|
Post by sts60 on Sept 29, 2005 15:21:23 GMT -4
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?
NASA doesn't always do the best job of PR; even its admirers admit that. But it's hard to imagine what they could to convince folks like you. I mean, really, why would a book by NASA convince you?
As Bob B. pointed out, they did commission a book, but the idea of spending taxpayer money on a book to convince people that Apollo actually happened was derided as a waste of money. I have to agree; it's like DOD writing a book to prove that the Korean War actually happened. Some people are simply not going to believe it, no matter how much evidence you present and how many times you show that their claims are wrong. So why waste the money?
The amusing thing is that the amount proposed was pretty tiny by federal budgeting standards, in the tens of thousands of dollars IIRC. That's down "in the noise" of what any federal agency leaks through simple bureaucratic inefficiency, let alone ill-conceived projects or the rampant "pork" dished up by lawmakers.
Besides, there are a number of people who will be happy to set you straight for free, and at no cost to the taxpayer. Some, like Jay, Bob B., and others, have put in a great deal of work on their own time and out of their own pocket, simply because they appreciate the engineering and scientific achievements of Apollo and its precursors (and competitors in the USSR!).
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 29, 2005 15:34:20 GMT -4
"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???"
I think you need to need to come to my "philosophy of belief" thread with some of this thinking.
It's obvious you're not a rocket scientist, but less so that you're intelligent and educted. Painfully obvious is that you insist on remaining stubbornly ignorant. NASA doesn't need to "convince" you of anything, that's not their job. They have not failed to convince you, you have succeeded in convincing yourself of something that defies logic and analysis, and you remain convinced of this in spite of any and all information offered to you otherwise.
WHY? I just don't understand!!! What (besides attention) do you get out of this? Why do you keep coming back when you know everybody here thinks you're a knucklehead or a chain-yanker?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 29, 2005 15:34:49 GMT -4
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.
Patronizing us, and insulting Americans in general, is not necessary. I figured from the smilies that you might have been making a joke, but there were some interesting points to be developed, so I decided to respond straight-up.
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?
The federal government doesn't publish books to make money; and even if they did, no agency decides to publish one because of profit potential.
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?
It's your scenario that's ridiculous. NASA has made an enormous amount of material available for public scrutiny for decades, from high-resolution imagery to flight hardware to scientific data. Lunar samples have been doled out to researchers across the world for decades.
The idea that a book would somehow suddenly tip over a massive conspiracy, which had been alleged for many years by loud and persistent conspiracists, is absurd. It also shows how you are either quite unfamiliar with or choosing to ignore the massive amount of data that has been out there all these years. It does fit rather well with your tendency to equate "evidence" with "something that can be pulled up on a Web browser".
But, hey, we're off-topic, aren't we? I know you want to get back on-topic so you can tell us exactly why the Apollo CSM couldn't get back from the Moon, or why the Apollo spacecraft and flight profile didn't offer adequate radiation protection.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 29, 2005 16:04:12 GMT -4
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.Patronizing us, and insulting Americans in general, is not necessary. I figured from the smilies that you might have been making a joke, but there were some interesting points to be developed, so I decided to respond straight-up. I too figured it was meant as a joke, but I decided to turn it into an opportunity to call the conspiracists kooks and their claims crazy.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 16:14:31 GMT -4
(Edited, unaltered) It's obvious you're not a rocket scientist, but less so that you're intelligent and educted. Painfully obvious is that you insist on remaining stubbornly ignorant. Why do you keep coming back when you know everybody here thinks you're a knucklehead or a chain-yanker? There's no need to be rude or insulting, and I am baffled by your nasty attitude. I am here in good faith. No offence, but I am now going to place you in the same box as "Kiwi"- snide and offensive person, to whom I never reply. Goodbye.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 29, 2005 16:21:02 GMT -4
There's no need to be rude or insulting, and I am baffled by your nasty attitude. I am here in good faith. This would be more irony then?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2005 22:04:19 GMT -4
Also you have to remember that though it was about the same size as the Saturn V, the N-1 only had 70% of the lifting power, hence the LOK was a two man ship and the LK a one man whereas the CSM was a three man and the LM a two.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2005 22:37:51 GMT -4
I can't wait to see what they come up with. Exciting! Even from the computer generated it looks like they'll be going with a similar plan to the LM. I suspect that in the end, the lander will be extremely similar to the LM because in all honestly, it's the most logical design. A box sitting on four splayed legs with a rocket on the bottom has to be the simplest design for a planetary lander where you aren't needing to worry about aerodynamics. I'm sure that the interior will be totally different to the LM, because our Tech is so much better, but just as the Boeing 777 looks pretty similar to the Boeing 707 on the outside, when you have a almost perfect shape for the job, there's not really any point in changing it a lot.
|
|
|
Post by DaiHoss on Oct 8, 2005 7:16:57 GMT -4
Hi all
I've been thinking about this return to the moon business, and i have a few observations
1. The Russian design for a moon lander, the LM, and the new look LM for the return in 2018, and even margamatix's 'house of lead' are all pretty much the same shape i.e. engine at the bottom, something to land on, astronauts inside. I think that suggests that the shape of the lander is actually the right shape (although margamatix's is twelve foot taller and wider due to the six foot of lead shielding used; incidentally can anyone explain to me why x-ray departments in hospitals, UV sunglasses or my microwave oven don't have 6 foot thick lead walls? Nuclear bunkers also don't have 6 foot thick lead walls, they have steel-reinforced concrete walls which are lighter than lead, so you could argue why not just make it out of concrete?) Anyway I digress......
