|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 2, 2005 19:37:15 GMT -4
Why do you always say this when you have no sensible reply?
How else do you suggest I answer a stupid question?
Your questions simply ask us to agree that you're right, without presenting any argument. You throw meaningless and unfounded disbelief at some proposition and then expect us to defend against it.
You are trying to shift the burden of proof.
If you believe that the LM could not have made it to lunar orbit, then you have the burden of proof to tell us why. Simply asking us to agree that it seems improbable or inconceivable is not proof.
If you believe that the CSM was incapable of transearth injection, then you have the burden of proof to show why.
Rocketry is a computable science. Before we have any obligation to address your objection, you have the responsibility to show that the objection is based on something refutable, not just your underinformed, predisposed opinion.
Can I really believe the LM could make it to lunar orbit? Yes.
Can I really believe the CSM could make it to a transfer orbit to Earth? Yes.
Before I waste any time supplying more than those answers, you owe me the substantiation for your disbelief.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 2, 2005 20:04:43 GMT -4
It's helpful to think of another fallacy of this type: the complex question. The old chestnut is, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Demanding a yes or no answer requires the respondent to agree to the premise that he has been beating his wife, and that he either continues or has stopped. But if he has never beaten his wife, then the question cannot be answered properly in the manner implied. The proper response here is either to identify the question as complex or improper, or to answer so as to deny the premise: "I have never beaten my wife."
The "question" in "begging the question" is some proposition that has been advanced. "Question" has a broader meaning in rhetoric and logic. To "beg" it means to ask the opponent to concede an important premise, or the overall conclusion itself, without having provided an argument in favor for it.
The question of whether the spacecraft could have performed as required is a very important premise. Normally that premise would have to be established by working out, in scientific terms, exactly what kinds of thrust, velocity, and other factors would be required to go from here to there, as claimed. Then it would have to compare the propulsive and guidance capability of the spacecraft as built. That is normally an involved, technical process. Instead, you want those questions to be answered solely on the basis of some abstract skepticism or by casual inspection.
No, people are not required to give you a meaningful answer to a question that proposes an absurd line of reasoning or an indefensible mode of investigation. It is sufficient, as in the above hypothetical example, simply to identify the question as one of unanswerable form.
As I said -- if you want thoughtful answers then you must ask thoughtful questions, not ones that merely presume to have a sound basis. And showing that your questions are well-based and thoughtful requires you to work out the above premise to show that there is some legitimate doubt about the spacecraft's capability. Simply implying that the answer is "naturally" in your favor and must be defended otherwise sidesteps your responsibility to provide well-founded questions that would demand a meaningful answer.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 2, 2005 20:27:53 GMT -4
I think you have lost track of the thread here, which is "Will Bart Sibrel offer a refund to dissatisfied customers?" , and since I have already offered to underwrite his guarantee, I would suggest that the thread is effectively closed.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Sept 2, 2005 20:41:37 GMT -4
Now who doesn't have a sensible reply?
You asked Jay to clarify why he frequently responds to your statements with the expression "Begging the Question" ... and he did so.
Begging the question is the name given to a fallacious argument created when the conclusion is assumed to be true where the only evidence offered is the premise that the conclusion is true.
YOU DO THIS ALL THE TIME! Hence Jay's continued use of the expression in response to your arguments.
Let's just pick one of the statements you listed ... Do you really believe that the LM could make it to Lunar Orbit?
You offer no evidence for your obvious belief that it could not, except the fact that you have concluded it is impossible. You then ask the rest of us to agree with you on the basis of this alone. That is begging the question.
Here is another example (not yours!)
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
Can we now add English to the (ever-lengthening) list of things that you don't understand?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 2, 2005 20:47:38 GMT -4
OK. Vehicle insufficiently large to carry sufficient fuel.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Sept 2, 2005 20:56:54 GMT -4
How much fuel would the vehicle (presumably the LM) need?
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 2, 2005 20:58:44 GMT -4
The Apollo flies back and forth, the Saturn burns up like a Chinese firework, after it does JUST ONE JOB: Get the load off the ground. . OK, now think about the return journey from the moon.Thought experiments lack scientific rigor, but okay. Today is the day a carpenter teaches rocket science to a truck driver. However the vehicles are configured or coupled, a certain amount of energy would be required to escape the moon's gravity.Obviously, but not from the lunar surface. The Apollo is in orbit, so has some velocity to start with. Since the moon has one-sixth of Earth's gravity, Earth's gravity would not begin to assist the craft until it was over 40,000 miles away from the moon.If you say so. I'm a carpenter. Tell me where to look it up.n As far as I know gravity has infinite reach of decreasing strength. Look at the Command Module and compare it with the Saturn launcher.
