|
Post by heavenlybody on Nov 2, 2006 5:50:14 GMT -4
Just saying the US propaganda department is irrelevant to this subject is hand waving.
The entire premise of our argument is that the US propaganda department produced this event. They would be the only people with the recourses and power to have pulled it of. And regarding the truth coming out in time, is that not exactly what has been happening over the last 40 years or so. The we, is myself along with the countless millions that also think that going to the moon on a giant fire work guided by Casio calculator watches is not realistic. Just how many Americans believe that the moon landings were faked? Following some poster logic you must all be the same person as you believe the same thing post in the same style and dance to the same tune. Not one of you could possibly be 100% sure that every single part of project Apollo was what is claimed. There is a remote possibility no matter what. I am sure that if they got their heads together those clever men at NASA could have put it all together on paper cast iron stuff, if I was to find some anomalies in the physics it would be via fluke, a chink in the amour you might say.
I think that keeping the LM cool once it was detached from the CSM, is all guess work.
You have all suggested different methods.
sts60
answer post#31
By saying sycophant was referring to the poster hplasm
« Reply #18 on Oct 16, 2006, 12:37pm » For some reason,the HB community seems scared of Clavius in general, and Jay Utah in particular.
Guess they know when they are outclassed...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have learned to use the word 'impossible' with the greatest caution." W.V-Braun
JayUtah- the VanHelsing of Hoax Believers
hplasm is a sycophant to jayutah by definition.
What difference would it make to the LM how high the sun was in the lunar sky? It would have been in direct line from the sun so if it is near or on the lunar surface it will still receive the same amount of solar radiation, well even more as some will be reflected/deflected of the lunar surface too. plus heat from crew members and other heat generating systems on board the LM and let us not forget what ever heating the rocket motor would have caused on its decent. Followed by 72 hours of direct solar radiation, it would have had to have been as effective in any orientation as they would not know which direction it would be facing when it landed. I am still not convinced that it would have worked.
As far as testing the LM in all the critical areas such as decent and landing, maintaining life support on the lunar surface, then accent to the rendezvous. This particular piece of hardware could not have been tested. For example why not attempt to land an unmanned probe first? Evidence is Gus Grisom hanging a lemon on the LM. Then the tragic Apollo 1. This does not sound like a very successful project to me. Yet only a year or so later they had achieved president Kennedy's dream. At the height of the American war in Vietnam. I bit unlikely don't you think?
Gwiz, post #21
Exactly how do you think any three-axis stabilised satellite maintains thermal control? Google up a few pictures of a present-day communications satellite. They all have pretty similar surfaces to the LM, with lots of metallic foil, sometimes shiny, sometimes matt black. Passive thermal control is a well-established technology, it's just that the LM is the only example most people have ever bothered to examine
How many crew members are on board these three-axis stabilized satellites?
I am only answering posts directly that have given some indications as to their credentials or they are rude and inappropriate posters I wish them to leave this thread.
phantomwolf,
Bollocks is a vulgar coarse slang (foul language in plain English) it means testicles. As with most foul language is has found its way in colloquial context as a sign of exasperation or to mean just about any thing the speaker wants it to. We could accuse you of talking out of your pooper, you are talking dodo, or the content of your posts are load of old willies. Like you comparing the LM to a thermos flask, at first I thought you may have a point then I realized the LM had windows. There are much harsher terms we could have chosen you can use your imagination. They are all examples of foul language and are unacceptable to any one with a glimmering of decency. We do not think even these childish terms are expectable they are just examples. They will be delete if asked to do so by the administrator. We are just trying to get our point across sorry of any offence to other posters.
Administrator please ban phantomwolf for using inappropriate vulgar terminology.
|
|
Eddie Hitler
Mercury
Edward "Eddie" Elizabeth Hitler (at right)
Posts: 23
|
Post by Eddie Hitler on Nov 2, 2006 6:33:23 GMT -4
Heavenlybody,
I am slightly perplexed by some of your comments. You have already said that you have little in the way of knowledge of space flight, and yet you are managing to counter all of the well known, documented scientific principles with your absence of knowledge.