2. With a return to the moon which will "obviously" also be a fake/hoax, would that not introduce the possibility of a whole new generation of whistle-blowers and secret-keepers into the mix? Particularly the way that mass media is nowadays, it would be so easy for someone to get paid $1million or more by a magazine or TV programme to produce evidence that these new landings are also fake. Unlike in the 60's where it'd be hard to sneak out big blueprints or whatever, you could just download it onto your iPod or some other easily transportable media. The incentive is definitely there more now than it was then.
3. Suppose the original Apollo moon landings were faked. Now the original political reason for them has been achieved (i.e. beat the Russians in the Cold War) and the Cold War is over. The 2 men leading the Administration that devised it (Kennedy and Johnson) are dead, and the 2 men leading the Administration when they took place are dead and discredited. Most if not all of the engineers and other NASA and contractor employees are no longer working for them or are also dead. The NASA administration and leadership at the time have also gone. What would NASA lose by admitting that it was faked? Not much; America and NASA might lose a bit of face but could easily spin it out e.g. "We had to fake it in order to beat the Russians in the Cold War etc etc" - this is not that far-fetched. Many things were faked or covered up during the Second World War and revealed later because there is/was no longer any requirement to keep it secret. Further, the current incumbent Government could then claim it was all the fault of the 'dirty' Democrats i.e. Kennedy & Johnson for their own political ends. A new Democrat Administration could claim it was the fault of the 'dirty' Republicans and the already discredited Nixon and Agnew. Either way, any current or upcoming Administration would lose very little themselves, plus it could be a great way of burying bad news In fact you can now argue that it would be in NASA's best interest to declare it was a fake as then they could use the excuse of needing to save America's face in order to garner more funding in order to actually go to the moon. They could claim it wasn't possible in 1969 but because of technological advancements it is now possible and it should be done. NASA receives a huge wad of cash and then gets the chance to spend it on putting a man on the moon...... As an extra bonus, the hoax believers and conspiracists then would get an little bit of extra fame for 15 minutes with a quick "I told you so...", then never be heard from again - there'd be no reason to!
OK so this argument may have flaws - as any argument does - but it is not an implausible possibility.
|
|
|
Post by DaiHoss on Oct 8, 2005 7:24:52 GMT -4
BTW re. point 1 above - I know that microwaves are at the other end of the spectrum from radiation in the VA belts or UV and x ray radiation, I was just making a point
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 8, 2005 8:55:47 GMT -4
Well actually the VA Belts aren't prt of the spectrum at all because they aren't electromagnetiic radiation, they are particle radiation. It's a whole different kettle of fish.
This is the thing. The VA Belts consist of Beta particles, electrons and protons. The best shielding for this is water or a high density polymer, though a thin sheet of aluminum works okay to.
The VA Belts really only scare those with no understand of what Radiation is. The same people that think that having an alpha radiation emitter sitting ten feet away from them is deadly dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by DaiHoss on Oct 8, 2005 10:51:59 GMT -4
OK I think I didn't quite understand all the radiation primer at clavius.org ( www.clavius.org/envradintro.html ) But, vefore anyone tries to claim that I'm only getting my info from a pro- Apollo website, I did ask my sister to check it over. She's a radiographer so is in a much better than I to understand all this. But thanks for correcting me there PW However my previous point and question still stand - why do you need 6 feet of lead shielding? As far as I'm aware you don't. Even the army (which I was in) don't have their soldiers walking around in lead suits - the NBC gear they use is only about the thickness of an overcoat, and is lined with carbon (I believe) for protection. They try and limit their duration of exposure. I also remember in school looking at different types of radiation - and the teacher getting the Geiger counter out and showing that the alpha radiation didn't go very far, and Beta radiation being stopped by a piece of paper. The small piece of Gamma radiated material was the most dangerous, but we were told we were quite safe "as long as we don't look directly at it"
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 8, 2005 15:00:15 GMT -4
The same people that think that having an alpha radiation emitter sitting ten feet away from them is deadly dangerous. Funny you should mention that. For a long time we thought the Soyuz capsule used radar to activate the braking rockets that fire to cushion its impact. It turns out the ground proximity sensor doesn't use a radar at all. There is an alpha emitter in the bottom of the capsule (essentially right behind the crew's seats). A directional radiation sensor picks up the reflected scatter from the ground. When it gets above a certain level, it fires the rocket.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 8, 2005 15:33:37 GMT -4
Y'know, DaiHoss (Kin ah call yuh "Hoss?"), you've got a good idea there. Remember when the Allies broke the Enigma code? We didn't dare reveal our code work until many years after the war, as there were several governments of interest still using similar machines. But when it was finally safe to do so we took the opportunity to stand up and say "Hey, check out this amazing technical feat -- how our technical people really put one over on Jerry. Aren't we cool?"
So...now that the Cold War is over and done, and we're on the way back to the moon at last, wouldn't the current administration want to stand on a chair and say "Hey, check out how we put one over on the Russkies. Boy, faking that moon landing was hard, but we had the top-flight people to do it, and do it well!"
|
|
|
Post by teotwin on Oct 8, 2005 19:05:14 GMT -4
wasn't this a figure intended to reflect the needs of inter planetary travel?
I thought (courtesy of OLD A-Level Physics!) that alpha particles only travelled a few inches in air - was this really the system they used?
|
|