|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 30, 2011 12:34:40 GMT -4
I'd point out all this on this YT page if I weren't still blocked. I think many of us are. He really doesn't like criticism from people who actually know this stuff. Indeed, that's why he rarely ventures out into the real world, and never for very long. Amazing how his viewers don't pick up on the fact that having to revise his claims is tantamount to admitting he used the wrong kind of rocket before, and therefore how broken and uninformed his expectations are.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 30, 2011 12:29:28 GMT -4
He also neglects to point out that the orange glow in the delta video is almost all contained inside the top end of the departing first stage, whether from reflection or just collection of exhaust. From flow effects as the plume impinges on the departing stage. This is not an ignition transient, but rather a steady-state behavior as the plume's thermal and fluid behaviors accommodate obstacles. Absent the obstacle, you don't get incandescence. Still apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 30, 2011 12:24:25 GMT -4
and says the ascent engine should also do this.... It did.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 30, 2011 1:31:59 GMT -4
Can I ask a question? Jarrah White has a video up that uses the orange glow from the delta video to say the Lunar Modules should also have one.....why does the delta video have one....but not the ascent stages? Mostly because Jarrah's rocket is being fired in an atmosphere. Any rocket firing in an atmosphere is more likely to show an incandescent and/or opaque plume compared to the same rocket firing in a vacuum because ambient pressure keeps the plume from expanding and losing both density and heat. I don't watch Jarrah's videos. The lower stage of the Delta uses a completely different propellant than the LM APS. It uses RP-1 (kerosene), which burns with the bright orange, smoky flame. That's completely different than the Aerozine-50 and nitrogen tetroxide burned in the LM. Ironically the Delta II second stage first used surplus LM ascent motors, then new motors built to the same design by a different company. When you see them burning at high altitude and in a rarefied atmosphere, they don't show an orange glow -- or any visible plume. In fact, very few upper stages (firing in a practical vacuum) show a visible plume at steady state.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 30, 2011 1:26:01 GMT -4
This writer is very interesting because he is so unique. [...] I notice there is no support for him. That's right, Patrick. Try to work out why.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 30, 2011 1:24:25 GMT -4
This seems mostly wrong because the Jarrah White You Tube films cannot be all wrong. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 29, 2011 16:17:45 GMT -4
Some degree of crunching was considered nominal, so that the ladder would be positioned low enough. The problem Apollo 11 had was that no telescoping occurred, the engine having been run all the way to hard touchdown. Hence the ladder was up too high on the forward strut and Armstrong had to make sure he could get back in the LM before continuing his EVA.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 29, 2011 12:24:04 GMT -4
WHY don't i believe landing on the moon was possible You realize that you aren't competent in any of the sciences that are relevant to those points. You realize that the people who are properly qualified in them unanimously believe the Moon landings happened. Is it still your position that the people whose belief is well informed are nevertheless part of some "church" of NASA? 1) radiation beltsYou display no understanding of radiation, and the one expert you attempted to cite to support your position has publicly and explicitly repudiated your belief. 2) no crater under lmNor should there be. The expectation of a large crater comes from ignorance. 3) no stars in cislunar spaceRefuted ad nauseam. Your position is that stars should be absolutely visible or invisible. Our position is that it varies from circumstance to circumstance. You have simply ignored all the evidence for circumstantial variation, even though that's what all your own evidence suggests. 4) lm design was a disasterHow many spacecraft designs have you personally worked on? I've worked on several. Which of us do you think is most qualified to determine whether a spacecraft design is valid? 5) didn't have necessary computing power for lmHow much was "necessary" and why? Do you realize that the Gemini spacecraft had only a rudimentary computer, and that the Mercury and Vostok spacecraft had none? Clearly flying in space does not require a computer; it's just helpful to have one. 6) mylar / kapton film - no damageYou simply beg the question that there should have been. 7) struts too weakComputations, please? 8) America could not have a dead astronaut on the moon, but had to complete the goalPure supposition. 9) NASA run by militaryFactually false. But even if true, it does not follow that Apollo was hoaxed. 10) Nixon resignsNixon was irrelevant to Apollo. All the preparations happened before he was elected. Further, if Apollo had been hoaxed and he discovered it, he was well-motivated to expose the hoax in order to embarrass his political rivals Kennedy and Johnson. 11) footprints without inclusions...Demonstrated otherwise. You're simply running down the list of long-debunked arguments you copied from various web sites. No original thought whatsoever, and no intelligence applied. Doesn't yours sound more like a "church" belief than those grounded in fact and science?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 29, 2011 12:12:48 GMT -4
so around and around we go, I'll stick with radiation dangerous. "Dangerous" does not mean "Need to fake a Moon landing." Hoax theorists take that juxtaposed comment from Van Allen and apply their own judgment to conclude that Van Allen really meant to preclude the Moon landings. I have in my possession a physical paper letter signed by James Van Allen himself confirming that he has specifically repudiated the notion that the Van Allen belts would have prevented the Apollo missions or have been a danger to the astronauts. In other words, there is no going around and around on this point -- Prof. Van Allen's opinion on the hoax theory is absolutely, unmistakably specific and clear. Any attempt to suggest that Van Allen supports the hoax theory by anything he has said or done is automatically dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 27, 2011 14:08:49 GMT -4
Why would anyone want to deal with a person like that? Actually few people do. He charges an enormous appearance fee and isn't very cordial.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 27, 2011 13:44:55 GMT -4
Don't you mean Aldrin rather the the second Sibrel? Er, yeah. Thanks, the coffee hasn't brewed yet.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 27, 2011 13:30:46 GMT -4
So what I'm wondering is who these "experts" are, why you blindly believed them, and why yo uand they make these ridiculous claims. Can you answer this? The person in question is Jay Weidner. And no, he's not an expert. He's just yet another YooToober who makes hoax videos, ignores all criticism, steals other people's material (including mine), and never ventures out into the real world. His particular obsession is the alleged Kubrick connection.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 27, 2011 13:25:20 GMT -4
Read years ago from the court proceedings where Sibrel's case was thrown out because the Judge also thought he was a slimeball. It was on Groklaw for a week or so after the incident, but has since been removed as it is no longer relevant. In Sibrel's statement to the prosecuting attorney, he said that it was his plan to offer Sibrel [e.t.a.] Aldrin an honorarium to appear on the program, and then accuse him on camera for being dishonest in taking an honorarium for something he never did.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 24, 2011 0:05:44 GMT -4
Then tell me where a shadowed area can be seen? Tell me what you measured or estimated the phase angle to be?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2011 14:15:09 GMT -4
Antipode is sufficiently generic.
|
|