what are you basing it on?The size of the Apollo program, which involved over 400,000 people. Not all of them (say, typists) might have noticed a hoax but an enormous number of the scientists, engineers, and technicians involved would have. This is based on my direct experience in large aerospace projects and also on my training in physics and engineering management. The direct observations of Apollo missions to, from, and on the Moon by independent groups and nations around the world. Telemetry received by tracking stations around the world. Laser ranging signals from Apollo-placed retroreflectors which are still used today by astronomers. The consensus of the international planetary science and geological communities. I think the size of the event is not as important as the competence of its perpetrators.In a conspiracy, size does matter. There have been literally hundreds of thousands of people who could expose such a conspiracy, yet none ever have. Moreover, to pull it off you must have a large group of people smart enough to fool all those experts not only during Apollo but for generations yet to come; in fact, they would have to have the hoax impervious to future scientific discovery they couldn't even guess at. That's utterly unrealistic. It is perfectly possible it was fakedYou are of course welcome to demonstrate exactly how it could be faked, with evidence. and you and you friends here are gullibleYou are welcome to attempt to demonstrate how an experienced aerospace engineer can be fooled by such a massive technical and management fraud. Moreover, I need to point out that I have worked with key Apollo engineers and have been able to judge their competency and integrity for myself. or NASA employees with a whole host of prefabricated information sources to back you up.I have worked with NASA and support NASA projects in my current role but am not and never have been a NASA employee. Kindly provide evidence for this allegation, or retract it. The information sources I mention here are almost entirely available to people worldwide, including you, and including every scientist and engineer in the world. The LM environmental subsystem experience report I provided you represents a very, very small fraction of that material. Sorry but this is not really worth answering.Failure to address your inconsistent standard of proof noted. Why are you sorry to hear I come from Laos?I'm not sorry you come from Laos and I did not say or imply such a thing. I indicated I was sorry so many people in your country are apparently ignorant of one of mankind's great triumphs - after all, you said it was "commonly" held to be a hoax there. Don't take it personally. There are plenty of such people worldwide. It's a pity. More fallacious arguments appeal to ridicule with a dash of appeal to pityYou are welcome to point out exactly which of my arguments are fallacious, and how so. As far as appeals to ridicule and pity, you haven't said anything specific enough to ridicule yet, and the pity was a genuine expression of my sentiment. I agree, though, that neither ridicule nor pity establish fact. It is not odd if you understand anything about international politics, the Chinese had no way of verifying the event but did not want to let the Americans know they where behind with their technology.I do know something about international politics. The Chinese largely ignored the landing because they did not want to admit the U.S. could achieve such a thing. I also strongly doubt that their technology related to tracking translunar spacecraft was that much of an issue. However, I'm not well informed about where the Chinese were in this field back then, so I will have to defer further discussion on this point. I find it hard to believe that all these systems were sufficient to provide an environment that was suitable for humans to survive at all.I don't find it all hard to believe; it's standard space engineering practice. If you have a specific reason for your disbelief, feel free to discuss it here. Whist the LM was on the surface of the moon it would have been very hot on one side and very cold on the other, and there is no system present to compensate for this.Incorrect. The thermal coatings, the aluminum primary structure, the active ECS, the avionics, and in fact the astronauts themselves all were part of the system. I have a bachelors degree in Mathematics & English, I am studying for my master degree in English. I work as a translator for a publishing company translating technical manuals. I also work for the local police and court rooms translating legal matters.That sounds like interesting work. Well, it's after midnight here and I have training tomorrow. Good night.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 15, 2006 1:12:04 GMT -4
They didn’t. The landing was filmed from inside the LM looking out the window.
No, this is totally consistent. The surface is hard and rocky under the engine where the soil has been blown away. The area around the LM that was not exposed to the exhaust stream remained undisturbed and covered with a layer of soil. The fact the surface looks hard and rocky under the engine bell is the evidence you are looking for that the surface was disturbed by the engine.
Your stereotype of Americans is incorrect. Every country has its fair share of ignoramuses; America is no worse off than most other nations.
Begging the question. We are not that uninformed.
How much have you actually studied the Apollo missions? The astronauts conducted and deployed many scientific experiments and instruments. The data and samples collected re-wrote the science books.
No, he is trying to place it where it belongs, that is with you. You are claiming the missions where faked, thus the onus is on you to back up that claim.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 15, 2006 2:08:03 GMT -4
Where the hell did you read that 90% of Americans can't point out America on a world map? Either you are lying through your teeth or will believe anything you read. You accuse us of being gullible and then you tell us you believe 90% of Americans can't read a map?
If that's the kind of information that the nation of Laos gains its knowledge from I can understand why "most" of you believe the moon landings were fake.