Looks like a 200:1 mass ratio, at a wild guess. Do you really think that this machine could have travelled 40,000 miles from moon orbit?What we "think" is irrelevant. Show me the math. With enought sticks and the right kind of mud I can build you a nice modern house. Come to that, do you really think the Lunar Module could have popped up 70 miles to meet it?Again, what we "think" is irrelevant. The engineers took every bit of weight off the thing they could, including the entire descent-stage equipment. And could have met it and coupled with it without incident, despite the completely untried nature of such a manoeuvre?Not untried. Dr. von Braun was obsessive about testing, and wanted more than he was given. Do you really think that a mission to the moon would not have commenced with an unmanned craft?Dr. von Braun agreed with you, but was overruled. He also wanted no-landing flyby missions before landing, but he was overruled. Do you really think that six missions to the moon could have taken place without loss of life?Almost didn't. And the Russians killed lots of astronauts and destroyed lots of unmanned probes. Dr.vB was experienced in failure, and hated it. Try this, Margamatix: google "SpaceCAD" and download a 30-day trial version. Use one of the example rockets with Estes motors. Add staging, see the alititude, then use the same number of motors on a cluster. The First stage lifts the others, and series-staging loses perfomance for a given amount of fuel. That's why the shuttle is parallel-staged. The Saturn V had to lift everything, including the fuel that lifted the fuel that flew the fuel to fly back clear to the moon. How much does the gas comsumption of your truck change when you run empty vs. full? What about with 2 trailers? What if the first one was just fuel, how far would you go? What if you had 5 trailers of fuel and one of cargo - what kind of fuel efficiency would you have? There is no refueling a rocket on the way to orbit, but you can throw away the empties as you go. Look, I'm starting to get sick of your stubbornness and I just got here. Maybe you should accept that NASA hired engineers with doctoral degrees instead of truck drivers to design things FOR A REASON.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Sept 2, 2005 21:52:19 GMT -4
OK, now think about the return journey from the moon.
However the vehicles are configured or coupled, a certain amount of energy would be required to escape the moon's gravity.
Since the moon has one-sixth of Earth's gravity, Earth's gravity would not begin to assist the craft until it was over 40,000 miles away from the moon.
Look at the Command Module and compare it with the Saturn launcher.
Do you really think that this machine could have travelled 40,000 miles from moon orbit?
Yes. The bulk of the Saturn V was designed to get the payload into earth orbit. From there, the S-IVB took the CSM and LM on their way to lunar orbit. Once the landing was complete, only the CSM was required to return. Breaking lunar orbit would not have been so difficult.
Come to that, do you really think the Lunar Module could have popped up 70 miles to meet it?
Yes, because that is what the Ascent Stage was designed to do, and it only had 1/6 of Earth gravity to contend with and no atmosphere.
And could have met it and coupled with it without incident, despite the completely untried nature of such a manoeuvre?
Not untried. Rendezvous was first practised with the GEMINI programme, then with the CSM / LM in earth orbit during Apollo 9, then in lunar orbit during Apollo 10. And not without incident. Problems were discovered during the trials, addressed, and corrected.
Do you really think that a mission to the moon would not have commenced with an unmanned craft?
Incorrect. There were the Lunar Orbiters, the Rangers, and the Surveyors prior to a lunar landing. The workups had been done, and everything looked good. It would have been a bit of a waste of money to get a LM to land on the moon then not have anyone in it. If there had been major problems dicovered during the lead up, then perhaps that is what they might have done. It wasn't necessary.
Do you really think that six missions to the moon could have taken place without loss of life?
Three astronauts died in the Apollo 1 fire. Three more nearly died on Apollo 13. In some ways, that's why the missions were cancelled when they were. There was an opinion amongst some that perhaps they had pushed their luck far enough.
Please think about it before you reply.
