|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 6:40:20 GMT -4
Armstrong said the stars can't be seen from cislunar space, period Actually, if you re-read the question you posted, he was asked about the Lunar Sky and what he said was that the sky on the moon appeared to be black with only the bright objects (the sun moon and some planets) being able to be seen. Since he never had the time to go into the LM's shadow and allow his eyes to adjust from being in the daylight of the lunar surface, he couldn't have seen the stars so what he said was true.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 6:35:40 GMT -4
please show me the reference that states the ascent engine used nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer? You don't know how to use Google? I really don't know why I should bother, you don't seem to be interested in actually learning anything or doing anything to help yourself find the answers. I have students who do more work than you do, and they expect to be spoonfeed all the answers too. ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730010173_1973010173.pdfHappy reading.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 6:28:34 GMT -4
Armstrong never said he didn't look he said he couldn't see them Did he say he did look for them?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 6:28:00 GMT -4
where does it say the oxidizer was nitrogen tetroxide for the ascent satag? You have now fully gone into trolling territory. You were the one that brought up the whole Ascent Engine having the Aerozine 50 fuel and nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer combination because it was on Moon Machines, and now that it's been shown to you that the Descent Engine was also Aerozine 50/Nitrogen Tetroxide the best you can do is complain that it doesn't name the Ascent oxidizer, which you already know since you brought it up first.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 6:17:22 GMT -4
Neil Armstron specifically said he could not see stars from cislunar space. Try looking at the night sky from indoors with the lights on and see how many stars you can see, and before you say they shopuld have turned off the lights, explain why there was a need to look at the stars.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 6:15:26 GMT -4
sorry the NASA reference you gave does not say they were the same fuel anyone can post on wikipedia Try re-reading the part I quoted, especially the bolded parts.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 6:13:01 GMT -4
Looking up the fuels I noticed that while the LM RCS used the same Aerozine 50/nitrogen tetroxide combination that the Descent and Ascent engines did, the CM RCS used pure UDMH as a fuel, rather than the 50/50 mix with Aerozine, and that the SM RCS used Monomethylhydrazine as its fuel. The SPS used the Aerozine 50/nitrogen tetroxide that the LM used.
Is there any obvious reason for the differences that I am missing? Why didn't they just use the Aerozine 50/nitrogen tetroxide combo for all the engines?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 5:46:52 GMT -4
so you are saying they both burned the same fuel So the final Assembly on the descent engine couldn't be tested either? that must have been reassuring to the astronauts. The descent engine was a non-critical component in the survival of the Astronuats. If it failed, they would just use the RCS to re-dock and come home. The SPS and the Ascent Engine were extremely critical, but they were also simple. Just because they weren't test fired doesn't mean they are likely to fail. My car hasn't been crash tested to test its safety systems, but I am pretty sure that in the event of me having an accident it will perform as designed.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 5:40:48 GMT -4
Yes, the show specifically says they were not the same. The engines weren't the same design. They just used the same fuels. Have a look at the four engines at the bottom of this page. They are the RCS, the SPS, the LM's Dsecent Engine and the Ascent Engine. They are clearly four different designs, but they all used the same fuel and oxidiser, Aerozine 50 as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidiser.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 5:34:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 3:29:50 GMT -4
I can't begin to prove any point i am trying to make. Because you have no understanding of the science behind the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately for you, most of the posters here not only do have a good understanding of the sciences involved with Apollo, but many have been doing it as a job for a good many years. That means when they tell you that your point is wrong and explain why, it'd be a good idea to learn from what they tell you. Gut feeling is no substitute for learning and understanding the science. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it wrong. Instead of going "I can't understand that, so I don't believe it" try instead going "I don't understand that, so I want to learn what the science says about it." In the long run it'll improve your life. Most of us are here now to dicuss things we have a passion for with other members of the group who have similar passions. For a while now the odd Hoax believer that turns up and get mentally beaten to a pulp before exploding and departing has just been a bonus. A satisfactory answer doesn't always mean an answer that you will understand, especially when you don't have a good understanding of the basics. Learn the basics first, and then if you can't already see the answer, you'll have a better chance of understanding it. The difference is that we understand the science behind the program, whereas you admittedly have no