You want hard evidence? 800 pounds of moon rocks brought back by the astronauts. The entire world's geology community have accepted the moon rocks as being real. This community includes nations hostile to the US and nations with nothing to gain by participating in a hoax. They know what makes a real moon rock, and they can tell the difference between a moon rock that came to earth as a meteorite and one taken right from the lunar surface. Not only that, but nowhere near 800 pounds of moon rock has ever been found as meteorites. Not only that, but the 800 pounds of samples include 6 foot long core samples drilled right from the lunar surface and small fragile dust clumps too fragile to pass through the earth's atmosphere as meteorites. These couldn't be from robotic missions either. The soviets launched a robotic sample return mission at the same time of apollo and 15 missions brought back less than a pound of material.
If you know anything about the lunar samples brought back by apollo it becomes quite clear that they could not have come anywhere but from the moon's surface and from the astronauts that went there.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Oct 15, 2006 13:05:55 GMT -4
Postbaguk, Thanks for those threads, I have read them and studied the photographs, unfortunately I could not get movie it would not down load, I would like to know how they filmed the LM landing? There was a film camera inside the LM pointing downwards out of the RHS window. Navigate here - www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html - then just click on whatever mission you want to study, then select Video and Movies. Some of them are available in different formats which you may be able to view. Don't know where to get actual figures from. The LM had thermal protection on to help prevent it from heating up too much. Doesn't seem remarkable to me, just good engineering. Quite the opposite - the LM descent engine scoured away much of the lunar dust underneath it as it landed... you can see the trails of dust emanting away from under the engine bell - here for example www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5858HR.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 15, 2006 16:13:28 GMT -4
Don't have the time or the inclination to get into too much depth here, but just quickly:
Whist the LM was on the surface of the moon it would have been very hot on one side and very cold on the other, and there is no system present to compensate for this.
Except for the outer skin of the LM being made of metal, a highly effective thermal conductor. The side being heated by the sun is in thermal contact with the side in the shade, therefore there is passive heat transfer from the sun side to the shaded side. All the time the sunny side of the LM is absorbing radiant heat from the sun the heat is being conducted around the body of the LM, where it can be radiated away on the shaded side.
I do not know the figures for this process, but I do no that it is a reasonable method of thermal control and could conceivably have been effective enough with no active thermal control system required.
That said, was the LM cabin not equipped with a coolant system like that on the CSM?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 15, 2006 17:49:35 GMT -4
A lot of the LM's cooling from external sources was through passive systems, the layers of aluminized Mylar that covered it. These provided a highly reflective surface that reflected much of the IR radiation away and prevented heating. During the time the crew was not there, the LM had no atmosphere inside of it either; this means that there was nothing inside to heat up. Next, the sun was low in the sky, and so it had not heated the ground significantly. I believe the ground temps towards the end of the later missions about 185 °F (85 °C) so certainly not what you would have been wanting to walk on with your bare feet, but certainly not hot enough to cause problems to the LM or the highly insulated space suits. Remember that firefighters use equipment every day that let them survive in temperatures well in excess of 300°C. It was this mission that gave the famous foot print in which the surface appears soft and powdery? This would seem inconsistent.But that's exactly what you wanted. You are seeing an area without any dust covering, leaving it rocky and hard, under the engine bell and yet a deep layer of dust elsewhere. This is exactly what one should expect if the area under the engine had its dust blown away. It also makes me wonder about your real desire to learn the truth here, since at first you demanded inconsistency in the surface (that there should have been a crater under the LM) and then when shown that there was, that the dust was in fact gone, you try and make that out to be suspicious. You can't have it both ways. It is a historical fact in your countryI'm not American and it's historical fact here too. You'll find that many of us here are not Americans. I would have to ask, is your belief in this matter based on the science, or on politics? Is it because you distrust the idiot currently in charge of the US, or do you actually have a technical understanding of the missions? For the record administrator please note sts60 is trying to shift the burden of proof.Not true. NASA has already provided ample proof of their achievement. They have tabled 30,000 photos, hours of TV footage shown live at the time, numerous hours of DAC 16mm footage, all consistent with each other. 