|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 19, 2006 10:17:13 GMT -4
lunatic, is that you?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 19, 2006 11:31:10 GMT -4
Let get this burden of proof matter sorted out
I am not the one claiming to have been to the moon! How can the burden of proof possibly fall with me?
Because you are the one saying the mainstream historical and scientific record is wrong. Because you have yet to offer anything to back up your allegation other than expressions of disbelief. Because, as I said before, a statement about the real world ("Apollo happened") and its inverse ("Apollo did not happen") generally do not carry equal weight.
This is quite straight forward,
I agree that it is quite straightforward. Several hundred thousand scientists, engineers, technicians, and management and support personnel worked on Apollo. There is a massive, consistent, and carefully documented imagery record. The missions were tracked to, from, and on the Moon by persons and groups in different nations. The missions returned hundreds of kilograms of differentiated lunar samples which have been authenticated by the international geological community as being gathered in situ on the Moon. Hand-deployed experiments returned data for years after the final mission which was received by personnel of many nations. And there is a staggering array of documentation and test and flight hardware available for public inspection.
the fact that you have the audacity to refute this
It's not a matter of audacity. The Apollo programs stands as one of the largest, most complex, and most thoroughly documented scientific and engineering undertakings in human history. You're saying it's all a big fake, based on - what? To any reasonable observer, it is up to you to show that the scientific, historical, and technical record is wrong.
makes me wonder what are you ulterior motives
I post here because I am interested in space flight - I work in the field, in fact - and find it amazing that human beings were able to accomplish something that had been dreamed about for so long. I've also worked with people who made key contributions to Apollo.
Those are my motives - all of them. I have asked you before to provide evidence for your allegations that anyone here is some sort of disinformation agent or whatever. Do you intend to keep making such insinuations without any evidence?
and is anything else you say pre scripted propaganda.
I try to avoid propaganda and stick to facts. Generally, I make it quite clear as to what is a statement of fact versus a statement of my opinion.
As far as "pre-scripted", I don't make pre-scripted posts. If something sounds "pat" to you, it's likely because virtually every claim made by an HB has been made here many times before, and refuted many times before. There's only so many ways you can answer the same claim. Besides, I'm an engineer, not a writer.
From the general attitude of the users is that you are bored with this subject claiming it is a closed book. Don't you think that is a narrow minded perspective?
No one here is bored with discussing Apollo, otherwise we wouldn't be here. While some people here may respond with knee-jerk derision, most of the regulars are willing to answer any question asked honestly. However, it is not "narrow-minded" to ask someone to provide evidence for their claims; it is not "narrow-minded" to examine skeptically claims which are contrary to established history and science.
Might I remind you that if you are really bored of this thread there are plenty of other threads that you can pat yourselves or each others back in.
You are not the first to make such a characterization. It is unwarranted. Yes, most of the regulars here are in agreement about Apollo. That does not mean that we do not correct each other when errors are made, and it certainly doesn't mean that everybody here has the same viewpoints on other subjects (politics, religion, etc.)
Or as I suspect it is just another logical fallacy you have pulled from your combined arsenal.
Unfortunately, you haven't identified any genuine logical fallacies, except perhaps calling me on "appeal to pity" - and as I said in my reply to that, it did not affect the validity of my argument. There are a variety of logical fallacies on which you can be called so far, but I'm more interested in getting at the substance behind your expressions of disbelief.
Bandwagoning is one word that comes to mind, if there is such a word and or simply trying to belittle the subject.
It is not "bandwagoning" for a number of people in broad agreement on a subject to discuss the matter on a forum. And we are have been addressing your claims.
Out classed, what by a sycophant, please.
? Sorry, couldn't parse that one.
If it is so much an indisputable fact why do you all have to waste so much time and effort trying to convince people?
Because some people are uninformed or confused on the issue, but are willing to learn about it. And we like talking and learning about it. And because relieving ignorance is a good thing.
How did they keep the LM cool once on the moon, in orbit they rotated slowly I think they called the spit roast effect? I have read your suggestions(oranges and apples) and do not think they are adequate for the purpose. Rotation was not possible once the eagle had landed, so how did they keep it cool?
The PTC (passive thermal control)* , or "barbecue" roll, is used to distribute heating due to insolation on a spacecraft in full sunlight. Of course, as you said, it was not done on the lunar surface.
What kept the LM "cool", or more properly kept various components within their allowed temperature ranges, was the balancing of several factors: 1. A known amount of solar insolation, i.e., the energy flux coming from the Sun, which was relatively low in the lunar sky during the landing missions. 2. The pretty well-characterized "heat sink" of the lunar surface and of deep space, i.e., the various places to which the LM could radiate heat (or receive heat from). 3. The heat generated by the electrical equipment and crewmembers themselves. 4. The heat flow to/from the lunar surface, but the LM was conductively pretty isolated through the landing pads. 5. The cooling system, which rejected heat via sublimation. 6. The emissivities of the LM thermal shield, foil, paints, and metal surfaces. 7. The absorbtivities of the items mentioned in (6). 8. The masses, heat capacities, thermal conductivities, and arrangements of various parts of the LM itself.
