|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 27, 2006 16:26:31 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure that Apollo 9 and 10 also did the DM/AM separation. Apollo 11 did the separation while sitting on solid ground.
Let's see.... According to astronautix.com, A9 and A10 did do the separation. And due to an incorrect switch setting, A10 nearly crashed afterward.
So, hardly untested, unproven, and untrained. Information from earlier flights was used to refine the training for flights that came after.
Fred
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 27, 2006 17:01:10 GMT -4
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? There has been much information reveled since the fall of the Soviet Union, but many of the stories about cosmonauts dying on space missions are myths. There were deaths in the Soviet space program, but these cases are well documented and verified. The existing conspiracy theories about secret deaths and cover-ups are almost certainly untrue. If the CIA found this out they could quite reasonably used this information as leverage to keep them quite. If the Soviets knew America was faking it, what then was the point of faking it? The lunar rendezvous would have been impossible with the technology of the day. How so exactly? NASA had been performing and practicing rendezvous since 1965. Unproven untested craft could ... The spacecraft was not unproven and untested. When you think about it even landing the LM would have been impossible to accurately simulate ... How so exactly? The machine was known and the environment was known, so what’s so hard about simulating the machine’s performance in that environment? Once again could any one answering this post please give some indication to what qualifications or experience you have that supports your comments. I am a civil engineer and a space flight enthusiast and historian. I’ve been studying astronautics since 1995 and the alleged moon-landing hoax since 2001.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 27, 2006 17:53:08 GMT -4
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?
Did they? You of course have evidence to back this statement up.
That they had secret parallel projects going on all the time?
Secret parallel projects is a marvellous term, isn't it? It allows you to just invent whatever scenario you choose. Because it was secret, it could have been anything.
If the CIA found this out they could quite reasonably used this information as leverage to keep them quite.
But if the Russians knew it was being faked why fake it when the stated purpose of Apollo was to demonstrate the superiority of the American capitalist system over Soviet communism? And who's going to be more embarassed: the government that is revealed to be sending people to their deaths in the name of research or the government that is revealed to be pulling off an enormous hoax to make themselves look good before the whole world?
The lunar rendezvous would have been impossible with the technology of the day.
The more you post the more convinced I am that you are the poster formerly known as lunatic. Or is it just coincidence that you and he both think the lunar rendezvous would be the hardest part of the flight? Assuming it is, perhaps you'd care to explain why. Orbital rendezvous was well practiced by the time of Apollo, specifically on Gemini 7/6, Gemini 8, Gemini 9, Gemini 10, Gemini 11, Gemini 12, Apollo 7, Apollo 8, Apollo 9 and Apollo 10. This, by the way, is every single manned flight from Gemini 6 onwards. Now why exactly should it be harder around the Moon than around Earth?
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.
Leaving aside the utterly awful construction of that sentence:
The spacecraft were not unproven or untested. The Apollo capsules and the LM both got unmanned workouts, the launch vehicles were tested thoroughly, and the entire spacecraft stack had been flown several times by the time Apollo 11 landed. Just because each spacecraft can only be used once does not make it untested. If a system is tested and proven to work it is reasonable to assume that a second system built to the same specs in the same way will perform in the same way.
When you think about it even landing the LM would have been impossible to accurately simulate
Why? Lunar gravity is a knnown quantity, and that's all you have to deal with on a lunar landing as there is no re-entry or atmospheric turbulence to complicate matters.
yet they never had a mishap,
Rubbish. Virtually every mission had a mishap of some kind. Do some research.
Please spare me any apples and oranges argument about other projects.
Yep, vintage lunatic.
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.
But was it?
Once again could any one answering this post please give some indication to what qualifications or experience you have that supports your comments.
Only when you give us the information about what qualifications you have that allows you to stand in judgement of Project Apollo and dismiss it as unlikely and fabricated.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 27, 2006 22:04:46 GMT -4
Are any of you familiar with the revelation of the soviet space program
Actually I'm veryfamiliar with the Soviet space program.
how they sent people to their almost certain deaths in the name of space research?
Baloney. The only deaths in the program, outside of accidents during launches, and air/ground travel, where those in the Soyuz 1 and 11 accidents. (many other people died in Launch pad accidents, and several others were killed in plane and traffic accidents, but NASA suffered the same problems quite openly, The Crew of Apollo 1 dying in a launch pad accident, at least three others killed in plane crashes.)
That they had secret parallel projects going on all the time?
