Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Nov 3, 2010 13:52:35 GMT -4
inquisitivemind, you talk about the Moon being an "unknown universe." That is not really true. Don't forget, five Lunar Orbiter probes had mapped 99% of the Lunar surface, specifically to identify potential landing sites. Resolution was as good as 2m for te pre-selected target sites that were deemed most suitable and so potographed in higher resolution. The Surveyor programme then soft-landed 5 probes to investigate the nature of the Lunar surface in more detail. Apollo 8 flew by the Moon in 1968 and also took photographs and other measurements. So did Apollo 10. The upshot of all this is that, by the time of te landing of Apollo 11, the Moon could hardly be described as "unknown".
|
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Nov 3, 2010 13:58:33 GMT -4
You claim a constant horizontal path around the Moon. Show us your math. You just admitted you don't know where the center of mass is, so your entire theory about centrifugal forces causing the CSM to rotate to a horizontal position is ludicrous. I say more or less horizontal; my point is that the CSM always keeps the same orientation relatively to the moon (if not contradicted by the lateral reactors), and that this natural orientation is obviously not far from horizontal, even if not perfectly. I have shown you my maths, I have shown you a schema which explains how the centifugal force acts to force the CSM to have its natural attitude (which is close to horizontal). |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 3, 2010 13:59:41 GMT -4
Your whole premise is ludicrous: spacecraft fly horizontally to the surface of the Moon, you have to reduce your horizontal velocity to land on the Moon, the Apollo missions did not undock while horizontal, therefore the Moon landings were hoaxed. It is beyond ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Nov 3, 2010 13:59:54 GMT -4
Now, I repeat: I'm ready to acknowledge that I'm wrong if you show me a serious scientif article which backs up your claims.
It's not enough to believe you are right, you still have to prove it.
|
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 3, 2010 14:01:25 GMT -4
You claim a constant horizontal path around the Moon. Show us your math. You just admitted you don't know where the center of mass is, so your entire theory about centrifugal forces causing the CSM to rotate to a horizontal position is ludicrous. I say more or less horizontal; my point is that the CSM always keeps the same orientation relatively to the moon (if not contradicted by the lateral reactors), and that this natural orientation is obviously not far from horizontal, even if not perfectly. I have shown you my maths, I have shown you a schema which explains how the centifugal force acts to force the CSM to have its natural attitude (which is close to horizontal). Animated gifs are not math. Show us math that calculates how long it would take for an Apollo CSM to become stabilized. |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 3, 2010 14:02:23 GMT -4
Now, I repeat: I'm ready to acknowledge that I'm wrong if you show me a serious scientif article which backs up your claims. It's not enough to believe you are right, you still have to prove it. It is your theory, you are required to prove it, not us. |
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Nov 3, 2010 14:10:18 GMT -4
Now, I repeat: I'm ready to acknowledge that I'm wrong if you show me a serious scientif article which backs up your claims. It's not enough to believe you are right, you still have to prove it. It is your theory, you are required to prove it, not us. No, it's not my theory, it's something I have been taught in school, I didn't invent it, I didn't make it up. Now you may think that the teachers who taught it to me are big idiots who know nothing about physics. If it is the case, then I'll have to tell them they are idiots. I'm sure they will appreciate! |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 3, 2010 14:13:20 GMT -4
It is your theory, you are required to prove it, not us. No, it's not my theory, it's something I have been taught in school, I didn't invent it, I didn't make it up. Now you may think that the teachers who taught it to me are big idiots who know nothing about physics. If it is the case, then I'll have to tell them they are idiots. I'm sure they will appreciate! Your teachers did not teach you any of the nonsense you are claiming. It is your theory. Everybody on this forum disagrees with almost everything you have claimed. Are you so arrogant to think you are the only one who understands physics? |
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Nov 3, 2010 14:15:46 GMT -4
No, it's not my theory, it's something I have been taught in school, I didn't invent it, I didn't make it up. Now you may think that the teachers who taught it to me are big idiots who know nothing about physics. If it is the case, then I'll have to tell them they are idiots. I'm sure they will appreciate! Your teachers did not teach you any of the nonsense you are claiming. It is your theory. Everybody on this forum disagrees with almost everything you have claimed. Are you so arrogant to think you are the only one who understands physics? Yes, they did. And the fact that everybody disagrees with me on this forum only means that you all don't have a very thorough knowledge of physics. In the time of Galileo, almost everybody was disagreeing with him, and yet he was right. A sum of ignorances does not make an intelligence. |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 3, 2010 14:24:26 GMT -4
If you continue to claim your teachers taught you that nonsense then you are dumber than I thought. And comparing yourself to Galileo is beyond arrogance. You are not an aerospace engineer and you are not a computer engineer. You are a liar.
Show us one scientific paper that backs up your claim. And don't re-post that original article from your earlier posts, because you did not understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Nov 3, 2010 14:25:18 GMT -4
Are you so arrogant to think you are the only one who understands physics? I think that about being arrogant, the members of this forum know much better than me. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 3, 2010 14:25:51 GMT -4
Now, I repeat: I'm ready to acknowledge that I'm wrong if you show me a serious scientif article which backs up your claims. And the fact that everybody disagrees with me on this forum only means that you all don't have a very thorough knowledge of physics. So which is it? Several people on this board speak with proper authority on the subject as active rocket science engineers but you simply dismiss them without even the courtesy of providing one bit of proof of your own. If you are open to correction then accept it from those who are qualified. |
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Nov 3, 2010 14:41:30 GMT -4
Now, I repeat: I'm ready to acknowledge that I'm wrong if you show me a serious scientif article which backs up your claims. And the fact that everybody disagrees with me on this forum only means that you all don't have a very thorough knowledge of physics. So which is it? Several people on this board speak with proper authority on the subject as active rocket science engineers but you simply dismiss them without even the courtesy of providing one bit of proof of your own. If you are open to correction then accept it from those who are qualified. And who are those who are qualified rocket engineers and think that the CSM always keeps the same absolute orientation which ignores the centrifugal force? I'd like to know. I rather think that you believe to have qualified engineers with you when in fact you are all amateurs! |
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Nov 3, 2010 14:43:10 GMT -4
And I'm still waiting from a serious article backing up your claims to show me wrong.
I insist for having it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 3, 2010 14:45:48 GMT -4
Do you have to work to put this much wrongness in a single post or does it come naturally? Unlike some of the others here, I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm just a guy who reads too much. The LM didn't helicopter around on the moon looking for a landing space. That's silly computer game stuff.  Deorbiting a space object is like firing a projectile, and it's all calculated in advance. The LM was headed for a particular area. A11 was the only one that had to adjust the landing site very much, and that's because they didn't have as good of information as they did for later missions. Armstrong was also a dyed-in-the-wool jet-jockey and probably wanted a chance to prove the machine for the later pilots. Statements like this don't prove your thesis, but they go a long way to proving MY thesis; to wit: Hoax Believers don't know Jack Coprolite about the Apollo program. Perhaps the following diagram will illustrate why the amount of fuel used to land is irrelevant to the subsequent departure:  |
|
