|
Post by jdp1161 on Dec 1, 2011 15:31:40 GMT -4
jdp1161 where is the evidence that the ascent flame is clear and transparent? i have posted evidence to the contrary, that is is a visible flame. i have posted evidence that exhaust flames can be seen in space. where is your evidence? so NASA does lie in its publications. I don't have, nor am I claiming to, have any evidence about the visibility of a plume one way or another. Like I've said, I'm not an engineer or rocket scientst. My point was that asking for NASA documents regarding plume colors, if any, does not make sense. IF they faked it, any documents they produced would match the fake footage they produced. There would be no contradiction noted. However, if they indicated that a certain type of fuel would produce no visible plume, and that was wrong then scientists and engineers around the world would have jumped on the error. I would have to think that the fuels used on the LM were used for other applications, so the expected results would have been known. Any variation from reality would have blown the "lie" wide open. Since the scientific community,including memebers here, validate the record as it appears, I see nothing that looks other than as it should. As to the lie comment, you are really reaching. If you have never used a metaphor, or any kind of literary device (like "she broke my heart", etc...), then I guess you can call it a lie. To the rest of the sane world, it's just a way to convey feelings and emotions. Please provide evidnece that NASA ever purported that the paintings/drawings were correct in every technical matter.
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Dec 1, 2011 15:10:53 GMT -4
jdp1161 i doubt that very much it may be operating in a desert region, it is not landing in the desert. That may well be true, however, it would not be due to the Harrier diggin out some massive crater in the sand an being swallowed by it! Again, I'm no expert, but my suppostition would be the reason they wouldn't land directly in sand would have to due with the risk of damage to the engines from sucking in any sand they kicked up. Which, I believe, would not have been a problem for the LM, as it's decscent system is a closed system so any dust kicked up would not matter.
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Dec 1, 2011 15:06:16 GMT -4
lm ascent engine is there documentation from NASA saying that the fuel used in the lm burned clear and transparent? reference buzz "hot orange flame" Everything i have seen from NASA in the form of artist drawings clearly show flame on descent and ascent engines. unless you are saying NASA has their artists deliberately mislead the general public by their illustrations? Point of clarification, please... You are here claiming that NASA/the Evil Gubmint faked the lunar landings. Why in the world would you want, then, to use their own documents as any sort of evidence?? If they faked it, of course their documents would indicate no visible plume. If a visible plume should have happened, and it didn't, sceintists and engineers from around the world would have been the first to cry foul! As to all the other points, you have never heard of "artistic liscense" (I know this has been mentioned before here)? The book, as you know was co-written by an author and the phrase "hot, orange flame" is much more dramatic than "invisible plume". On the art, again, the "flame" conveys a sense of motion and power that would not be present if painted as things are in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Dec 1, 2011 14:39:42 GMT -4
jdp1161 we are discussing lm landing on the moon not producing a crater. please show how the exhaust can dissipate within 3 feet. can you show me a video of harrier landing on the moon? or a harrier landing on sand in the desert please? To the contrary, YOU keep bringing up the question of why there is no crater under the LM. The example was to demonstrate that even on Earth, with an atmosphere, the amount of thrust it takes to land and/or hover a large object doesn't require creation of a crater. Combine that with the lesser thrust of the LM, and the lack of atmosphere, and it should be no surprise that there is no crater. Even to someone like me without "science degrees"... No, there are no videos of the Harrier on the moon (unless it's in Apollo 18!), and I'm sure YOU could find one of it operating in a desert environment if you really cared to.
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Dec 1, 2011 13:34:52 GMT -4
www.mcmahanphoto.com/rs086--av-8b-harrier-vertical-take-off-photo.htmlSince you are so determined that there should have been a crater under the LM, can you tell us why there isn't a crater under an AV8B when using VTOL? The answer might just be applicable to craters under the LM... I'm no scientist or engineer, but about 2 minutes on Google shows me that the Harrier produces about 23,500 lbf of thrust, while the LM descent stage only produces 10,125 lbf of thrust. On top of that, wiki states the LM engine is throttleable between 10% to 60% of full thrust, making the actual thrust well under 10,125. Now, if a Harrier, in atmosphere (holding the exhaust more focused) with more than TWICE the thrust of the LM doesn't make a crater in VTOL, why in the world would you expect the LM descent engine to??? Sorry if this has been covered before, or if my data proves to be off at all. Like I said, I'm no engineer. I just struggle with folks being this intentionally blind...
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Jul 19, 2011 15:46:40 GMT -4
I'll add my $.02 here as well. I don't post a lot here, but lurk a bunch, and I haven't seen anything here that would qualify as an ad hom. Hoax believers show up way too often as "a wolf in sheep's clothing".
Now, I don't have even the smallest amount of knowledge and experience that the others here have (just grew up during the space race and was facinated by it), so maybe I can speak to the press kit bit. I am exactly the kind of person it would have been made for. Whereas I wouldn't be able to make heads nor tails out of all the data given to you in the prior post, I can read the press kit quote and get a layman's understanding of "antipode". That's the point... It's written to provide general understanding to those who don't have technical expertise. Even I would never expect it to be a quoteable source of exact scientific data!
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Jan 21, 2011 21:27:21 GMT -4
Grissom, Ed White and Chaffee were the ones who died. John Young is still alive. Oh, dear... Major brain cramp... I know better than that... Ugh! Thanks for the link obviousman... Great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Jan 21, 2011 13:24:15 GMT -4
That makes perfect sense. With the need to test all the aspects of the new hardware and mission requirements, I can see where long range planning would have been pretty much just wishful thinking.
Thanks for the link, though! I appreciate that info.
I guess I was just speculating that, if Grissom, Young, and Chaffee had not died, they would likely have been on the schedule for future missions. With only so many seats available, would that mean that some of the astronauts that DID moonwalk would not have had that opportunity. I know, I know... Too many variables with "what if?" scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Jan 21, 2011 12:09:23 GMT -4
Hey Folks! Newbie here with a question... Hope this is the right place for it, and sorry if it isn't. Though a huge fan of Apollo, I have to admit I've never really researched deeply. A few questions that I've had are, if there had been no fire on Apollo 1, would the crew assignments for the future missions have changed (or is there a list of what they were set to be prior to the A1 tragedy)? Would some of the astronauts that did walk on the moon have missed their opportunity? Lastly, would A11 still have been the target mission for the first landing?
Sorry if my questions seem a bit on simplistic side!
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Jan 21, 2011 12:00:12 GMT -4
Thanks, Bob! I have no doubt I will!
|
|
|
Post by jdp1161 on Jan 21, 2011 10:19:02 GMT -4
Just stopping in to say hello and introduce myself... The name's John, and I am a huge fan of our original manned space program. I grew up in the 60's and remember as a kid hanging on every bit of every mission. I can still recall the look on my parents' faces as "the Eagle has landed" and "One small step..." played out on our television. ;D
I'm a firm believer in the reality of Apollo and the landings, though without any of the technical background that many of the esteemed members of this board have. I learn what bit I can from all the great data here though...
I just can't fathom how there are folks out that that think it's a hoax...
|
|