I wonder if you have ever heard of a principle called Occam's Razor? This is the principle which states that if a number of theories are set forth for a given occurence, then the simplest is most likely to be true.
If this principle is applied to the Apollo program, then let us compare the two scenarios.
1. The US Government established a body of over 200000 staff and spent the better part of 1000 billion dollars to set up one of the most unsophisticated fakes in history. It used camera trickery, subterfuge, fake rocks, murder, sound stages to make us all think they launched men to the moon, whilst at the same time managing to miss out some really obvious things people would expect to see in space (stars...), and let just one or two of the 200000 people get away with letting on that the whole thing was faked.
2. The US Government established a body of over 200000 staff and spent the better part of 1000 billion dollars to launch a technologically sophisticated rocket to the moon piloted by some of the bravest men ever to live and succeeded, inventing new technologies all the way, and bringing benefits like computers, VCRs, velcro, to all of us.
Can you imagine a movie with a 1 TRILLION dollar budget and a crew of 200000? It would have been AWESOME!!! When you think af all the huge budget films you've enjoyed, if you add all that money together, then it probably doesn't come close to what was spent going to the moon.
All this conjecture over thermal contriol, computing power and petty squabbling about the use of the word "Bollocks" is missing the point. These guys had a huge budget and the inventive spirit to overcome obstacles like Apollo 1, crashing test articles and all the other things they had to do. Its part of developing technology. Lets face it, it IS Rocket Science, but then, they were, and many still are, Rocket Scientists.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 2, 2006 6:39:50 GMT -4
In future you might want to concentrate your efforts more. Going off in fifteen directions at once only makes your posts harder to read. Be that as it may, I'd like to touch on a few items from your last; Just saying the US propaganda department is irrelevant to this subject is hand waving. The entire premise of our argument is that the US propaganda department produced this event. They would be the only people with the recourses and power to have pulled it of. This explains only as much as you already believe it explains. If you accept the official records, the US propaganda machine (as in, actual writers, cartoonists, cameramen, technicians) had the capability to make or direct the making of cheesy cartoons, filler pieces, filtered news events and garish leaflets. It never showed the ability to create a large-scale and near-seamless fake news event; much less the massive amount of material and documentation that came out of Project Apollo. On the other hand, you may believe that the government has in reality a much greater, much more finely-tuned machine, that most of the news we get has been generated by this machine....but at that point, why not believe in global mind-control, or that we are all living in The Matrix? It's sort of the "Ninja in the Room" argument (with apologies to Van Rijn); my proof that there is a Ninja in the room is that I don't see anyone else in the room -- and only a Ninja can be that stealthy. All evidence is the "the government" (whatever that is) does not have and has not had the technical equipment, expertise, personal, facilities, and budget to create a moon hoax. If you wish to argue that they do, you must come up with concrete data as to the existence of these assets. Merely assuming that they are "well hidden" is a circular argument. I am sure that if they got their heads together those clever men at NASA could have put it all together on paper cast iron stuff, if I was to find some anomalies in the physics it would be via fluke, a chink in the amour you might say. But that is not how Apollo was done in the first place. NASA did not design the spacecraft. NASA did not build the spacecraft. NASA did not develop the science used, or the technology used. All of this was done by contractors, civilian scientists, organizations both government and civilian outside of NASA. What was done was not done (except when it was literally) in a vacuum. You forget that scientists have been thinking about space flight for generations before NASA even existed. When Project Apollo took place, it was in an atmosphere of widespread knowledge of the space environment, of current technical solutions, of possible future directions. For every item built for those spacecraft there were a thousand basically similar items proposed by universities, labs, companies, scientific organizations, rocketry clubs, so on and so forth. Really, the information went in the opposite direction. Project Apollo did a large number of very clever things. But the basics, they drew upon what was being thought about, discussed, tried out across academia, across the aerospace business, and around the world. I think that keeping the LM cool once it was detached from the CSM, is all guess work. You have all suggested different methods. Incorrect. What you have is a number of