|
Post by sts60 on Sept 29, 2005 13:33:02 GMT -4
Are you suggesting (again) that a truck driver is more qualified to design equipment than rocket scientists? If so, then PONY UP AND POST A DRAWING!
He did. A scribble of a house made of lead, with rocket engines.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 13:34:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 29, 2005 13:40:48 GMT -4
I'm not interested in allegations about margmatix being a sock-puppet for someone else. I'm satisfied he is who he says he is: a guy who lives in the UK, with some kids, hobbies (see avatar), etc., and a driver by trade.
What I am interested in is his backing up his claim that the Apollo spacecraft were inadequate to the task, in terms of delta-V for any particular mission segment (or overall), radiation protection, or anything else.
(edit to add) and exactly what he thinks would have been adequate, and why.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 13:48:53 GMT -4
What I am interested in is his backing up his claim that the Apollo spacecraft were inadequate to the task, in terms of delta-V for any particular mission segment (or overall), radiation protection, or anything else. . The fact that it may or may not be theoretically possible to travel to the moon and back is neither here nor there. Moon footage was certainly faked- filmed on Earth, and showing actions which are completely incompatible with having been taken on the moon. Showing, for example astronauts moving in a way which would be totally incompatible with motion in one-sixth gravity. Moving exactly as they would on Earth, if you halved the speed of the film, in fact. So if we did go to the moon, why did we shoot the footage on Earth?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 29, 2005 14:17:58 GMT -4
Moon footage was certainly faked- filmed on Earth, and showing actions which are completely incompatible with having been taken on the moon. Showing, for example astronauts moving in a way which would be totally incompatible with motion in one-sixth gravity. Moving exactly as they would on Earth, if you halved the speed of the film, in fact. This is an unproven allegation against which considerable refuting evidence has been presented. You have been unable to back up your claim with anything other than your repeated insistence it must be true. Your claim is without merit. edit spelling
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Sept 29, 2005 14:21:12 GMT -4
[ Moving exactly as they would on Earth, if you halved the speed of the film, in fact. So if we did go to the moon, why did we shoot the footage on Earth? You only think that until you see other footage which has definitely not been halved (arms flailing wildly, etc.) This of course has been pointed out to you before and of course was ignored by you (of which we were not surprised. You've ignored any and all evidence that doesn't fit into your world view) You still haven't proved that the footage was shot on Earth. It couldn't have been when you look at the perfect ballistic trajectory of the dust thrown by the wheels of the lunar rover. That footage proves they were in a vacuum and therefore not on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 29, 2005 14:24:01 GMT -4
Moon footage was certainly faked- filmed on Earth, and showing actions which are completely incompatible with having been taken on the moon. Showing, for example astronauts moving in a way which would be totally incompatible with motion in one-sixth gravity.
Moving exactly as they would on Earth, if you halved the speed of the film, in fact.
So if we did go to the moon, why did we shoot the footage on Earth?No. You are begging the question, again. Moon footage was not "certainly" faked on Earth. You cannot use your claim as evidence for your claim. But I'll leave the imagery interpretation points for others, who have already addressed it - without reply from you, other than restating your opinion as above. The fact that it may or may not be theoretically possible to travel to the moon and back is neither here nor there.No. You have directly used as part of your campaign against Apollo on this board insinuations and claims that the technology was inadequate. It most certainly is "here", not "there", for this discussion, especially because the topic of this thread is lunar spacecraft adequacy, not opinions on what motion imagery looks like. I'm sure, since you have admonished others to stay on topic, you will discuss the footage on a relevant thread, and stick to defending your claims about spacecraft technology here. Here are a couple of claims you made or insinuated, with threads refuting these claims, which are directly relevant to this thread: - the Apollo CSM was unable to get back from the Moon itself (couldn't carry enough fuel, etc.) (link)- the Apollo spacecraft was inadequate to protect against the radiation environment (link)
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 29, 2005 14:25:13 GMT -4
Cute! Can I use it? I'm not offended in the least, so you know. This is on-par, intellectually, with most of your posts. And it's so CUTE! By the way, I don't really think you are Bart(space)Sibrel, nor do I think you're really a chatterbot. After all, you posted that nifty "I am not Bart Sibrel" picture. I STILL laugh when it comes across my screensaver slideshow! I also compared it to the picture of you in front of RedSquare, and I think "not Bart" looks a bit like "truck driving" guy. Older, a bit, and perhaps more bitter, but hey, who isn't? I do, however, think you're just yanking our chains, since you never respond to intelligent posts with intelligent responses, but just change the subject, and reiterate the same lame "arguements" and unsupported assertions. Does your faith in the Hoax give you comfort? I suspect that, like me, you suffer from "stimulation deficit disorder." In other words you're bored, and you come here to keep life interesting. If you wanted to LEARN anything, I think you would have demonstrated, even accidentally, some absorption of the information you've been given. Since you haven't, I guess you just keep coming back to be the token bonehead for us. So go load spacecad, tell me your findings, and give us a higher lever of discourse.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 29, 2005 14:37:17 GMT -4
How many hammers did mankind use before inventing the claw nail-puller?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Sept 29, 2005 14:38:32 GMT -4
That's an ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. Way to take the high road there Margamatix
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 14:49:41 GMT -4
Cute! Can I use it? I'm not offended in the least, so you know. This is on-par, intellectually, with most of your posts. And it's so CUTE! . Yeah, course you can. It's not mine anyway, just one of those things which float about. And hey, look. I may not be a rocket scientist, but I am a reasonably intelligent and educated person, so if NASA have failed to convince me that the moon landings actually happened, then perhaps they are doing something wrong??? Maybe NASA should commission some kind of book?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 14:53:59 GMT -4
That's an ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. Way to take the high road there Margamatix I think rocketdad "got it" and even if he hadn't, I'm sure he's quite capable of speaking on his own behalf without any assistance from you.
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 29, 2005 14:54:45 GMT -4
How many hammers did mankind use before inventing the claw nail-puller? How many hammers, or how many types? The Romans invented the claw hammer, by the way. The first hammers were made by Homo habilis ("handy man!") by strapping a chunk of rock to a stick. Some of you can geek-out on math, or engineering, or the specifics of the space program, I geek-out on tools. We've been using the same Good Basic Design since then, with suble refinements like magnets embedded in the head to hold nails you need to start way overhead. Most other design changes have been negative in the long run, like fiberglass handles and the horrible Estwing. Professional carpenters who make a living swatting nails with as few swings as possible like a long wooden handle, a fairly straight claw, and no frills. Apply the above to the space program. There you go. Of course the new lander will be different in some ways, but when things can be designed on a computer, many generations of design can be executed in short order compared to t-square and slide-rule drafting. I can't wait to see what they come up with. Exciting!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 29, 2005 15:04:06 GMT -4
Maybe NASA should commission some kind of book? They were planning to do so but then changed their minds. When Joe Taxpayer objected to the plan, it was decided they wouldn't dignify the crazy claims of the conspiracy kooks with a response.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 15:16:34 GMT -4
They were planning to do so but then changed their minds. . Actually, I knew that, but was using a form of English humour known as irony, which it is often said that folk in the US don't understand. I don't mean to confuse, so I won't use this form of irony again. When Joe Taxpayer objected to the plan, it was decided they wouldn't dignify the crazy claims of the conspiracy kooks with a response. But surely books make money? And if Joe Taxpayer objects to the cost of a book, what is he going to say about the cost of the 2018 moon mission? Perhaps this was just the excuse used by NASA to cancel the book when they realised that the more they held Apollo up to public scrutiny, the more ridiculous the whole scenario became?
|
|