|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:28:07 GMT -4
Military had the bomb, they desired to have a delivery system that would reach any part of the globe. Change 'desired' to 'already had'.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 28, 2011 22:30:54 GMT -4
laurel 9) how sure are you that the "space race" wasn't a way for the military to finance the research of rocketry and specifically ballistic missiles technology? Military had the bomb, they desired to have a delivery system that would reach any part of the globe. Which they had long before a man was ever put into space. Or did you forget about the satellites that were put into orbit?
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 28, 2011 22:32:26 GMT -4
The Russians sent Zond 5 and 7, unmanned test versions of the Soyuz equivalent to the Apollo 8 CSM, to find out more about these radiation belts, whether they were safe for manned missions. Their results? "Should no solar flare occur, seven-day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view." Now, this is the Soviet Union we are talking about. If they are going to fudge science, not saying they are but if they were, surely they would fudge it toward a conclusion that would discredit the USA, instead of independently confirming Apollo was doable. Not only that, but Cosmos 110 sent two dogs in and out of the lower Van Allen belt in a highly elliptical orbit for 22 DAYS. Even if you take away the time below the belt, that is still far longer than Apollo spent. Let's think about this for a second. A lot of artist conceptions and publicity paintings , including ones from NASA and NASA contractors, do indeed show a very nice, deep crater. I am going to assume for the sake of this argument that Apollo was a hoax. Others can, and have, gone into sufficient detail of the physicalities of why there is no crater, and you would do well to listen to them. But let's suppose for a second they are all wrong, and there should indeed have been a a nice big crater. My question to you, playdor is, why isn't there? Surely NASA would know if there should be a nice big crater or not. After all, you claim to, and you have also claimed a complete lack of expertise in several relevant fields. If there should have been, why didn't they have an alleged team of set dressers, well, make one? After all, they already would have had to have hand-placed hundreds, if not thousands of rocks, laid down a layer of dust, added all sorts of little dips and hills, crafted and coloured what disturbance is indeed seen under the LM. If their really should have been some massive crater as seen in the artist conceptions, why didn't the alleged creators of the alleged hoax add one? And don't say whistle blowers because it is equally preposterous that NASA wouldn't be able to catch on and say "No, this time with a crater."
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 28, 2011 22:32:50 GMT -4
so around and around we go, I'll stick with radiation dangerous. No one here is saying that radiation isn't dangerous. They're saying it wasn't dangerous enough to prevent astronauts from flying to the Moon and returning safely. Especially when they went around the majority of the belts anyway.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 28, 2011 22:43:20 GMT -4
10) if Apollo was a hoax, then Nixon was responsible. he had to go to distance the government from such a deed, just in case the story broke. The first manned Apollo flights were in 1968. The Apollo technology was developed before Nixon was in office. How do you reconcile these historical facts with your claim that Nixon would have been responsible for an alleged hoax? Do you have a source for this statistic other than a conspiracy site filled with Apollo inaccuracies?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 28, 2011 22:51:48 GMT -4
and while talking about struts, landing in a large crater, could have damaged a strut, could have tipped the lm. I guess that's why the astronauts made sure to avoid large craters when they landed, then!
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:52:58 GMT -4
2) crater under the lm Armstrong picked up dust from 40-70 feet Apollo 12(not positive it was 12) had it at 100 feet so logically if you are moving dust at 40-100 feet the magnitude of moving dust at 2 or 3 feet is going to be great. there should have been a crater, and the argument of shutting down the engine early does not apply to A11 And there was a broad and shallow crater. If you were to look closely at the Apollo 11 images you would notice this. even to notion of shutting the engine off 3-6 feet off the moon is nuts, the stress from 3 feet doubles the amount of force on the struts a pilot is not going to take the change of loosing his landing gear. This is not an answer to the question. You were asked for evidence the LM landing gear was not capable of working in 1/6 g. This does not contain any evidence. and while talking about struts, landing in a large crater, could have damaged a strut, could have tipped the lm. Actually landing in a large crater would not be a problem. Landing on a very steep slope may have been a problem, but in that case they should have picked a better landing spot.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 28, 2011 22:59:09 GMT -4
it would be best to accept i am just going to remain ignorant on this point. Apparently you choose to remain ignorant on several points, but hey, it's your decision.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:59:42 GMT -4
there has been nothing posted on this site concerning not seeing stars in space that can explain Armstrong's statement, period. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_adaptionI think this has been pointed out to you a few times. Would you like help with the larger words? ...it would be best to accept i am just going to remain ignorant on this point. It seems so.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 28, 2011 23:02:29 GMT -4
2) crater under the lm Armstrong picked up dust from 40-70 feet Apollo 12(not positive it was 12) had it at 100 feet so logically if you are moving dust at 40-100 feet the magnitude of moving dust at 2 or 3 feet is going to be great. there should have been a crater, and the argument of shutting down the engine early does not apply to A11 Despite my specifically addressing you, you have yet top explain why if there should have been such a crater, why the alleged hoax producers did not simply add one.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 28, 2011 23:06:40 GMT -4
center for informed America: almost 1/3 of the people polled in 1969 were skeptical of the moon landings I can believe that. Almost 1/3 of Americans are retarded. playdor, have you ever heard of the logical fallacy of the Argumentum ad populum?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:10:28 GMT -4
>could be that a crater would now show a potential problem for landing. Why would it? >if they made a crater, then questions would arise about the debris that would have kicked back to the lm causing potential damage. Why would any debris be kicked back towards the LM? The force applied by the LM exhaust would rather tend to move the lunar dust away from the LM... unless of course you have some actual evidence suggesting otherwise?
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 28, 2011 23:22:39 GMT -4
raven good question >could be that a crater would now show a potential problem for landing. >if they made a crater, then questions would arise about the debris that would have kicked back to the lm causing potential damage. Why would it cause an issue, even if it should be there? The ones seen in the artist representations are easily within the width of the legs.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:29:45 GMT -4
raven i have no way to know for sure about the crater Shock. again logic dictates 2-4,000 pounds of thrust in a 3+ foot radius, seems to be a fair amount of force. Have you done the math to work out the force per square foot on the lunar surface? Do try and factor in the rate at which the engine exhaust spreads out in a vacuum. lunar soil was like "powdered snow" Not really.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:31:06 GMT -4
trebor the debris is going to go everywhere, there will be turbulence. In a vacuum? Why do you assume that? NASA said a problem with vertical landing rockets was the potential of ejected debris causing damage. i believe this was part of the DC-x information. You do know the "DC-x" worked on earth in earth's atmosphere, on earth?
|
|