explainers, each with their own focus and their own style of explanation. There was no single "magic solution," no special piece of machinery; thermal control on ALL elements of Project Apollo was a combination of methods fitted to the particulars of certain conditions. What difference would it make to the LM how high the sun was in the lunar sky? It would have been in direct line from the sun so if it is near or on the lunar surface it will still receive the same amount of solar radiation, well even more as some will be reflected/deflected of the lunar surface too. plus heat from crew members and other heat generating systems on board the LM and let us not forget what ever heating the rocket motor would have caused on its decent. Correct as far as the LM goes; actually, the low angle of the sunlight would make it more effective at heating the LM. However, the low angle of the sunlight makes it very ineffective at heating the lunar surface or reflecting off that surface. On Earth, it is quite cold at the poles, and for good reason. As far as testing the LM in all the critical areas such as decent and landing, maintaining life support on the lunar surface, then accent to the rendezvous. Do some research. Separation, descent, return to the CM and relinking was done on Apollo 10; every step but actually touching ground. And life support had been maintained in space since Gagarin. What is the fascination with testing? They do call them _Test_ Pilots for a reason! Down that path lies absurdity. If it is too much to risk trained and capable humans, then we have to risk expensive and costly robots. And if the automation is too expensive and costly to risk, we have to test on a test stand. And if an explosion on the stand (as happened many, many times!) is too much to risk, perhaps we need to test first on paper.... The reality is, of course, that everything IS tested -- to the extent that it is both USEFUL and PRACTICAL. Since the LM is by definition a _manned_ spacecraft (built entirely for one purpose; to put human beings on the Moon), it is not useful to test how effective a completely different design built to be automated and run by radio control over the time delay from Earth might be. The very definition of test is that something is tried for the first time. Like it or not, there is a first time for everything. You can check and recheck everything you can on the ground, but eventually you do have to put it in the air. You have to take some risks. Evidence is Gus Grisom hanging a lemon on the LM. There was no lemon hung on the LM. Spend a minute or two reading something that isn't from your favorite hoax site and you might learn just what Grissom hung a lemon on, and why. Yet only a year or so later they had achieved president Kennedy's dream. "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Listen to his speech some time. He doesn't say "Let's show off how great America is." He says "Let us try to do this thing that has never been done before, because trying to do it will test us to our utmost and call from us the best that we can possibly do." An attitude I do not believe any hoax believer will ever understand. Like you comparing the LM to a thermos flask, at first I thought you may have a point then I realized the LM had windows. Find an old thermos some time. Break it. What is the inner liner made of? Glass.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 2, 2006 6:49:16 GMT -4
Just saying the US propaganda department is irrelevant to this subject is hand waving.
Not at all. You are trying to argue that just because there is a department of propaganda everything is likely to be propaganda. That’s the very definition of handwaving.
But if you want to handwave about propaganda, it does occur to me, and I’m sure several others, that the government of Laos has a motive for wanting to discredit the US government, given the events of a few decades ago. Isn’t Laos now the most heavily bombed place on Earth? And who bombed it?
The entire premise of our argument is that the US propaganda department produced this event. They would be the only people with the recourses and power to have pulled it of.
Demonstrate that they had such resources and power. Demonstrate that they or anyone else could have faked it. Don’t just wave around the abstract possibility that it might have been done, demonstrate that it was done.
The we, is myself along with the countless millions that also think that going to the moon on a giant fire work guided by Casio calculator watches is not realistic.
Well that isn’t realistic. The Saturn V was a precision machine, and the computers were single task devices dedicated solely to the operation of a limited set of instructions. What computing expertise do you have that shows the Apollo computer was inadequate?
Just how many Americans believe that the moon landings were faked?
Who cares? Some believe the Earth is flat, that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific concept or that giant shape-changing reptiles rule the Earth in secret. That doesn’t stop the evidence from saying otherwise.
Following some poster logic you must all be the same person as you believe the same thing post in the same style and dance to the same tune.
