Rocks from the Moon

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

And this may save some time: www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

Thanks for the link, I have read it but must say that I am inclined to agree with Sibrel's views for virtually all of it.

[gdwarf]

margamatix said:

phantomwolf said:

I'm not sure that the Concorde wasn't far greater jump than Apollo either. A supersonic passanger plane is quite far from virtually anything else we had a the time

But with all due respect, I disagree. We have been flying supersonically since the 1940's.

Concorde did not go higher, faster or further than planes had travelled before, it was simply larger. This is hardly a major breakthrough in scientific know-how.

The moon is 600 times further away than any other manned flight is ever claimed to have travelled.

Didn't the concorde go faster? But even if it didn't the same was generally true with apollo 11.

All the technology, equipment, procedures, manouvers, concepts, ideas, building, and training. Had been doen before, as LW's post shows. In fact, the only new thing Apollo 11 did was set a man on the moon, other missions had already landed on the moon, and sent people around the moon. So Apollo 11 didn't go faster, or further then any other mission, it just got more press.

[sts60]

margamatix said:

jayutah said:

And this may save some time: www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

Thanks for the link, I have read it but must say that I am inclined to agree with Sibrel's views for virtually all of it.

That we understood, as you've repeated most of them here.

What we're still waiting for is for you to explain why. Sibrel has no experience with or understanding of any of the principles of space flight, and is best known for stalking and lying his way into ambush "interviews" with Apollo astronauts. He wants you to cough up the money for his videos, falsely claiming that he has "exclusive" footage which actually has been publicly available for decades - some of which was actually broadcast live to tens of millions of people worldwide.

So why do you believe him? I'm not saying you can't do that. But you have yet to make an effort to actually back up any of the claims you have regurgitated from Sibrel.

[sts60]

The moon is 600 times further away than any other manned flight is ever claimed to have travelled.

So?

Once again, you have simply restated a comment (in a slightly different form), without any explanation as to how it backs up your argument.

Why exactly does that impinge the credibility of Apollo, a program which was specifically intended to produce the first manned missions to the Moon? Of course the Moon is much further away than missions which weren't intended to leave Earth orbit. Are you trying to say that orbital mechanics work a different way for manned missions than for the numerous unmanned missions which had already ranged through much of the solar system?

Kindly stop handwaving and start 'splainin.

[Kiwi]

sts60 said:

Kindly stop handwaving and start 'splainin.

The only things that Margamatix has proved on this board is that he is extremely ignorant of Apollo and the space programme in general (which is not a sin -- we all were once -- though he likes to talk as if he isn't), and that he is quite incapable of explaining almost anything or providing evidence to back up his claims. And that is sad.

Most hoax-believers behave in a highly predictable manner. They are sometimes amusing, but mostly just frustratingly obstreperous, obstinate and obtuse obfuscators. Margamatix is no exception. Just another Oxxo, Earthorbit, Unknown, Cosmic Dave, etc.

Still, excellent posts, guys. Although probably wasted on Margamatix and covering ground that has been covered many times before, I always learn new things and imagine that plenty of others are learning and enjoying themselves too.

But not Margamatix.

[Bob B.]

jayutah said:

The LM ascent trajectory is unusual in that the insertion point is not at perilune (or pericynthion -- I can never remember which is which) but is actually higher. So the initial orbit is 9x45 nm, but the insertion altitude is something like 10-13 nm. By comparison the insertion point for the space shuttle is something like 30-35 nm.

I remember discussing this with you once in the past but I was unaware they sometimes inserted as high as 13 nm. I thought it was more in the 10 nm range though I never actually looked up the numbers; I’ll take your word for it. I disagree however with the 30-35 nm figure for the Space Shuttle. I don’t recall the exact figure, but I’m pretty sure MECO (main engine cut off) occurs somewhere around 60-65 miles (52-57 nm). The Shuttle then takes about 45 minutes to rise to the desired orbital altitude at apogee where an OMS burn is performed to circularize the orbit.

In addition to perilune and pericynthion, periselene is also used though rarely. Peri- and apo- are Greek while Luna is Roman, so perilune and apolune are mixing Greek and Latin words, thus to an etymologist they are probably undesirable terms. Both Selene (goddess of the moon) and Cythion (from Kunthios, the supposed birthplace of Artemis) have Greek roots. I know that pericynthion and apocynthion are generally used for artificial bodies. I’ve also heard it defined that perilune/apolune are used for an object launched from the Moon, and pericynthion/apocynthion for an object launched from elsewhere.

phantomwolf said:

Ahh, thanks for that Bob, I didn't have time to do a really good search for the Apollo altitudes, but the page I had up said LEO was 500km. The 60 I used was the CM altitude from 11, though I guess it was probably nautical miles not miles and I haven't got a clue of the conversions between them.

I don’t know where the 500 km figure comes from. The only manned flights of which I’m aware that have orbited that high are the Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions and, or course, the two Gemini missions that went even higher. The 60 nm orbit around the Moon is a commonly cited figure, however in actuality, the CSM changed its orbit several times through the execution of the missions.

One nautical mile is 6,076 feet while a statute mile is 5,280 feet, thus the conversion is 1 nm equals about 1.15 miles. A nautical mile is the distance covered by one arcminute on the Earth’s surface.

[papageno]

bob said:

jayutah said:

The LM ascent trajectory is unusual in that the insertion point is not at perilune (or pericynthion -- I can never remember which is which) but is actually higher. So the initial orbit is 9x45 nm, but the insertion altitude is something like 10-13 nm. By comparison the insertion point for the space shuttle is something like 30-35 nm.

