|
Post by nomuse on Jan 24, 2007 19:39:54 GMT -4
You mean, like the musicals of Sir Andrew?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 24, 2007 17:30:38 GMT -4
To be precise, it is Thomson and Thompson. (Or Dupond and Dupont.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 24, 2007 16:45:13 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 18, 2007 16:26:24 GMT -4
Better experiment;
Get two sheets of black material, flat, stiff, cut into squares of equal size. Place both an equal distance from a strong light (and I mean at least a 300w halogen worklight -- a 1K theatrical spot would be even better!) For the last element of this test, place one of the squares flat-on and TILT the other in the light. Wait a few minutes. Which one gets hotter?
No-one disagrees that atmosphere, circulation, surface reflectivity, greenhouse effect, local terrain et al modify the local temperature at any point on the Earth. However, the biggest seasonal, latitudinal, and daily change in temperature is driven by the angle of insolation.
Angle of insolation is a real effect, easily demonstrate-able, and present on the Moon (or even over the surfaces of an artificial satellite).
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 13, 2007 14:17:49 GMT -4
The probes went off course by CENTIMETERS. Which also goes to show just how carefully we can predict and manage their courses; that we could detect this.
We have a good enough understanding of orbital dynamics to predict where every planet in the solar system will be 2,000 years from now.......and we've been able to do that since somewhere around the 18th century.
It is entirely implausible that the understanding that would allow two separate observatories to point where they predicted they would find Pluto, a heretofore entirely invisible planet predicted only via orbital perturbations, would be unable to figure out what would happen when a spacecraft went to the far, far nearer (and better observed) Moon. (Okay...I simplify the story of Pluto's discovery for the sake of discussion. Sorry. I believe the principle holds.)
Surveyor (at least one of them) landed softly enough so it was able to take off again.
I'm still waiting for what magical form the surface might take that would make the mission impossible.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 12, 2007 13:47:17 GMT -4
I don't entirely agree on the visibility of the wires. We are talking near-perfect conditions here; thin matt-black wire against black background. Set up the shots that way and it would almost never show. It would also be trivial to remove any stray flashes from the film. I've used 1/8 cable myself, and there was for a while a move to 1/16 until a Peter Pan on Broadway was injured on it. From front row in an ordinary theater, with forty-odd lights aiming at the cable and a bright multi-colored backdrop behind him or her, I have rarely if ever been able to see the thing.
HOWEVER. You can -- and every Kung Fu movie aficionado says this as well -- tell from the movements when someone is on a wire. More than anything else, they no longer rotate about their own center of gravity; they turn, instead, around the pick point of the wire. It is painfully obvious in most movie wire-work, and I am comfortably certain it would be obvious if used extensively in the Apollo record.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 10, 2007 2:58:39 GMT -4
I'm a little puzzled as to what qualities the ground could have that would be completely undetectable from a distance, unpredictable from theory, and fatal to the spacecraft.
Particularly considering that spacecraft had orbited the moon and took radar maps and photographs, crashed into it, landed, landed and (briefly) lifted off again, landed, took samples, and came home with them!
But even without that...what, the moon was made of powerful glue that would prevent the ascent module from ever lifting off (good thing only the descent module touched surface, then, isn't it?) Or maybe the moon's surface isn't solid at all, and anything landing just sinks towards the core? (Um, then we just don't, you know, land. Advantage of being in a rocket. Okay, it would have been a little hairy there, what with limited fuel in the descent engine...but still not instantly fatal).
Antimatter? Ruled out. Huge magnetic fields? Ruled out. Physics isn't going to allow these conditions. Hot enough to melt the rocket? Ditto. When you get right down to it, you know it's some kind of rock, and you've got a nice set of shock absorbers. Okay....maybe spikes might have been a problem...and not _completely_ impossible for some mechanism to form them...
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 10, 2007 0:21:51 GMT -4
Was there ever a lunar Lander test craft that landed and then took off from the lunar surface? Only a full-scale, fully function prototype operated by two of the most highly trained and carefully selected test pilots in history -- men with a long record of testing and helping with the development of similar craft. Has there ever been another system in any was similar, such as a rocket that could land on earth and then take of again like the LM is supposed to have? Correct me if I mistake my craft, but didn't Surveyor do the pogo; taking off then landing again on the lunar surface? Or if you must do this on Earth (NOT the environment the LM was designed for), the LLVT had hundreds of successful flights. Is that similar enough? There were also a few experiments with Pogo planes and similar tech....it's not like vertical take-off and landing had Never Been Tried Before. Did they have any samples of the lunar surface? The Russians did! And, again, NASA had landed unmanned craft, and taken them off again, before Apollo 11. The LM can not be compared to any other craft as it was the first of its kind being used for the first time in an environment that had never been tested, landing on an unknown surface terrain and the list goes on and on. Not to get too silly here, but EVERYTHING has a first time. Trieste explored depths that had never before been seen. Sounding rockets into the Van Allen belts learned things that had never before scene. All through history someone had to take a chance and be first into that desert, into that jungle, into that open ocean. Even today men and women are risking their lives being first into new cave systems, first into untrod areas of the antarctic, first finding routes on previously unclimbed mountains. There is always something that wasn't predicted, wasn't known, wasn't previously discovered, and there have been and continue to be surprise, injury, and death (as well as excitement, discovery, and glory) among those who explore the unknown. Concorde was a fabulous aircraft but was neither the first aircraft or the first passenger jet of the first supersonic aircraft. Neither was the Wright Flyer the first thing to fly on Earth there were many unmanned model