380 kg of lunar rock, Telemetry tracking of the ships, data from the ALSEP experiments that carried on transmitting for 6 years after the missions, the LRRR which are still used today. This information has been independently verified, with hundreds of Geologists from around the world having been given access to the lunar samples, including those in the Soviet Union who got to test the US samples against their own return samples. The Apollo return samples have also helped to identify rocks as Lunaties, the first such being found in 1979, the first to be identified being so in 1981 because of its similarities to the Apollo and Soviet return samples. Amateur Astronomers watched the capsule on the way to the moon and even photographed it at times (including the debris cloud from the damaged Apollo 13) Amateur ham radio operators tracked the missions as well, listening in on the LM and CM conversations of at least 11, 14, 15, and 17. (Other threads here have links to these, I'm too lazy to look them up currently.) The Soviets themselves tracked Apollos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, intercepting the TV and communications traffic from them. How does this in any way fail to satisfy the burden of proof for their claim? It is perfectly possible it was faked and you and you friends here are gullible or NASA employees with a whole host of prefabricated information sources to back you upOops, that is a claim. See, now that you have made a claim, the burden switches to you. This is why sts60 isn't burden shifting, you have done that all by yourself as soon as you made this claim. The Apollo record stands as proof, to counter that you have to provide the evidence. It isn't sufficient to claim that it might have been faked, you have to show that it was.I also work for the local police and court rooms translating legal matters.Good, then let's use an example from there. Imagine you are up trial in a murder case, your lawyers have just presented your entire case showing where you were at the time including giving witnesses, security camera footage and photos as evidence. The prosecutor stands up and rebuts your entire case by merely saying, "but you could have faked all of that," then sits down again expecting you to prove you didn't. Is this acceptable in a Court of Law? Why not? Here's my point, that's exactly what you are doing here. Charging NASA for fraud on the basis, "they might have faked it." Surely, working in a courtroom, you can see this gapping flaw in your logic. I find it hard to believe that all these systems were sufficient to provide an environment that was suitable for humans to survive at all.Do you find it hard to believe that the there were submarines fighting a war in 1914? Do you believe, that in 1960 a two-person bathysphere descended to the very bottom of the deepest part of the ocean? That planes such as Concorde, the SR-71 Blackbird, the X-15, and the Boeing 747 are all 1960's technology and were relatively unbeaten in their fields until recently? That the F-14 and F-15 are both from the time of Apollo? Do you believe that Robert Edwin Peary reached the North Pole in 1909 and that just two years later Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole in 1911. They did this with no modern gear and in temperatures that could freeze exposed human skin almost instantly. How did they survive? Mount Everest still kills about 5-6 people a year, and yet in 1953 Hillary and Norgay reached the summit and returned. How did they do it when people trying today are still dying? As I mentioned earlier, house fires can get up to 600°C, 300°C in rooms that aren't actually alight, yet firefighters enter and survive these conditions on a regular basis. How, if their equipment isn't able to protect them? Do you believe that firefighters really go into burning buildings to rescue people and put out fires? Thousands of people a day travel via planes at 40,000+ feet, a part of the atmosphere that is so cold and has so little air that survival outside the plane is impossible, yet in 1960 Joseph Kittinger jumped from 103,000 feet, becoming the first person to break the sound barrier without a plane. He lived, how did he do it? Many volcanologists exploring lava flows and eruptions are working in environments that are close to 1000°C and not only that, but have to deal with toxic fumes and gas. How do they survive? Are you starting to see the extremes that humans can survive in with the right gear? Let's push it back to space. In 1965, Alexei Leonov become the first person to walk in space. A few months later, Edward White followed, and then more Americans completed spacewalks over the course of the Gemini missions. More occurred during the early Apollo missions and the Soviets had conducted several more with their Soyuz craft before Apollo 11. What challenges did the Apollo crew have to face that none of them did? Why would they have survived an environment the Apollo crews couldn't have? Whist the LM was on the surface of the moon it would have been very hot on one side and very cold on the other, and there is no system present to compensate for this.When you are cooking a roast you heat up the inside of your oven to between 180°C and 230°, can you still touch the outside? How come? You just claimed, "There is no system present to compensate for this." Why can your oven be insulated from heat transfer, but the LM not? Heat transfer on the moon is actually a simpler case that here on Earth. Here we have to put up with three types of transfer, on the moon, its just 2 and most of it from just one type, radiative heat transfer. That is heat transferred by IR light. Quite simply, if you reflect most of the IR from the surface, it isn't absorbed, so the object stays cooler. You can try this yourself. Get three pieces of metal, one shiny, one coloured black and one coloured white. Place them in the sun, either hanging from string, or lying on some wood (it's a good insulator for heat.) See which heats up the fastest. Insulation heats too. The LM was covered in about 12 layers of aluminized Mylar, each with a vacuum between it and the other sheets. Heat had to travel through each layer to get to the next. This is exactly how a Thermos Flask works. Do they keep your hot liquids hot and your cold liquids cold? Why then can't you apply the same principle to the LM? The answer here isn't in the manuals of the Hoax Proponents, it's in a physics text book.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 15, 2006 22:09:58 GMT -4
As I mentioned earlier, house fires can get up to 600°C, 300°C in rooms that aren't actually alight, yet firefighters enter and survive these conditions on a regular basis.
And that's with radiative and conductive and convective transfer - which as you pointed out is more complicated than the space thermal environment. But structural firefighting gear is typically rated up to 900F (about 500C); when flashover occurs and the temperature gets up to 600C and above, it's time to get the hell outta Dodge, as we say.
|
|