I did. Now YOU think about the facts.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 2, 2005 22:34:56 GMT -4
OK. Vehicle insufficiently large to carry sufficient fuel. Yet another claim borrowed from Bart Sibrel. Do you always consult a tabloid journalist when you need someone to evaluate the capabilities of a space vehicle? Do you also call a plumber when you have a toothache? The LM had exactly the right amount of propellant on board to perform its job and the fuel tanks were exactly the right size to contain that amount of propellant. I know this because I've performed the calculations to prove it to my satisfaction. Why don't you ask Bart Sibrel to provide his calculations, and good luck getting them?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 2, 2005 23:20:47 GMT -4
However the vehicles are configured or coupled, a certain amount of energy would be required to escape the moon's gravity. True. Do you know how much? Not true. The Earth exerts a force on the spacecraft even while it is still within the Moon’s zone of influence. Okay, the CM is really small compared to the Saturn V. This is a really good thing too because the service propulsion system (SPS) only had enough impulse to propel something that small back to Earth. Of course, why wouldn’t it? Just have the SPS add 1,000 m/s and the CSM is headed back to Earth. It’s a very simple calculation, would you like me to explain it to you? No, fortunately it only had to get up to about 9 or 10 miles. And yes, the LM could get up to this altitude; I’ve performed the calculations to verify the LM’s ascent capability. What was untried? A lunar orbit rendezvous and docking was performed on the Apollo 10 mission. The missions to the Moon did begin with unmanned spacecraft. Have you ever heard of Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, and Surveyor? Surveyor had already made several unmanned lunar landings. The LM was designed to fly manned, so what good would an unmanned test be? Yes I do, however this was not the case. The testing that led up to those six successful mission sadly resulted in the deaths of astronauts Grissom, White and Chaffee This is good advise, please try it sometime.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 2, 2005 23:33:17 GMT -4
Why don't you order a video, view it with an open mind, and then decide if you want your money back? I tell you what- if he refuses to refund your money, then I will buy the video for what you paid for it, and re-imburse your postage. So what are you waiting for? I've already seen it. It sucks! Don't waste your money.
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 2, 2005 23:55:48 GMT -4
I think you have lost track of the thread here, which is "Will Bart Sibrel offer a refund to dissatisfied customers?" , and since I have already offered to underwrite his guarantee, I would suggest that the thread is effectively closed. are you bart?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 3, 2005 2:15:00 GMT -4
So I'm just supposed to take the word of an anonymous person who claims he is an English truck driver and HB, when their is good reason to suspect that he is BS or a hoax? The question was will he honor his guarantee, not if he is offering one. That he is offering a guarantee is a matter of record. Since he takes publicly available NASA footage and a clip from Capricorn 1 and claims it is "secret footage" that he found and lies to astronauts so as to ambush them how much faith am I to put in his word? You it seems don't believe that man went to the moon simply because you don't want to, I don't trust BS because he is a liar. I said giving my money to that low life would be worse to me than being out the $ 30. So if he reneged and you didn't I'd have your money but he'd still have mine. Also this question maybe of interest to others. Are willing honor BS's guarantee to ANYONE on this forum who tells you they ordered one of his movies weren't satisfied and weren't able to get their money back? I think you have lost track of the thread here, which is "Will Bart Sibrel offer a refund to dissatisfied customers?" , and since I have already offered to underwrite his guarantee, I would suggest that the thread is effectively closed. are you bart?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 3, 2005 2:54:40 GMT -4
margamatix, I want you to look at this craft: It was launched in this tiny rocket: Do you think that there is any way it could possibly have get to the Moon? Look at it it. It doesn't even have a rocket engine on it, let along anywhere ner the room to hold suciffent fuel to get even close to there. I mean you'd have to be an idiot to claim it could reach the Moon right?. So what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Sept 3, 2005 8:34:33 GMT -4
Come to that, do you really think the Lunar Module could have popped up 70 miles to meet it?No, fortunately it only had to get up to about 9 or 10 miles.The initial LM ascent orbit is about 17x83 km (10x50 miles) which is then raised to the 110km (70 mile) circular orbit by a series of small burns. The major use of the ascent engine is getting from the virtual standing start on the surface to the perilune velocity of the initial orbit which is about 1690 m/s (5540 ft/s). In the Coelliptic rendezvous method the small burns are the CSI burn of about 13 m/s (45 ft/s) and then the TPI burn of about 7 m/s (25 ft/s). Those small burn figures are more or less the same as the Hohmann transfer values for those orbital changes. N.B. The above figures use km and miles while Apollo used nautical miles. The actual figures varied between missions. Lots of details are in the AFJ - Lunar Orbit Rendezvous essay. I think I have two corrections to the Clavius page. 1 - The Clavius equation for v_p is different from equation 1.16 on Bob's page. I think the numerator in the Clavius equation should use R_a. 2 - The Clavius calculations use 14x72 km which I think is a result of misconverting the 9x45 nautical miles orbit as miles.
|
|