gliders that could fly centuries before they got a human up in one. There had be numerous attempts not only by the Wright brothers but a long chain of projects that can date all the way back to ancient China. Mercury. Gemini. Apollo was NOT the first experiment in manned spaceflight, any more than Apollo 11 was the pioneer in traveling to lunar orbit and back. And you are factually incorrect above. The Wright Brothers may have followed other gliders, but they pioneered in the first POWERED flight -- something that had never been done before (and as far as I know practically never been attempted.) And this mischaracterizes the Wright's work, too. They weren't merely the first lucky ones in a long list of people that stared up at birds and scribbled ideas for wood-and-paper gliders. The Wrights were of a much smaller number of people who looked analytically at the problem of flight. They invented the science of aeronautics. They devised and made use of the wind tunnel. Unlike almost every other experimenter who had tackled the problem of flight, the Wright's solved all the problems before they put a man in the machine. There's was less a daring experiment than it was a proof of concept; a demonstration of what they had already figured out on paper and tested with models. Which is a pretty good model for all aerospace testing. At some point you got to prototype it, stick a skilled pilot in it and see how well it flies. But this is far, far, from throwing some parts together and hoping it stays in the air. I truly do not understand how you can think the space environment is too mysterious to design a craft in, yet our own atmosphere is not. How could the Wright's make functional aircraft when they hadn't even heard of wind sheer? How could they construct them without detailed knowledge of the vastly variable and unpredictable organic materials they were forced to use? How could they possibly calculate wind drag without modern fluid dynamics simulations running on super computers? Compared to these issues, spaceflight is simple -- no atmosphere, rockets are a simple action/reaction equation... By the by, I HATE this "fifty items in a long list" posts. What, are you afraid no single point is strong enough to stand on it's own?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 9, 2007 16:21:40 GMT -4
Is that because of this vacuum thing people keep claiming exists on the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 8, 2007 14:35:31 GMT -4
Please take a moment to go through the history of aviation and find a craft that was "fully tested" without its human crew. It isn't done, and it isn't practical. Heck the shuttle orbiter got humans before it even got engines (aka the Enterprise glide and landing tests).
By the by, we do have a pretty good idea how momentum and inertia work on Earth -- or anywhere else (excepting, perhaps, the depths of folded space near a very strong gravitational field -- aka near the event horizon of a black hole). We've had a pretty good mathematical description since a certain Italian contemplated tossing small objects off that bell tower in Pisa.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 6, 2006 17:24:54 GMT -4
On that note, sometimes, when looking at the well-meaning posts in Moon Hoax threads at other boards -- like the IMDB -- I sympathize with the Hoax Believer feeling that their reasonable ideas are being spoofed by paid disinfo agents. Many of the early "pro-Apollo" posts on these other boards have such ludicrous science and fanciful arguments I fear they may unwittingly give more support to the Hoax Believer camp.
Well, it's a free Internet (at least this year), as much as I'd like to say "Please step down and leave this to the professionals."
I have hopes that the reasonable reader will be able to read the whole thread and realize; A) that belief in an Apollo Hoax is not a mainstream belief, but a minority opinion, and; B) that science contains the mechanisms to be self-correcting, and good science will eventually trump bad -- regardless of whether the idea it supports is popular or not.
Boy, what a cluttered post! I see my morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet...
|
|
|
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 nomuse on Oct 27, 2006 15:31:12 GMT -4
We've sure been down this road before. The ONLY thing Apollo 11 did that was new was touch the surface (and separate lander from ascent module, I believe). Everything else, every rendezvous, engine firing, orbital maneuver, crew transfer, recovery et al had been done previously -- with previous Apollo missions, or as far back as Gemini and Mercury.
And let's think about the whole "never been done, so too dangerous to attempt" idea.
When the Wright Brothers brought their first craft to Kitty Hawk there had never been a successful powered flight. In fact, flight was so demonstratively dangerous to attempt a great many flight pioneers were killed. So were they madmen? Not really. They tested. With mock-ups, scale models, kites, the world's first wind tunnel, their un-powered craft. They solved problems that could have killed the powered flight. As many elements as they could, they tested before that thing left the skids.
Of course as any engineer can tell you, the problems you don't see are those that only show up as a combination of previously benign events. But that's why test pilots get the big bucks.
I wonder if it is the modern litigatious society, and our absurd demands for more and more fool-proof everything, that is behind this particular hoax-believer attitude; that no-one then or now dares to do something new and untested, In either case it is an obscene attitude.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 22, 2006 20:32:55 GMT -4
Nuts. Why don't I go and badger someone for six months. Stalk them, send them endless messages, film them regardless of whether they are in a private place or a public, call them names in print, make scurrilous comments about them on radio....and then I'll turn on a camera just as I walk up to interview them. Whoah, they got mad! They must have had something to hide! And I didn't edit the video, not one smidgen. You get to see the entire interview.
Stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 13, 2006 2:56:33 GMT -4
You actually trust Sibrel's editing of these interviews, and are willing to be led by the nose by him on how an "ordinary, innocent" person should react to circumstances described by him but unproven to have unfolded in that manner?
Just for a moment imagine how badly I could make you come out if I interviewed you several times, surprised you with trick questions, badgered you, then carefully edited only the bits I wanted to show into one video -- with my own snarky commentary over it. Come on...one talk show radio host with nothing more than a mute button can make any of his callers look like idiots. Imagine what you can do with a camera and an agenda!
|
|