|
Post by sts60 on Nov 29, 2011 16:53:39 GMT -4
7) struts too weakWrong again. They were plenty robust for the job, and somewhere on this board are some simple calculations I did demonstrating just how much margin they had for the landing load. Yes. Did any of the LM struts telescope on landing? The LM legs had elaborately designed crunchable metal honeycomb shock absorbers, and the ladder was even shortened just in case they were needed. But as far as I know, they never were. Is that right? Which landing was hardest, Apollo 15? I wonder how much harder it would have to have been to crunch the honeycomb absorbers. I looked up this simple calculation from some time back, showing that the load from shutting the engine off six feet (~2 m) above the surface was well within the design parameters of the two-stage shock absorption system.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 29, 2011 13:20:39 GMT -4
so around and around we go, I'll stick with radiation dangerous. "Dangerous" does not mean "Need to fake a Moon landing."... Radon is a radioactive gas. It's dangerous. I have a pump in my home specifically installed for the purpose of mitigating this hazard. I'm pretty sure I actually live in my home. And regularly step outside into ionizing UV radiation from the Sun, too.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 29, 2011 11:21:17 GMT -4
WHY don't i believe landing on the moon was possible 1) radiation beltsYou've already demonstrated that (a) you couldn't tell electricity from radiation, and that you weren't even aware of the belts when you started this thread. In reality, the actual doses measured for the crews were very low, and the same data is validated constantly by spacecraft operators. Of course, if you want to make a quantitative evaluation of how much of a dose should have been expected, be my guest. Certainly with all those science degrees, it should be a snap for you. 2) no crater under lmAs several posters have already pointed out, your expectation has nothing to do with reality. The pressure of the exhaust stream on the surface at touchdown was on the order of a few psi. 3) no stars in cislunar spaceAccording to you no one should see stars in space - at all: ...You can't see stars with your own eyes in space because they are too far away. ...the angular diameter of the largest star in the sky is about 1000 smaller than the resolution of a human eye! Then You can't see star when you are in space. Of course, this is utterly and laughably wrong, but not only have you contradicted yourself, you have botched - deliberately, in my opinion - the whole question of whether the crew could see stars in space. Of course they could, under the right circumstances, as many people have patiently explained to you. But you cling ever more tightly to your straw man, avoiding the obvious and correct explanations with all your might. Willful evasion. 4) lm design was a disasterWhich of your "multiple degrees in science" qualifies you to render such an engineering judgment? I work in this field, and the LM design is widely recognized as the first "pure" manned spacecraft and admired for its spare, elegant suitability for its role. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, but this was a particularly lazy attempt at insulting a design you don't understand. 5) didn't have necessary computing power for lmAgain, regurgitating ignorant nonsense from conspiracist web sites does nothing to bolster your position. The LM certainly did have enough "horsepower" for the job, and was part of an elegant systems engineering solution with its man-in-the-loop approach and robust design. I have written code for, and operated, spacecraft computer systems. Don't copy and paste drivel like this and pretend you have put any thought into it. 6) mylar / kapton film - no damageYou have yet to show why there should be damage matching your expectations. In particular, your notions of how the exhaust should flow, and the heat transfer questions involved, were completely wrong. 7) struts too weakWrong again. They were plenty robust for the job, and somewhere on this board are some simple calculations I did demonstrating just how much margin they had for the landing load. 8) America could not have a dead astronaut on the moon, but had to complete the goalYour grasp of American history and politics is as deficient as your grasp of physics, chemistry, etc. As was already pointed out, the President at the time was prepared to address the loss of crew contingency. 9) NASA run by militaryThis is simply and utterly wrong. NASA was specifically chartered as a civilian agency. 10) Nixon resignsSee response to #8. This is a hilariously inept attempt to link Watergate to an Apollo program that had already been capped long before Watergate. Not only is your speculation fact-free and counterhistorical, your proposed correlation is off by years. 11) footprints without inclusions...I demonstrated exactly how such a footprint was made. On the other hand, you claimed expertise ("I know dirt") which you have yet to back up, and you implied an exhaustive examination of all the footprints in the photographic record, which you manifestly have not made. top ten was probably enoughI agree that it was more than enough to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. Worse, your citation of "evidence" is a shockingly lazy copy-and-paste job of regurgitated claims mixed with a smidgeon of unsupported speculation. Worse yet, you have assiduously avoided definitive refutations of these claims, and failed to even once examine your own certitude in light of your wide-ranging incompetence. So, we can dispense with the notion that you are convinced by "evidence" into which you have put any appreciable effort to investigate. What is your real reason you cling so tightly to your belief Apollo was hoaxed? Is it a religious thing? Are you unhappy that Americans did it? Are you generally anti-science? Are you just trolling?