Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

[Bob B.]

Oct 18, 2011 15:46:58 GMT -4 blackstar said:

He just posted about the money spent on Apollo. In current dollars the whole program cost roughly $113 billion, right? Fatty/Patrick has some how persuaded himself this was the spend per YEAR.

Apollo Program Budget Appropriations

All you have to do is adjust for inflation. I believe the current adjustment is about 6 or 7 times what it was in the mid to late 1960s

[chew]

Using Bob's linked table and CPI annual data to adjust for each year, the Apollo program cost $127.9 billion in 2011 dollars.

[chew]

What Dr. Socks did was take an estimated cost for the Apollo program ($30 billion), divided it by the 1960 budget ($94 billion), rounded it to one-third, took one-third of the current budget ($3.729 trillion), then divided by 11 years (the length of the program, which is not correct btw) and comes up with $113 billion per year in 2012 dollars.

[drewid]

So much for the maths degree.

[echnaton]

I hope he takes more care when making out prescriptions for medicines whose doses are based on weight.

[JayUtah]

I have to agree I'm glad he's not my accountant. Not only does he fail to grasp the relatively straightforward concept of cost amortized over time, he doesn't know the difference between receipts and expenditures. That's not just a simple arithmetical error; that's a glaring error in comprehension. He doesn't understand the real-world relationships among the quantities.

[Kiwi]

Oct 19, 2011 10:53:41 GMT -4 JayUtah said:

...that's a glaring error in comprehension.

Besides him not answering questions, that has been one of my most common complaints about him all along. He sometimes just doesn't seem able to properly comprehend either the material he studies or what other people tell him about it or about his conclusions.

One example of many was his inability to understand what he was being told at JREF about maps and datum. When I gave him examples of different datum on older maps of my area, which slightly changed the latitudes and longitudes, he declared the examples completely irrelevant and nothing to do with the maps he was discussing.

He also ignored what I asked about whether the Apollo 11 map of the landing ellipse might have had different coordinates to the Apollo 10 map because of the way the AGC was programmed to execute the P22 program. I don't know enough about it to judge, but wondered whether Apollo 10 didn't even use P22, so could use the most up-to-date coordinates on its map, whereas Apollo 11 perhaps had to use others because of the way the computer or the P22 program worked.

But the main point is that it didn't matter exactly which datum either Apollo map used because they could still be related to each other.

However, Patrick1000 had to cry foul and claim deliberate obfuscation by NASA.

Perhaps he just likes to jerk people around.

[chew]

I love how he tried to characterize the rendezvous as "threading the needle" because the CSM was traveling at over 5000 feet per second ZOMG!!1!

He was told "threading the needle" took 4 hours but he kept repeating it.

[Jason Thompson]

It's funny when people go on about how difficult the rendezvous in lunar orbit was. It once again demonstrates their ignorance of space flight history and procedures. Despite a long, slow rendezvous in lunar orbit being incredibly hard to do, Gemini 11 somehow managed an m=1 rendezvous some years earlier in Earth orbit. So, catching a target going over three times as fast, in the space of less than one complete orbit of Earth (so under 90 minutes), with a launch window of 2 seconds....

[ka9q]

In many ways lunar orbit rendezvous are easier to perform than earth orbit rendezvous. One reason, as you mention, is the lower velocity associated with a less massive primary that reduces maneuvering fuel requirements.

Others include the lack of a lunar atmosphere that allows the pericynthia of transfer orbits to be much lower than the perigees of earth orbits that must remain outside the atmosphere. This makes a greater range of orbital periods available for transfer orbits and making it easier to find one that gets you to your target quickly.

[coelacanth]

Oct 19, 2011 0:10:47 GMT -4 chew said:

Using Bob's linked table and CPI annual data to adjust for each year, the Apollo program cost $127.9 billion in 2011 dollars.

That agrees very closely with what I'm getting ($129.1), and the difference is probably the result of minor methodological differences. (I used the end of June CPI figures and applied them to the annual figures.)

The main issue is that the prices of space stuff may have gone up more or less than the prices of the things in the CPI basket. I'm not aware of anyone having constructed a Space Price Index, though, so I think we're not going to do a whole lot better than CPI.

[twik]

I haven't quite dared to check out P1K on JREF when he's talking about evolution. Has he discovered that the Leaky's field notes have a 200 m discrepancy in them somewhere? Or that the Beagle shouldn't have been able to find the Galapagos?

[abaddon]

Oct 21, 2011 11:11:22 GMT -4 twik said:

I haven't quite dared to check out P1K on JREF when he's talking about evolution. Has he discovered that the Leaky's field notes have a 200 m discrepancy in them somewhere? Or that the Beagle shouldn't have been able to find the Galapagos?

Oh, it's much more technical than that, delving into chromosomes and such.

All done in the usual wall-o-text style.

He has had his posterior handed to him several times.

For some odd reason he relies on research from the 60's, as though none had happened since.

He is also cheerleading for Anders Lindman in the CERN is hiding something thread.

[chew]

Some recent howlers:

failure of the command module engine to restart, restarting needed for translunar injection burn, and most importantly, the burn needed to return astronauts to the earth from a lunar orbit

He didn't know two separate engines performed TLI and LOI/TEI, and confused the CM with the SM.

The fact there was no redundancy in the long distance tracking/communications system to back up the large dish antennas at Canberra, Madrid, and Goldstone, proves Apollo fraudulent in the sense that it proves the missions had to be unmanned, for safety's sake alone.

Goldstone had 2 antennae and also used the 64-meter MARS antenna, Honeysuckle had 2 antennae plus Parkes' 64-meter antenna, and Madrid had 2 antennae, capable of tracking Apollo at the Moon. The 9 meter antennae were capable of tracking Apollo at the Moon and did so, feeding their data to the MSFN in case a big dish lost comms. The Apollo section of the Wikipedia article on the MSFN is only about 5 paragraphs long and explicitly discusses the Wing stations.

[abaddon]

Good grief,

Patrick1000 is now quoting this thread and those on Baut as evidence for his claims.

forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7714268&postcount=13