Baloney. They kept all their projects secret to a degree, but they never ran any deep secert parrallel projects to the ones they had going. They hardly had the funding to run the four programs they were doing.
If the CIA found this out they could quite reasonably used this information as leverage to keep them quite.
Since the first bit is bollocks this is just speculation on bollocks.
Or could have NASA simply copied them?
More speculation on bollocks
The lunar rendezvous would have been impossible with the technology of the day.
Hogwash. There is no fundamental difference between lunar orbit rendezvous and Earth orbit rendezvous except one is around the moon and one is around the Earth. Both the Soviets and the Americans had shown Earth Orbit rendezvous to be easily acheived with there technology and practice.
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..
The LM and CSM were tested. Apollo 5, 9, 10. All pilots were well practiced in simulators, and many had been involved in the Gemini program and had done dockings in space previously. You're specking through a hole in your hat.
When you think about it even landing the LM would have been impossible to accurately simulate yet they never had a mishap
More bollocks. The LLTV and LLRV flew well over 100 successful missions. They were prototype equipment though and so did have problems. They were however just simulators and worked exceedingly well.
don't you think this is extremely unlikely, that again a totally untested piece of hardware would be so reliable?
Again, it wasn't untested. It was tested unmanned on Apollo 5, and Manned on Apollo 9,10 and 11.
Please spare me any apples and oranges argument about other projects.
I have, the only other project referanced was Gemini which was specifically designed to train and test docking in space for the Apollo Missions.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Oct 28, 2006 2:48:24 GMT -4
The lunar rendezvous would have been impossible with the technology of the day... Once again could any one answering this post please give some indication to what qualifications or experience you have that supports your comments. I only recently learnt from part one of the DVD set, From the Earth to the Moon, that because of a breakdown during the Gemini 12 mission, Buzz Aldrin ("Dr Rendezvous") used a sextant and paper charts to help Jim Lovell rendezvous with Agena target vehicle. Apparently these tools were deliberately provided in case of just such a breakdown. I intend to find out more about this, but perhaps, Heavenlybody, you could explain to us why a sextant and a paper charts couldn't work for affecting rendezvous -- why they were not adequate technology. I have absolutely no qualifications at all that support my comments, except that when I discuss photgraphy I have developed a fairly good understanding of the subject since 1968, 15 years as a professional, and have been studying space travel off and on since I stepped outside about 25 metres from where I am now and watched Sputnik 1 pass overhead in October 1957. Heavenlybody, one of your points confuses me. Do you actually believe that all of the manned American spaceflights were trouble-free? That nothing ever went wrong?
|
|
Eddie Hitler
Mercury
Edward "Eddie" Elizabeth Hitler (at right)
Posts: 23
|
Post by Eddie Hitler on Oct 28, 2006 9:13:06 GMT -4
Hi. I'm new here and a thoroughly addicted member of the Space Geeks society! I am also throughly satisfied that Apollo landed on the Surface of the moon.
Pardon me for courting controversy, but there is a sizeable proportion of the planet's population who believe that, about 2000 years ago, a man was born in Bethlehem to a woman who was a virgin, and then over the course of his life, brought a man back to life, fed 5000 people with nothing but a few fish and loaves, then finished off by dying, then coming back to life.