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 29, 2011 2:40:12 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science Baloney. From your posting history here, and from your inane list of "evidence" mindlessly regurgitated from conspiracist web sites, it is clear you have no appreciable qualifications in science whatsoever. You can't tell the difference between electric current and radiation; you think a gas expanding in a vacuum has something to do with "closed systems"; you tell us that you can't see stars in a vacuum, then claim that the astronauts should have seen stars in a vacuum - which they did, except that you stubbornly refuse to grasp the simple concept that visibility might be affected by different conditions. And that's just a sample of your ever-expanding catalog of cluelessness. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. Don't make it worse by trying to bluff qualifications you obviously don't have. Not that you need such expertise to debunk most of the claims you've been parroting. No, you don't. You're simply repeating the hoax believer's standard cartoon view of science. Your own insistence on ignoring refutations of your claims is especially hypocritical in light of such an assertion. Asserting that your belief is based on the "evidence" implies that you have examined the evidence, but clearly you have not done so at all in most cases, and worse, you ignore countering arguments. So, what is the real reason you cling so tightly to your belief in a hoax?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 28, 2011 12:36:31 GMT -4
playdor, before you go "trying to learn" about docking in space, would you please answer my question last repeated in reply #1050? I ask it again, and I will keep asking it until you answer: Given your demonstrated lack of understanding of everything to do with Apollo, and given the many gross errors of basic understanding as well as simple errors of fact you have committed here - why do you not question your own insistence that Apollo was faked? Why don't you even consider that you might be wrong, and all the experts are right? This is not a trick question. I know that if I claimed something, but didn't really know anything about the subject, and my supporting claims were shown to be riddled with errors, then I would ask myself why I was so sure in the first place. But you continue to steadfastly claim Apollo was faked, even through your admitted ignorance of the associated topics, and Is it a religious thing? Are you angry that Americans first landed on the Moon? Are you simply unwilling to admit you made a mistake? Are you just trolling this board?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 26, 2011 22:05:00 GMT -4
LunarOrbit from start to finish... simply put, we could not get to the moon, we can't get thru the radiation belts and live, and even if we tried space if filled with radiation. No. You have no idea whatsoever what you're taking about. Worse, you just got through confusing electric current with ionizing radiation a few pages back. You weren't even aware of the Van Allen Belts' existence. Now, here you come waving your hands about radiation, mindlessly regurgitating claims from some idiot conspiracist website. Do you actually think you're bolstering your hoax claim? Do you think you're demonstrating anything other than your own ignorance? I ask you again: given your complete lack of understanding on this subject, and your many embarrassing errors, why do you fail to question your own premise?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 26, 2011 21:44:07 GMT -4
playdor, why won't you answer my question last repeated in reply #813? I ask it again, and I will keep asking it until you answer: Given your demonstrated lack of understanding of everything to do with Apollo, and given the many gross errors of basic understanding as well as simple errors of fact you have committed here - why do you not question your own insistence that Apollo was faked? I mean, one of your latest howlers was demanding to know why training was done at a "CIA" facility. You confused the Langley, VA headquarters of the CIA - which I have passed numerous times on the GW Parkway - with NASA's Langley Research Center, many hours' drive away on the Chesapeake! You literally have no idea at all what you're talking about. So why do you keep insisting your premise is correct? Why don't you even consider that you might be wrong, and all the experts are right? Is it a religious thing? Are you angry that Americans first landed on the Moon? Are you simply unable to ever concede your own ignorance? Or are you simply a troll?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 25, 2011 11:18:09 GMT -4
playdor, why won't you answer my question last repeated in reply #813?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 20, 2011 23:36:15 GMT -4
I just lost an entire carefully-written post, so here's the short version. This is Quikrete (tm) this time instead of flour, the largest rock is about 2" long. Quikrete is much denser and less friendly to compression than flour. Rocks scattered on the surface: The two largest rocks were placed on top of 2" thickness of the material and an impression made: The largest rock isn't covered, but it did sink partially and the bootprint is nicely formed immediately around it. This looks similar to playdor's result. The second largest rock, about an 1-1/2" (~3.5 cm) long, has disappeared completely under the ball of the foot. According to playdor, this is impossible. I may not "know dirt", but this is direct refutation of playdor's claim. Clearly, neither of us has used a high-fidelity lunar simulant, but within the range of our simulated lunar bootprints, we can see a wide range of behavior encompassing the Apollo 11 bootprint in question.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 20, 2011 14:39:14 GMT -4
the unanswered contradictions and oddities are what promotes the hoax theories. the one that recently made up my mind on this issue STARS...