But we all have individual styles. You, on the other hand, turn up here with exactly the same posting style, questions and vendetta against one particular individual as someone else who got kicked off.
Not one of you could possibly be 100% sure that every single part of project Apollo was what is claimed.
That does not mean that suddenly any and all objections make the whole story collapse like a house of cards. You cannot be sure it was faked, but you seem dead set against any sensible objections to your theories.
I am sure that if they got their heads together those clever men at NASA could have put it all together on paper cast iron stuff, if I was to find some anomalies in the physics it would be via fluke, a chink in the amour you might say.
Are you a physicist? If not, why are you likely to spot flaws in the physics by fluke before any trained and qualified physicist?
I think that keeping the LM cool once it was detached from the CSM, is all guess work.
Then you’re an idiot, plain and simple. Thermal control is a well known, well practiced, mature science that is applied to many, many applications, from satellites, the ISS, jet engines, and even your domestic refrigerator.
JayUtah- the VanHelsing of Hoax Believers
hplasm is a sycophant to jayutah by definition.
Now given that JayUtah has not posted here ever since you showed up with the name heavenlybody, how exactly would you know about him and his posting style on these boards?
What difference would it make to the LM how high the sun was in the lunar sky?
If you don’t know the answer to that you really have no business whatsoever discussing thermal control and dismissing the methods used in Apollo as guesswork. The amount of heat absorbed by an object depends on the angle of incidence of the solar radiation on the surfaces. If the sun is just above the lunar horizon directly behind the LM then the back panel is getting the suns rays full in the face, so to speak, and will heat up quickly. The top of the LM is just being grazed by the sun’s rays and will heat up much more slowly. If the sun is, say, 22.5 degrees above the horizon then both the back and the top may receive the incident sunlight at 45 degrees to their surfaces and hence will warm up about the same as each other. This is the same reason that the average temperatures on Earth decrease with increasing latitude. The poles get continual sunlight for months on end, yet are the coldest places on Earth because that sunlight strikes the ground at such an oblique angle.
it would have had to have been as effective in any orientation as they would not know which direction it would be facing when it landed.
Rubbish. Why do you think the crew would have been incapable of orienting it? The LM always landed with the back facing the sun.
As far as testing the LM in all the critical areas such as decent and landing, maintaining life support on the lunar surface, then accent to the rendezvous. This particular piece of hardware could not have been tested.
We just explained to you exactly what testing regime was applied to the LM.
For example why not attempt to land an unmanned probe first?
Because the LM was not designed to land without a crew aboard.
How many unmanned flights does the average passenger jet go through? And yet someone has to get in the cockpit, take it up and try to land it. That’s a test-pilot’s job. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were test pilots, and they test-flew the LM to its first landing. Dangerous and risky? Absolutely, but that’s their job.
Evidence is Gus Grisom hanging a lemon on the LM.
He didn’t. He hung a lemon on the simulator for the command module because the designers were not keeping the simulator up to date. Gus Grissom never had anything to do with the LM.
Then the tragic Apollo 1.
Again, nothing to do with the LM at all.
This does not sound like a very successful project to me.
Oh no! Something went wrong right near the start of the program! It must be doomed for all time.
Good grief.
Yet only a year or so later they had achieved president Kennedy's dream.
Apollo 1 was January 1967. Apollo 11 was July 1969. That’s two-and-a-half years, not one. If you can’t get the basics right please don’t be so shocked that we’re not taking you seriously.
You are talking to a bunch of people who have spent years studying this subject.
At the height of the American war in Vietnam.
What has that to do with anything?
How many crew members are on board these three-axis stabilized satellites?
Irrelevant. The point is that these satellites sit in continual sunlight in the same orientation for hours, days, months or even years on end without overheating. They achieve thermal equilibrium. If they can do it, why not the LM for only a few days in the sun?
I am only answering posts directly that have given some indications as to their credentials
Fine. Give us yours.
or they are rude and inappropriate posters I wish them to leave this thread.