Basically, the engineers figured out how much heat energy would be falling on the LM from the Sun and reflected to it by the lunar surface, and how much would be generated internally. They knew which parts (e.g., fuel tanks) had to be maintained within which ranges of temperature. They calculated how fast various parts of the structure would heat or cool on the Moon, and what kind of thermal coatings would keep the energy balance within an acceptable range. The active cooling system could manage crew cabin and avionics temperatures within that range.
Of course, the solution was not for a stay of arbitrary length on the Moon, nor for an arbitrary time of the lunar day. Staying throughout the lunar day, or through the lunar night, would have been a bigger challenge. A short stay during the lunar morning simplified the problem. Did you look through the report I linked for you earlier? Do you have any questions about it?
BTW I am not sure that it was 90 percent of Americans than can not locate the USA on a map but it was claimed to be very high. You all being so educated and informed please inform me what do you think would be an accurate number of person in the USA A believe the Sun goes around the Earth? B Can not find the USA on a map?
(A) NSF surveys have indicated around 20-25% of Americans think the Sun goes around the Earth. If you multiply that by the current number of all Americans, you get 60-75 million. But the actual number would have to be lower, since various segments of the population (e.g., children under a certain age) would be excluded. (B) No idea. But the correct answer is doubtless "too many".
Hw many Laotians think the Sun goes around the Earth? Not that it's germane to Apollo, but you raised the subject.
I am really looking forward to hearing your answers on this question in particular.
OK. I am really looking forward to your specific reasons for disbelieving Apollo.
*Fixed - had this as "passive thermal roll", then I drank some coffee.
|
|
|
Post by Stout Cortez on Oct 19, 2006 14:48:29 GMT -4
Sure seems familiar, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 19, 2006 15:28:17 GMT -4
Please bare in mind the burden of proof is always with the ones making the claim... We get many reports from China that suggest it was totally impossible with the technology of 1969.
Since you are implicitly adopting the assertion "it was totally impossible with the technology of 1969", perhaps you would like to start your specific defense of your Apollo hoax by explaining exactly which technologies of the era were inadequate, and exactly why they were inadequate. Just suggesting a starting point.
|
|
|
Post by Stout Cortez on Oct 20, 2006 12:09:41 GMT -4
heavenlybody wrote
I think this might come from a 2002 National Geographic survey in which 11% of young Americans said they could not identify the USA on a map.
A similar survey found that some 20% of young Britons could not identify the USA on a globe, while about 8% couldn't find the British Isles.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 20, 2006 13:19:30 GMT -4
heavenlybody,
Are you truly in Laos? I wonder, do they teach in Laos that the Apollo missions were a hoax? Are you originally from Laos?
|
|
|
Post by moonglow on Oct 20, 2006 15:34:49 GMT -4
Bill, cool avatar.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Oct 20, 2006 19:34:15 GMT -4
Heavenlybody,
Back to what you said about the technology...
Are you under the impression that Apollo was a sudden thing that was randomly slapped together? If so, you're very much mistaken. A good deal of Ph.D went into making it possible. Hundreds of thousands of workers across the country put forth efforts to make the mission possible.
The developement for the Saturn 5, for instance, began in the late 1950s. After President Kennedy gave the moon missions priority, developement accelerated, with the results we've seen with the six actual landings.
You ask why the burden of proof is upon you. That is because it involves a well known phrase in science; extraordinary claims requite extraordinary proof.
There is lots of proof that the missions were real; images, videos, radar tracking, Doppler plots, amatuer astronomers observing events of the spacecraft, and most importantly the samples of moon rocks and core samples, which upon examination have characteristics that are impossible to duplicate on Earth.
So, it is up to you to prove the landings were faked. And that evidence has to stand up to examination. Remember, the "professionals" that propogate the moon hoax, like Ralph Rene, Jack White, David Percy, the late Bill Kaysing, and Bart Sibrel, put forth claims that do not stand to investigation. Keep that in mind when you present your evidence.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlybody on Oct 27, 2006 12:41:46 GMT -4
I am not under any impression that project Apollo was trivial, real or fake it would have taken a tremendous amount of effort.
Are any of you familiar with the revelation of the soviet space program, how they sent people to their almost certain deaths in the name of space research? That they had secret parallel projects going on all the time? If the CIA found this out they could quite reasonably used this information as leverage to keep them quite. Or could have NASA simply copied them?
The lunar rendezvous would have been impossible with the technology of the day. Unproven untested craft could do the job let alone be successful, piloted by persons that had never done the task before goes against all logic and probably.. When you think about it even landing the LM would have been impossible to accurately simulate yet they never had a mishap, don't you think this is extremely unlikely, that again a totally untested piece of hardware would be so reliable? Please spare me any apples and oranges argument about other projects.