Odd that they believe that on the premise of a book with almost no empirical evidence. It seems even stranger to me that that a moon landing - sorry - a series of moonlandings with thousands of pieces of empirical evidence proving absolutely that they took place, is seen as a hoax. It is even stranger that the evidence for this "hoax" has even less solid evidence that the existance of Jesus. Faith is a curious thing?!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Oct 29, 2006 5:03:06 GMT -4
Yeah, but then Caesar's Gallic wars also have less empirical evidence than the life of Jesus, and people don't have any problem believing in those ...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 29, 2006 21:34:29 GMT -4
IIRC, There are a sum total of 7 handwritten historical manuscripts of Caeser's war in Gaul. It's the second most number of any manuscript known.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 30, 2006 3:22:10 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure that Apollo 9 and 10 also did the DM/AM separation. Apollo 11 did the separation while sitting on solid ground. Plus the Apollo 5 unmanned LM test.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 30, 2006 3:28:14 GMT -4
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? Their entire programme was secret, only revealing what they wanted to reveal. However, amateur trackers like the Kettering School group provided pretty good data on what was really going on once it got to the flight stage. They didn't deliberately send people "to their almost certain deaths", any more than the US did, though like the US there were events which in hindsight were needlessly risky, Soyuz 1 and Apollo 1 being the chief examples. However, it's worth noting that the pre-flight reservations that people had about Soyuz 1 didn't include worries about the parachute system that actually caused the accident. If you want my qualifications, I'm an aerospace engineer with some 40 years professional experience.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlybody on Oct 31, 2006 14:11:35 GMT -4
Did any of you hear that the first casualty of war is the truth? Take a moment and try to imagine the American war in Vietnam in the late sixties. Then open your mind up to the indisputable fact that the USA and all other credible world powers past and present have departments of propaganda. During times of war it is their duty to produce films, photographs and literature to assist the war efforts some of it true some of is disinformation. Is it that implausible that the riches nation with the most advanced TV special effect equipment in the world. Could produce these images that we are offered? Or they pulled off a ten thousand to one shot over and over again live on TV? It is almost insulting to our intelligence to suggest otherwise. We are not disputing the existence of project Apollo only that parts of is may not have happened exactly the way that they were recorded. We suspect there are varied versions of events surrounding the Cesar's campaigns in Gaul and some of it will be disinformation without doubt. This is the point you all seem to deliberately miss.
Let me ask how long was the longest period of time in hours that the LM was not in the spit roast affect? Was the first attempt at an earth orbit rendezvous successful? How could they possibly tested the LM in a realistic environment?
I have no idea how many Laotians think the sun goes around the earth there has been no survey I no of.
Moderator, phantomwolf truly is of canine intelligence. Is using the word bollocks, in any way scientific or appropriate? Can it be taken any other way but in the derogatory fashion that it was intended? Please ban this poster from this thread, their comments and attitude are unwanted here. I think I can speak for every reasonable human being one this planet that foul language is unacceptable in the debating area and anyone using it should be banned or at least warned.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 31, 2006 14:46:13 GMT -4
Yes, it is implausible because all existing evidence indicates the images are authentic.
Reliability studies performed by Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in the mid-1960s estimated the odds of success at not less than 90%.
The LM never used a passive thermal control roll, except as a consequence of it being docked to the CSM.
Yes
By putting it into a realistic environment, which they did during the Apollo 5, 9, 10 and 11 missions.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2006 15:56:47 GMT -4
Did any of you hear that the first casualty of war is the truth?
And how do we know this? Because the truth inevitably comes out after a time.
But once again we are back to ‘governments lie, therefore everything from a government is a lie’. It’s weak and utterly fallacious.
Then open your mind up to the indisputable fact that the USA and all other credible world powers past and present have departments of propaganda.
Irrelevant. Having a propaganda department is not proof that something is propaganda.
Is it that implausible that the riches nation with the most advanced TV special effect equipment in the world. Could produce these images that we are offered?
Yes, and there are plenty of reasons why listed in other threads on this board, lunatic. Oh, I’m sorry, I meant heavenlybody.
Or they pulled off a ten thousand to one shot over and over again live on TV?
Firstly, what do you base your estimate of the odds on?
Secondly, they failed on the third attempt, but since that tarnishes your portrait of impossible success rates you’ll overlook that.
We are not disputing the existence of project Apollo only that parts of is may not have happened exactly the way that they were recorded. We suspect there are varied versions of events surrounding the Cesar's campaigns in Gaul and some of it will be disinformation without doubt.
Who is we? This is the point you all seem to deliberately miss.
No, we do not miss it at all. It is you that misses the point that it is not enough to say that because there are instances of disinformation in other events there must be in Apollo. Forget the others and examine the evidence of Apollo. That is what we are doing: dealing with the facts of the case in question.
Let me ask how long was the longest period of time in hours that the LM was not in the spit roast affect?
The three days on the lunar surface in the later missions was the longest time the LM was subjected to solar heating while static in relation to the sun (in as much as it can be static for three days on an orbiting body).
Was the first attempt at an earth orbit rendezvous successful?
Now if you don’t know the answer to that how can you judge the odds of success in Apollo?
Yes, the first attempt at rendezvous was a total success. And so was
EVERY
SINGLE
SUBSEQUENT
ATTEMPT.
And this is not just true of NASA’s programs either. The Russian space program also successfully accomplished rendezvous on the first attempt and on every other attempt.
How could they possibly tested the LM in a realistic environment?
By putting it in a vacuum chamber. Hey presto, you can see if it works in a vacuum.
