HB Contradictions

[AtomicDog]

Speculations like that and old Sci-Fi movies is probably where this "jumping up 10 feet" meme came from. People thought "one-sixth gravity" and didn't think about things like the spacesuit being flexible enough or falling on your back and smashing your PLSS - the only thing keeping you alive.

When I get to the moon I'll confine my jumping to inside the habitat.

[scooter]

Lets see...
Over at the LC forum, we were going round and round with David C about the fall rate of the dust thrown up by the rover. He was doing calculations using the values of g on the Moon...

Others argue about the radiation of the particle events that eminate from the Sun that can indeed be lethal to astronauts.

Still more argue, albeit in a twisted fashion, about the +/- 250 degree temperatures on the Moon

They are getting this information and science from where? Mainstream science sources? Then how, at the flick of the wrist, can they just as quickly say that mainstream science lies and cannot be trusted...when it comes out supporting the reality of the Apollo flights?

This is interesting...

[Data Cable]

This one hit me last night out of the blue, not searching through all 10 pages to see if it's already been said:

Argument #1: There are no stars in Apollo photographs because astronomers would have been able to tell they were fake

Argument #2: Geologists only say rocks are from the moon because NASA told them so.


Apparently one class of scientists just rolls over and does as they're told, while another would quickly spill the beans.

[AtomicDog]

Argument #1: The Russians were far in advance of the US in spaceflight. How could the US put men on the moon if the Russians couldn't?

Argument#2: The US used robots to retrieve 380 kg of lunar samples, even though the more advanced Russians could only retrieve 170 grams with their robots.

Contradiction: how could inferior US technology collect more lunar samples than superior Russian technology?

Edited to add: Sorry, Bob B. You beat me to this one almost a year ago.

[greigdempsey]

jayutah said:

Or the even more inherent and baffling:

1. NASA's colossal budget and unbridled skill allowed them to do whatever was necessary to create a convincing hoax.
2. NASA wasn't able to do what it takes to get to the moon.

NASA spent 350 billion dollars in today's money on the apollo programme, how much does it cost to make a Hollywood movie ?

[Bob B.]

greigdempsey said:

NASA spent 350 billion dollars in today's money on the apollo programme

You are off by a factor of three. NASA’s budget for Apollo for the years 1960-1973 was about $19.4 billion. That’s around $120 billion in today’s dollars.

greigdempsey said:

how much does it cost to make a Hollywood movie ?

I don’t know how much a Hollywood movie costs, but consider the following:

1. The money appropriated to Apollo is accounted for; there was nothing left for a “Hollywood movie”.
2. Hollywood movies today still can’t convincingly produce an artificial lunar environment, much less so in the 1960s.
3. Hollywood movies include only a few minutes of artificial scenes. The Apollo record includes hours of uninterrupted video.
4. The video record is only a small portion of the Apollo record. A movie can’t explain the existence of rock and soil samples, visual and radar tracking of the spacecraft in flight, real-time radio transmissions from the Moon, etc.

[greigdempsey]

Bob

If we stick to the subject at hand. The idea that a government budget is accounted for is preposterous. The Pentagon admitted to losing 2 trillion dollars in 2001.

2) How would you know that ?

3) Once you have the props in place, the extra hours would be insignificant in 350 billion dollars.

That's approximately 4,000 Hollywood movies at current costs.

[AtomicDog]

There were politicians who hated Apollo (Proxmire and Mondale come to mind), who watched NASA's budget like a hawk, and who were always ready to pounce at the first sign of perceived waste. If money was going somewhere that couldn't be accounted for, rest assured that they would have raised a big stink.

[Mr Gorsky]

greigdempsey said:

3) Once you have the props in place, the extra hours would be insignificant in 350 billion dollars.

Bob corrected that figure ... how do you respond to that? You can't just ignore it.

[Bob B.]

greigdempsey said:

Once you have the props in place

No props can reproduce what is seen in the Apollo video.

greigdempsey said:

the extra hours would be insignificant in 350 billion dollars.

Your $350 billion figure is incorrect.

[greigdempsey]

Bob is incorrect, the number is 350 billion according to what I read.

"No props can reproduce what is seen in the Apollo video."

You are a film director or a special effects director perhaps ?

[Jason Thompson]

Where did you read it? Not one source I have ever read has given the cost of Apollo as anything over $24billion, which converts to about $150billion in today's money.

[Bob B.]

greigdempsey said:

the number is 350 billion according to what I read.

What you read is wrong. Do you always unquestionably except everything you read as fact?

[echnaton]

"No props can reproduce what is seen in the Apollo video."

You are a film director or a special effects director perhaps ?

Are you? Just saying so does not make it true. This is your claim, do you have any facts to back it up?

[greigdempsey]

jasonthompson said:

Where did you read it? Not one source I have ever read has given the cost of Apollo as anything over $24billion, which converts to about $150billion in today's money.

Perhaps you would like to give us a detailed breakdown of the maths you used totranslate 1960 to 1973 spending to 2006 spending..