Bill, I am not sure if you are trying to hit on, or discredit me? Either way what has it got to do with this subject?
Grand Lunar, Stand up to who's examination? Yours? As far as that photo of the LM leg and a small amount of soil movement, after spending far far too long looking at it. It suddenly dawned on me that the photo could have been taken in a studio anywhere.
A note to moderator. Politik is calling me a troll. Atomic dog is calling me a lunatic. Stout Cortez is bandwagoning the comment. Please ask them to view another thread, to be quite or ban them.
Once again could any one answering this post please give some indication to what qualifications or experience you have that supports your comments.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 27, 2006 12:49:15 GMT -4
No, I was asking you if you were the poster called lunatic. If you read the post note that I was using the word as a noun, not an adjective.
And so far, your posts are fitting his pattern.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 27, 2006 12:58:40 GMT -4
Or could have NASA simply copied them?
But did they?
It suddenly dawned on me that the photo could have been taken in a studio anywhere.
But was it?
Raising the question about whether on thing could have happened another way is pointless if you are not prepared to show how it could have been done and that it was in fact done another way. Since you only provide you personal speculation, why should we give this much credence?
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Oct 27, 2006 15:08:04 GMT -4
Unproven untested craft could do the job let alone be successful, piloted by persons that had never done the task before goes against all logic and probably.. When you think about it even landing the LM would have been impossible to accurately simulate yet they never had a mishap, don't you think this is extremely unlikely, that again a totally untested piece of hardware would be so reliable? Apollo 11 was not just thrown together and launched with a mixture of hope and prayer -- it was the next step in a series of missions including Mercury, Gemini, and the earlier Apollo missions. Each of them built on previous work, testing and validating systems and techniques. Any piece of equipment is "untested" in some sense until it is actually used for its purpose, and you can't "accurately" simulate anything short of doing it (but then you're not simulating...), but you can test components and train people to the point where you are confident of success. Edit: typos
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 27, 2006 15:26:12 GMT -4
If the CIA found this out they could quite reasonably used this information as leverage to keep them quite.
Handwaving. Where is your evidence that any such thing happened? Or that there was a need to?
Or could have NASA simply copied them?
Handwaving. Where is your evidence that any such thing happened? And how does it trump the real technology development path which is documented in enormous detail?
The lunar rendezvous would have been impossible with the technology of the day.
Why, exactly?
Unproven untested craft could do the job let alone be successful, piloted by persons that had never done the task before goes against all logic and probably..
Wrong. Orbital rendezvous was practiced during Gemini and Apollo. It was performed in lunar orbit before A11. Not to mention an enormous amount of practice in physics-based simulators. You're simply trying to wave away a great deal of research and work put into LOR development. I challenge you to point to any specific part of LOR development and identify exactly why it couldn't be done.
When you think about it even landing the LM would have been impossible to accurately simulate
Wrong. It was extensively simulated, in a number of ways, including with vehicles built to create an effective 1/6 G control environment. The LM was also tested in space, including descent and ascent profiles, before actually landing on the Moon. And the physics of landing the LM on the Moon is easier than that of landing a similar vehicle on the Earth. Why exactly would it have been impossible to simulate accurately enough?
yet they never had a mishap, don't you think this is extremely unlikely, that again a totally untested piece of hardware would be so reliable?
The LM most certainly was not untested; it was designed for simplicity and reliability; and there were problems, but redundancy and procedures and practice mitigated them.
Please spare me any apples and oranges argument about other projects.
Mercury and Gemini and Apollo form a direct engineering, mission development, and crew experience path.
Perhaps you'd like to spend some time actually learning something about Apollo before making such unsupported claims?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 27, 2006 15:26:54 GMT -4
Oh, and how many Laotioans think the Sun goes around the Earth?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 27, 2006 15:31:12 GMT -4
We've sure been down this road before. The ONLY thing Apollo 11 did that was new was touch the surface (and separate lander from ascent module, I believe). Everything else, every rendezvous, engine firing, orbital maneuver, crew transfer, recovery et al had been done previously -- with previous Apollo missions, or as far back as Gemini and Mercury.
And let's think about the whole "never been done, so too dangerous to attempt" idea.
When the Wright Brothers brought their first craft to Kitty Hawk there had never been a successful powered flight. In fact, flight was so demonstratively dangerous to attempt a great many flight pioneers were killed. So were they madmen? Not really. They tested. With mock-ups, scale models, kites, the world's first wind tunnel, their un-powered craft. They solved problems that could have killed the powered flight. As many elements as they could, they tested before that thing left the skids.
Of course as any engineer can tell you, the problems you don't see are those that only show up as a combination of previously benign events. But that's why test pilots get the big bucks.
I wonder if it is the modern litigatious society, and our absurd demands for more and more fool-proof everything, that is behind this particular hoax-believer attitude; that no-one then or now dares to do something new and untested, In either case it is an obscene attitude.
|
|