I remember discussing this with you once in the past but I was unaware they sometimes inserted as high as 13 nm. I thought it was more in the 10 nm range though I never actually looked up the numbers; I’ll take your word for it. I disagree however with the 30-35 nm figure for the Space Shuttle. I don’t recall the exact figure, but I’m pretty sure MECO (main engine cut off) occurs somewhere around 60-65 miles (52-57 nm). The Shuttle then takes about 45 minutes to rise to the desired orbital altitude at apogee where an OMS burn is performed to circularize the orbit.

Sorry for the off-topic, but for me nm means nanometer (10^-9 m), not nautical miles.

[Bob B.]

papageno said:

Sorry for the off-topic, but for me nm means nanometer (10^-9 m), not nautical miles.

Hmm... I always thought it meant New Mexico.

According to Wikipedia, the abbreviation nm is used for both nautical mile and nonometer.

Abbreviations

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in its International System of Units brochure lists the nautical mile in the table of units "currently accepted" for use with SI without using a symbol, saying in a footnote: "As yet there is no internationally agreed symbol."

The abbreviation "nm" is used. The same abbreviation, "nm", is also used to denote nanometre in the SI though little confusion is generated from this, as the contexts of use are very different. For example, the 'nm' abbreviation is typically seen in listings of aircraft flight range, but listed next to the range in kilometres (km). (Example of nm, km together- in performance section). Also, the large ratio of 1.852 trillion makes confusion unlikely in most cases. The abbreviation nmi is also used.

[papageno]

bob said:

papageno said:

Sorry for the off-topic, but for me nm means nanometer (10^-9 m), not nautical miles.

Hmm... I always thought it meant New Mexico.

According to Wikipedia, the abbreviation nm is used for both nautical mile and nonometer.

Yes, the context made it clear.
But in my job I usually deal with nanometers, so the first time I saw the posts above I thought: "Orbital mechanics measured in nanometers?"

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix said:

The moon is 600 times further away than any other manned flight is ever claimed to have travelled.

It doesn't really matter if it was 60 or 600 or 6,000.

The thing is though that once you are in Earth Orbit, it's not that much harder to get to the Moon. The hard part is getting up into Earth Orbit with enough fuel to get you to the moon. All you actully need to do to get to the moon is aim at the right spot and hit the thruster until you are going at the right speed to arrive at your spot as the moon gets there. It doesn't really matter from a physics point of view if you are planning to put a manned mission about the Earth, the Moon, or even about Mars. All you have to do is plot the orbit and fire the thrusters long enough to get you to the right speed, then the laws of motion and gavity will do the rest.

Concorde required engines capable of producing thrust for greater then anything had done before to power a huge areplane at supersonic speeds, as well as creating a passanger plane airframe that could take supersonic speeds. Those were both big steps.

While Apollo was an increase on the Gemini Tech, a lot of what they did for the CSM was just adding more fuel and oxygen for the trip there and back.

This is why ithe distance doesn't matter. It's like going for a drive. Once you have the car you can drive 1 km or 6,000 km, the hard part is getting the car out of the sales yard.

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix said:

jayutah said:

And this may save some time: www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

Thanks for the link, I have read it but must say that I am inclined to agree with Sibrel's views for virtually all of it.

Oooooookay. Niow comes the whhhhhhhhhy? The only reasns I can see to belive them is because you want too, not because they are worth believing. I'm seriously starting to disbleive you really ever accepted Apollo as real because as Jay said eariler, if you had, then you wouldn't cling to obviously looney claims like Sibrels. Half of then are just an assumption based on a premise he makes regardless of if it is right or not, the rest are accusation and attempts to prove guilt by association or just down right lies and deliberate deception.

[margamatix]

kiwi said:

sts60 said:

Kindly stop handwaving and start 'splainin.

The only things that Margamatix has proved on this board is that he is extremely ignorant of Apollo and the space programme in general (which is not a sin -- we all were once -- though he likes to talk as if he isn't), and that he is quite incapable of explaining almost anything or providing evidence to back up his claims. And that is sad.

Most hoax-believers behave in a highly predictable manner. They are sometimes amusing, but mostly just frustratingly obstreperous, obstinate and obtuse obfuscators. Margamatix is no exception. Just another Oxxo, Earthorbit, Unknown, Cosmic Dave, etc.

Still, excellent posts, guys. Although probably wasted on Margamatix and covering ground that has been covered many times before, I always learn new things and imagine that plenty of others are learning and enjoying themselves too.

But not Margamatix.

Hello Kiwi,

I don't make personal attacks on internet forums, so you'll forgive me if I don't respond in kind.

In fact, as Jiminy Cricket said, "If you can't say anything nice about a person, then don't say anything at all".

So please allow me to compliment you on the vividness of your imagination.

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

What we're still waiting for is for you to explain why.

If I was required to answer this is one sentence, I would say "Because in the second half of my life, I have learned that the government of the United States is prepared to lie to me"

Oh, and the bit in my signature below. And the astronaut who was jerked up on a wire. Any the fully-lit shaded astronauts. And the dust. And the fact that the USA could fund an impossibly expensive space programme at the same time as funding an impossibly expensive war. And everything, basically.

I didn't just come up the Thames on a piece of toast, as we say here in the UK.

[twinstead]

I didn't just come up the Thames on a piece of toast, as we say here in the UK.

If THOSE are the reasons why you believe it was a hoax, after all the highly detailed, intelligent, and rational explainations and refutations you have been presented with by people who actually KNOW what they are talking about, then I fear you did indeed just come up the Thames on a piece of toast, my ideologically biased friend.

[margamatix]

Hello Twinstead, see my reply to Kiwi above.