Tough. That decision is not your to make. If you want to ignore posters then feel free, but constant calls for getting them banned will not work, and if they are not banned they are free to post here whenever they choose. Live with it.
Like you comparing the LM to a thermos flask, at first I thought you may have a point then I realized the LM had windows.
Two very small windows. How much trouble do you think these would cause for thermal control?
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 2, 2006 8:06:12 GMT -4
The we, is myself along with the countless millions that also think that going to the moon on a giant fire work guided by Casio calculator watches is not realistic. So what does the real thing look like? It would be a miracle, not a fluke, judging by the level of scientific knowledge you have displayed so far. Good for you. Fortunately, you don't work in the aerospace field then. guess your dictionary doesn't have sycophant in it as well as bollocks. If I said "Holy Water is the Death of Vampires" , would that make me a sycophantic fan of holy water? No. Your definitions are weak at best, please don't do the usual HB tactic of playing semantics- you won't win. Simple physics of radiant heat transfer. Look it up. This has been done to death. Read the threads. Like Surveyor? You really are doing yourself no favours- do some research before blethering on thoughtlessly. More Yarbles... ( look it up...) Still wrong. dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=bollocksWho is 'we' ? Are you a groupmind? What is a POOPER? Not what you think... www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=POOPER&p=dictA talking Dodo- that would be quite a find Even one that didn't talk, but could type- wow! Willies? The posts are scary? dictionary.reference.com/browse/williesWooo! Woooo! Hmm- some are... I think this belongs in the hall of fame! ;D The rest, well, basically it's just a load of dingo's kidneys. Oh just assimilate us and get it over with..... PhantomWolf- please stick to appropriate vulgar teminology. Now if you will excuse me, I have some sycophanting to do. My elephant is sick. In the gonads.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Nov 2, 2006 8:30:58 GMT -4
More Yarbles... ( look it up...) No need, droog. I've never viddied such a zammechat bezoomny load of cal. I need to cheest my mozg. Word. Appy polly loggies to Mr Burgess.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 2, 2006 10:01:08 GMT -4
More Yarbles... ( look it up...) No need, droog. I've never viddied such a zammechat bezoomny load of cal. I need to cheest my mozg. Word. Appy polly loggies to Mr Burgess. Thanks Cavorite! Cal was the very word I was looking for! ;D
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Nov 2, 2006 10:05:46 GMT -4
The lunar rendezvous would have been impossible with the technology of the day. Again, specifically which piece - rocket fuel, wire insulation, zippers, machine screws - was missing in the sixties and seventies that would have been crucial to success? 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 parent of three young children, and have considerable patience in answering their sometimes hilarious questions resulting from their simple ignorance and childish imaginations.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 2, 2006 11:53:02 GMT -4
Just saying the US propaganda department is irrelevant to this subject is hand waving.
No. I said it was irrelevant unless you have specific evidence that any part of Apollo was faked.
The entire premise of our argument is that the US propaganda department produced this event.
Yes, and we are waiting for you to back up that claim.
They would be the only people with the recourses and power to have pulled it of.
Putting aside the fact that there is no single "US propaganda department", you have yet to explain what "recourses [sic] and power" it would take to pull off such a hoax. It's been repeatedly pointed out on this board that it was impossible to fake many aspects of Apollo, and why, and it's been explained in fair detail. Appealing to the general notion of fakery does not support your premise.
And regarding the truth coming out in time, is that not exactly what has been happening over the last 40 years or so.
Nonsense. International knowledge of the space environment, the Moon, and spacecraft and space operations has expanded vastly over the past 40 years. There are far more spacefaring nations now than during Apollo, and far more spacecraft operating successfully which rely on space environmental data largely developed by NASA and under NASA auspices.
The we, is myself along with the countless millions that also think that going to the moon on a giant fire work guided by Casio calculator watches is not realistic.
So? Countless millions of people are similarly ignorant about the Earth going around the Sun, or think that viruses can be cured with antibiotics. In any case, your statement is based on gross mischaracterizations ("firework", "Casio calculator watches").
Just how many Americans believe that the moon landings were faked?