By flying it in space in Earth orbit with no crew. Hey presto, you’ve shown it can fly in space.
By flying it in Earth orbit with a crew. Hey presto you’ve shown it can be flown by a human crew in space.
By flying it in lunar orbit.
Finally by landing it. That’s a key point. The first landing was in and of itself a test flight for the LM.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 31, 2006 17:11:15 GMT -4
Did any of you hear that the first casualty of war is the truth? Take a moment and try to imagine the American war in Vietnam in the late sixties. Then open your mind up to the indisputable fact that the USA and all other credible world powers past and present have departments of propaganda. During times of war it is their duty to produce films, photographs and literature to assist the war efforts some of it true some of is disinformation.
Irrelevant, unless you have specific evidence that any part of Apollo was faked. Merely appealing to the general notion of governmental dishonesty does not support claims of fakery.
Is it that implausible that the riches nation with the most advanced TV special effect equipment in the world. Could produce these images that we are offered?
No, not at all. They produced those images by going to the Moon with cameras.
Oh, you meant "fake" those images? No, the Apollo imagery record is massive, thoroughly documented against mission timelines, and inclusive of too many details clearly produced in a true lunar environment. This includes correlated motion and high-resolution still imagery produced over lunar scenes ranging over hundreds upon hundreds of meters across.
Or they pulled off a ten thousand to one shot over and over again live on TV?
What is your exact basis for your "ten thousand to one" figure? No handwaving, please. If you do not have quantitative work to back this up, then please explain what relevant expertise you possess to have us regard your opinion as authoritative.
It is almost insulting to our intelligence to suggest otherwise.
It is not insulting to the intelligence of an informed person to point out that the real world can be harder to fake in great detail than to actually explore.
We are not disputing the existence of project Apollo only that parts of is may not have happened exactly the way that they were recorded.
Which parts, exactly, and why, exactly?
We suspect there are varied versions of events surrounding the Cesar's campaigns in Gaul and some of it will be disinformation without doubt. This is the point you all seem to deliberately miss.
Not at all. We understand your general appeal to the notion of governmental untruthfulness. The problem is that is beside the point unless you have something more than handwaving to connect it to Apollo.
Let me ask how long was the longest period of time in hours that the LM was not in the spit roast affect?
Once again, it's called "Passive Thermal Control (PTC) Roll" or more informally "barbecue roll". I could look it up, but I've been doing a lot of explaining for you without any acknowledgment on your part - for instance, my responses in posts 31, 33, and 42.
Was the first attempt at an earth orbit rendezvous successful?
The first actual attempted rendezvous, of Gemini 6 and 7 in 1965, was successful. The first attempted docking, of Gemini 8 and a target vehicle in 1966, was also successful.
How could they possibly tested the LM in a realistic environment?
In addition to the usual lengthy subsystem and other development tests, the entire vehicle was tested in thermal/vacuum chambers on the ground. I've used Chamber B at JSC, and Chamber A is even larger and more impressive.
Moreover, the LM was also tested by crews in space prior to the first landing on Apollo 9 and Apollo 10; in the latter mission the LM flew a lunar descent and ascent without touching down. It doesn't get more realistic than that.
I have no idea how many Laotians think the sun goes around the earth there has been no survey I no of.
Well, I'm sure plenty of them do, which is no particular knock on Laotians. Ignorance knows no boundaries, political or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 31, 2006 18:17:01 GMT -4
Since others have admirably sliced the rest, I'll just deal to this nonsense.
Moderator, phantomwolf truly is of canine intelligence.
Hmmm, first moaning to the Mods and then following it up with a personal attack, well done.
Is using the word bollocks, in any way scientific or appropriate?
Yes and yes. It meaning, though a slang term, is nonsense and is no more offensive in that usage than "hogwash," "baloney," or "horsehockey"
Can it be taken any other way but in the derogatory fashion that it was intended?
Yes it can, do a quick Google search on it's meaning. It is generally used as slang to refer to something being nonsensical.
Please ban this poster from this thread, their comments and attitude are unwanted here.
You mean you don't welcome being told in no uncertain terms you are wrong. I guess without Jay to fire at you're after me now?
I think I can speak for every reasonable human being one this planet that foul language is unacceptable in the debating area and anyone using it should be banned or at least warned.
I'd agree with you if I had used foul language, but since Bollocks isn't, how about you address the answers to to the points you raised in your previous postings rather then totally ignore the responses and moan at the colloquialisms used.
|
|