You cited examples from many different contexts, and not very accurately, and say that they contradict each other. I can point to many different examples of seeing or not seeing stars on Earth in just the same way. According to your reasoning, that means I've never really been on Earth. or as i asked before where is the science to support him...
You don't understand the science, even though it's already been explained to you by multiple different posters.
Why do you think that your list of badly-characterized, context-free quotes and misquotes actually disproves Apollo, rather than simply adding up to your failure to understand their significance? Especially since you are manifestly less familiar with what was actually said than just about everyone else here?
I ask you again: given your lack of expertise, history of whopping mistakes, and admitted ignorance of the science* behind Apollo -
Why do you not question your own belief that you are right and all the experts are wrong with regard to the Apollo missions actually happening?
Why won't you simply answer this question?
ETA: Forgot to include this - you have yet to back up your sole claim of relevant expertise, i.e., with regard to soil mechanics ("I know dirt"). Still waiting.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 20, 2011 12:16:09 GMT -4
sts60 one last time dr i didn't document his name said that the tether harness had melted and broke away from ss. melted because of flow of electricity. Yes, we know your appeal to the tether incident in the context of waving your hands about radiation was completely off base. You still didn't answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 20, 2011 12:13:26 GMT -4
and the answer concerning the casting of the boot print?
Evasion noted.
First, you have been ignoring my question since well before you posted your images.
Second, numerous people have already addressed your experiment. I haven't, yet, but I will get to it.
Third, you ignored my demonstration except to say I "didn't know dirt". Your statement above is hypocritical.
Fourth, you alleged expertise in this area ("I know dirt"), but despite mutliple requests to back up your appeal to authority, you have failed to do so.
Kindly stop evading the questions.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 20, 2011 11:59:16 GMT -4
radiation i learned in the olden days that radiation was a product of nuclear decay. but the last article i read concerning the bands of electrons and protons around the earth were also characterized as radiation.
There are different kinds of radiation. The "bands" are the Van Allen Belts, named after their discoverer, James Van Allen, who was the principal investigator on the experiment aboard NASA's Explorer 1 which first registered their existence. They are composed of electrons and protons corralled by the Earth's magnetic field. They are an example of particle radiation.
I wish i could link the article but i did not achieve it, probably on yahoo.
Don't bother. Everyone here already knew about all this long ago.
The only one here who doesn't know the differences among the different kinds of radiation is you. Just like you don't grasp the differences in the articles you Google up, or their contexts. You're just waving your hands and saying "Radiation!" to justify your blind belief that Apollo was faked.
Kindly stop evading this direct question: Given your numerous errors of fact and demonstrated ignorance in about every field related to Apollo, why do you fail to question your own premise that Apollo was faked? Why do you insist that you are right and all the experts - generations of experts, mind you - are wrong?
P.S. None of your allusions or references to radiation have anything to do with the TSS tether failure, which you offered as support for your notions.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 20, 2011 9:44:54 GMT -4
playdor, I reiterate my discussion of your attempt to wave the radiation bogeyman, and your inability to tell the difference between radiation and electricity. Kindly address this refutation, and once again I ask you the direct question: Given your manifest ignorance of the subjects under discussion, and your many mistakes (such as the one just cited), why do you not question your fundamental premise? Why do you not consider that you might be wrong, and all the experts might be right? You can run from this question, but as long as you participate on this board, you cannot hide from it.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 15:29:35 GMT -4
sts60 you said it for me "...you should really try to explain how a rock can be hidden completely by a layer..." that's it exactly...how can a rock on the surface of the lunar soil, disappear completely if it is compressed by a boot? I showed you the exact mechanism. Please address the refutation of your claim; your continued evasions smack of intellectual cowardice.
|
|