I don't know. It's irrelevant to the truth of whether it happened or not.
Following some poster logic you must all be the same person as you believe the same thing post in the same style and dance to the same tune.
Our posting styles are different. As for "dancing to the same tune", the same could be said about hoax believers. But that doesn't make you all the same person either.
Not one of you could possibly be 100% sure that every single part of project Apollo was what is claimed.
That's an invalid standard of proof. The same can be said about any large engineering project. Would you care to discuss a specific example?
There is a remote possibility no matter what.
Meaningless. Would you care to discuss a specific example?
I am sure that if they got their heads together those clever men at NASA could have put it all together on paper cast iron stuff, if I was to find some anomalies in the physics it would be via fluke, a chink in the amour you might say.
Would you care to discuss a specific example?
And would those "clever men" (and women) be able to fool not only all the world's scientists and engineers of the day but also those of the future? How, exactly?
I think that keeping the LM cool once it was detached from the CSM, is all guess work.
You have all suggested different methods.
Handwaving. The thermal control approach for the LM was laid out for you in reasonable detail. If you would like to make a specific claim as to why it couldn't have worked, feel free.
What difference would it make to the LM how high the sun was in the lunar sky? It would have been in direct line from the sun so if it is near or on the lunar surface it will still receive the same amount of solar radiation, well even more as some will be reflected/deflected of the lunar surface too.
The difference is that the LM has to reflect heat and radiate it away to the "heat sink" of the environment. Deep space, with an effective radiative heat sink temperature a few Kelvins, doesn't change, but the lunar surface does. The insolation on the lunar surface is lower when the Sun is low in the sky; combined with the duration since sunrise, this means that the lunar surface is a better heat sink during the mission than it was later in the lunar day.
plus heat from crew members and other heat generating systems on board the LM
The passive thermal control was designed with this in mind, and so was the active sublimative cooling system.
and let us not forget what ever heating the rocket motor would have caused on its decent.
Minimal. Most of the heat was carried away from the LM.
Followed by 72 hours of direct solar radiation, it would have had to have been as effective in any orientation as they would not know which direction it would be facing when it landed.
Which is why there was a thermal control layer around the LM, not just one side of it, and the LM's landing azimuth was controlled by the pilots. It didn't just randomly spin down.
I am still not convinced that it would have worked.
Yes, we know that. When you have a specific, quantitative claim to make as to why the thermal control was inadequate, feel free to post it for discussion.
As far as testing the LM in all the critical areas such as decent and landing, maintaining life support on the lunar surface, then accent to the rendezvous. This particular piece of hardware could not have been tested.
Wrong. We've already discussed the testing history the LM, which included descent and ascent on A10. Landing legs were deployed before descent; the contact switches and shock absorption were tested on the ground. And the surface environment had already been characterized by Surveyor, so that the thermal control system could be designed appropriately and tested in thermal/vacuum chambers.
For example why not attempt to land an unmanned probe first?
There was discussion as to doing this. But the LM was designed to be flown "man-in-the-loop". Modifying the LM to land unmanned would have required expensive and time-consuming modifications, which would not have tested the actual way it would have been flown. The idea was dropped.
Evidence is Gus Grisom hanging a lemon on the LM.
Doubly wrong. Grissom hung a lemon on a simulator of the command module. The reason was because the simulator had lagged behind in fidelity to the real CM at the time.
Then the tragic Apollo 1. This does not sound like a very successful project to me.
The lessons of the AS-204 fire were incorporated into the program. Every man launched into space on Apollo (as well as Mercury and Gemini) was recovered safely. 27*24 went to the Moon (A8, A10-A17) and 12 walked upon it (A11, A12-A17). Hundreds of kilograms of differentiated samples were returned, along with an enormous carefully correlated imagery record, and a wide variety of environmental and selenological experiments were conducted - some of these experiments returned data for years, so much data that it hasn't all been processed. Our understanding of the Moon, the cislunar environment, the Earth's development, and space flight operations were advanced enormously. Many of the managment, scientific, and technical approaches developed during Apollo and its precursors are in wide international use today.