idea. That's what influences our thought processes. Except the answer is totally irrellevant. It is demonstratable that the American Government tells the truth about some things, hence the only way to determine if Apollo was the truth is on the merits of the programme itself, and not the behaviour of the US Government. We already know that they are pretty bad at lying and getting away with it. Clinton couldn't keep a secret that involved just two people in the Oval Office from getting out to an International public. If they couldn't stop that, how would they stop one that was known by 400,000 people? Very. There are too many things that simply aren't able to be faked without being found out over the past 40 years as the sciences have improved. The hoaxers would have had to create things that would withstand the scrutiny of multiple analytical sceince techiques had they would never even have concieved. They might have been smart, but no-one is that smart. Not to people who have studied the record. Don't forget that the US was already well on the way to having a rocket program before WW2. Robert Goddard began launching liquid fueled rockets in the US in 1926, that's 20 years before Von Braun's V2 arrived there. The arrival of Von Braun and his team (not just the rocket, but the designers went to the US) helped to accelerate and complement the US program, it didn't start it. Even then it still took 24 years for Von Braun to achieve his goals with US backing. If anything it was slow, had the US thrown their weight behind Von Braun in 1946, they'd have made the moon by the end of the 1950's. Would it be more crushing to Americans to be told "sorry, the goal is impossible. We tried, and no-one can do it" or for them to find out that their Government tried to fool them? Or perhaps the story doesn't change because it's true. I did, many years ago. You are, and the reason is, as you admitted at the start of your post, you don't understand enough about it to make a learned and reasoned decision.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 12, 2011 20:15:46 GMT -4
mutter, I edited the post and then Explorer crashed and I lost it. so quickly. playdor 1) Stick to a single topic, it makes it easier to follow and you look less of a troll doing so. 2) Answer questions asked back, they are there to make you think about what you are saying instead of just repeating what you read. 3) Nothing you have brought up is new, it's all been dealt with before, listen to the answers you are getting 4) Learn the science! For example look at the Gas Laws. A gas' pressure, volume, and temperature are related. When exhaust fires out of the LM engine it goes from high pressure to very low pressure. Since temperature is directly proportional to pressure, what happens to the temperature? Thermodynamics. Investigate the difference between Heat and Temperature, and the methods of Heat Transfer. Next look at laws of motion. If the LM is traveling at 4000m/s relative to point A on the surface of the moon and then fires its engine directly forward with the plume is escaping that engine at 500m/s, how fast is the exhaust plume travelling relative to the same point A on the surface of the moon. Now consider that in doing so the LM slows down relative to Point A. Is the LM every going to catch the Exhaust? Finally try fluid dynamics and find out how a stream of fluid reacts when it encounters a solid flat object in its path. Figure these things out and you'll have answered most of your own questions.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 28, 2011 22:32:13 GMT -4
There were several bits where you could easily see it was not filmed in 1/6 G. Interesting. This ought to be useful somehow in our arguments with the deniers. A while ago Astrobrant2 did a wonderful piece on the many errors in "2001", devastating the deniers' mantra that Stanley Kubrick was hired to fake the Apollo footage because of his demonstrated talents. But I'm not sure how. Well a logical person would note that 40 years after Apollo, even with multi-million dollar budgets, teams of experienced special effects crews, and the aid of CGI, Hollywood still can't replicate 1/6 gravity correctly and consistantly as was shown in the Apollo footage. Of course the illogical counter to this is that Hollywood is in on it and so refuse to use the same techniques that NASA did in their "fake" footage to perpetuate the myth that it can't be done.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2011 19:38:17 GMT -4
Congressman Ron Paul, as part of his presidential campaign, wants to privatize NASA. Would this be a good idea for the program, or not? Would it hurt space exploration, or would it allow exploration to be placed in the hands of private market forces that could potentially be more efficient? Your thoughts? If it wasn't for Goverment backing, where would private space industry be?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2011 0:55:27 GMT -4
Precisely, but wouldn't you think Armstrong would come to her defense? If anyone can sell these rocks outside the government, she's the most qualified Depends. It sounds like someone in NASA got some of the dust from the equipment and turned them into paper weights, then likely they had a ceremony thing where Neil and the others shook hands with a heap of engineers and gave them the items. From the engineer's point of view Armstrong would have given it to him, but from Armstrong's, even if he recalled it, he likely did a lot of those sort of things at the time, he wasn't personally giving away rocks so if asked "Did you give anyone a moon rock?" the correct answer would be no. I do think it was slightly un-necessary to have 5-6 heavily armed deputies charge in. I'm sure that it could have been handled a lot better.
|
|