That sounds like a tremendously successful program to me.
Yet only a year or so later they had achieved president Kennedy's dream.
Apollo started before Kennedy was elected.
At the height of the American war in Vietnam. I bit unlikely don't you think?
No. Why specifically should I find it unlikely? Vietnam did not even enter the public consciouness in any big way until after Apollo was well underway. The effects of the war in Vietnam were only to draw public support away from the government and hasten the end of the program. It had nothing to do with the technical development of Apollo.
How many crew members are on board these three-axis stabilized satellites?
Anywhere from 2 to 10, depending on various configurations of Soyuz, Shuttle, and ISS (plus Shuttle-ISS docked). They are governed by the same thermal control principles that applied to Apollo, and which apply to every unmanned spacecraft from DirecTV satellites to the SOHO solar observatory.
*See Jason's correction below.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 2, 2006 12:55:59 GMT -4
Every man launched into space on Apollo (as well as Mercury and Gemini) was recovered safely. 27 went to the Moon
24 went to the Moon. Three men went twice: Jim Lovell (A8, A13), John Young (A10, A16) and Gene Cernan (A10, A17).
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 2, 2006 13:58:52 GMT -4
Arrrrgh! I did it again! Thanks, Jason.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 2, 2006 16:12:59 GMT -4
PhantomWolf- please stick to appropriate vulgar teminology.Thanks for the support and the laugh. As of Heavenlybody's last post I have to admit that I'm sure certain suspicions are right, the use of certain phases and styles as well as attacks on certain posters are just far too much co-incidence to be otherwise. Since I have no wish to go round the proverbial bush (omg that can mean something terrible too) I'm not going to bother waiting for the concrete domes to come up again and instead I'm going to devote my energies elsewhere, though I'll still be reading this thread for the laugh. One last point before I go though. HB (ironic intials there) demands to know people's qualifications, well I thought it might be useful having the HP's list: Bart Sibrel - Cameraman Bill Kaysing - Author and Librarian Ralph Rene - Self Taught and self claimed engineer (I'd note that he holds no formal training or licence, one might as well be a Self-Taught Doctor) James Collier - Journalist David Percy - Studio Photographer Jack White - Studio Photographer Wow. Not a Photoanalyst, Geologist, Chemist, Physicist, Areospace Engineer, or trained Engineer among them. Strange then that their opinons and unsubstanciated claims seem more worthy of unquestioningness to hb than the evidence presented by Photoanalysts, Geologists, Chemists, Physicists, Areospace Engineers, and real Engineers from all over the world. Oh well. Have fun going around the merry-go-round.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 2, 2006 16:43:02 GMT -4
heavenlybody,
Look what you did to PhantomWolf! You have no honor!
*crosses arms and turns back to heavenlybody*
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 2, 2006 19:35:45 GMT -4
Look what you did to PhantomWolf!What did (s)he do, except bore me? The only reasons I'm pulling out of this thread is that I can't be bothered going in circles again, and doing so removes the sidetracking issue that seems to have evolved, other than that, I'm happy to carry on fighting the bollocks that gets spewed by CT's elsewhere in the forum.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Nov 2, 2006 20:26:12 GMT -4
HB (ironic intials there) demands to know people's qualifications, well I thought it might be useful having the HP's list: Bart Sibrel - Cameraman Bill Kaysing - Author and Librarian Ralph Rene - Self Taught and self claimed engineer (I'd note that he holds no formal training or licence, one might as well be a Self-Taught Doctor) James Collier - Journalist David Percy - Studio Photographer Jack White - Studio Photographer Butbut, you are ignoring what the Fox special says: Bill Kaysing - Analyst and Engineer Ralph Rene: Author and Physicist (!) Brian O'Leary: NASA Astronaut and science advisor David Percy - Award-winning film-maker and photographer Bart Sibrel - Investigative journalist (doesn't that title actually require a college degree as well?) Yes, I just subjected myself to it. I need a drink.
|
|