Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,448 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 979,409
Pageviews Today: 1,284,313Threads Today: 251Posts Today: 4,419
10:39 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

 
Elemental
Mostly harmless.....

User ID: 13461811
United Kingdom
10/02/2013 01:07 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Wow. You're not really a science guy are you? And you have the long, rambling and bizarre response pattern of a shill. Are some of you still working?
 Quoting: Brazillian Coward 47569105

Ad hominem attack.

NASA never tested rocket powered flight in the vacuum of space yet succeeded in all missions. Impossible.
 Quoting: Brazillian Coward 47569105

Unevidenced assertion.

How many planes crashed trying to get the first one to fly? Hundreds? Thousands?
 Quoting: Brazillian Coward 47569105

Since this is key to you statistical fallacy YOU need to tell us.

The atmosphere and the vacuum are completely different mediums. It's like saying that a car that drives on land should also work underwater. It's silly to think that way, isn't it?
 Quoting: Brazillian Coward 47569105

We know and understand the differences between the environments.
Why don't you?

As a matter of fact anyone who does also knows that rockets work BETTER in a vacuum.

The principle of "Free Expansion of Gas" as proven by Joule in the early 1900's is enough to invalidate rocket flight in space.
 Quoting: Brazillian Coward 47569105

Unevidenced assertion.

Gas entering a vacuum does no work, releases no heat or energy
 Quoting: Brazillian Coward 47569105

Unevidenced assertion.

the vacuum must be filled with matter otherwise the gas simply disperses in all direction and fills the vacuum without ever releasing it's energy. This is a scientifically proven fact
 Quoting: Brazillian Coward 47569105

Produce this alledged "proof". Please.

which needs to be addressed by space rocket designers before I believe they really work.
 Quoting: Brazillian Coward 47569105

What you believe is immaterial.

YOU assert that rockets that rockets cannot work in a vacuum contrary to ALL evidence.
YOU have the burden to PROVE YOUR ASSERTION.

they're fun to watch and they make for a good show and big dreams, Flash Gordon and all that. Reality, though, tells us otherwise.
 Quoting: Brazillian Coward 47569105

Reality tells us that rockets work in space.
We can SEE them work in space.
book

Darryl Cunningham Investigates The Moon Hoax [link to darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com]
Moon Base Clavius, for all your debunking needs [link to www.xmission.com]
_____________________________________________________________​____________________
I will give a hundred bucks (EUR100,-) to the first person who can prove a single relevant evidential fact ever claimed by any hoaxmonger.
The Halcyon Dayz EVIDENCE or STFU! Challenge.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


Nice,

Yes.
energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed.
Nothing is so potent as the silent influence of a good example.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Alea iacta est.
Dum vivimus vivamus
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/02/2013 02:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
So...a vacuum cleaner doesn't work?

If you can't put or remove energy into a vacuum (whatever the heck that is actually supposed to mean), then the (partial) vacuum inside a vacuum cleaner does nothing. There is no energy there to provide propulsion to the dirt embedded in your carpet.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28566565
United States
10/02/2013 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
All images and descriptions of rockets flying through space are farces and have no basis in actual science or physics.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47569105


Guess you never played with model rockets as a kid. Behold the brand new Estes Conspiracy.
 Quoting: 74444



I'm guessing you never flew your model rockets in a vacuum.

Well neither has NASA. Their vacuum chambers aren't big enough to test rocket flight. Scientists will build a 17 mile long tunnel to smash atoms but only a 122 foot high vacuum chamber to test rockets.

Rockets work in the atmosphere but there is no proof they work in a vacuum except the NASA videos. It's a faith thing because they have no independent way to verify their claims.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47569105


There are hundreds of satellites in space that disprove your belief that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 46750620
United States
10/02/2013 05:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
It' s the lack of no moon dust on the lunar lander. Get's them every time.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 37781229
Netherlands
10/02/2013 05:38 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
It' s the lack of no moon dust on the lunar lander. Get's them every time.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 46750620

It's their lack of knowledge of all the relevant disciplines that gets the hoaxies every time.

Now do something singularly unique and be the first hoaxie to explain how dust that was blown away from where the LM landed could have ended up where the LM landed.
book
_____________________________________________________________​____________________
I will give a hundred bucks (EUR100,-) to the first person who can prove a single relevant evidential fact ever claimed by any hoaxmonger.
The Halcyon Dayz EVIDENCE or STFU! Challenge.
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28566565
United States
10/02/2013 07:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
It' s the lack of no moon dust on the lunar lander. Get's them every time.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 46750620

It's their lack of knowledge of all the relevant disciplines that gets the hoaxies every time.

Now do something singularly unique and be the first hoaxie to explain how dust that was blown away from where the LM landed could have ended up where the LM landed.
book
_____________________________________________________________​____________________
I will give a hundred bucks (EUR100,-) to the first person who can prove a single relevant evidential fact ever claimed by any hoaxmonger.
The Halcyon Dayz EVIDENCE or STFU! Challenge.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


I have seen photos of dust on LEM footpads from a few missions. But that would require actual research (effort) on the part of the hoaxers.

Isn't it strange that NASA's story has remained consistent from day one, yet it's the hoaxers have to continually come up with new, inventive and completely wacky explanations?
74444

User ID: 74444
United States
10/02/2013 09:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
It' s the lack of no moon dust on the lunar lander. Get's them every time.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 46750620


Who has that ever gotten when?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47569105
Brazil
10/04/2013 07:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Many NASA shills and useful idiots refer to Newton's 3rd Law (equal and opposite reaction) as a reason why rockets work in the vacuum of space. This is an absolute lie from NASA and ignorance on the part of everyone else. Why?

Newton didn't study gasses and he didn't study gasses in a vacuum. He worked with solid bodies. Newton never intended his results to be applied to rockets expelling gasses.

The people who did study gasses in a vacuum found, first of all, that gas does not exist in the vacuum. According to Boyle's Law gass must be under some pressure to exist at all. Therefore there can be no gas in space. The so-called "clouds of gas" that NASA refers to are in fact dust particles and not "gas". Saying they are the same is like saying if you throw up a handful of sand in the air it becomes a "cloud". Rockets are not based on "high pressure dust particles."

The second major result of gasses in a vacuum is that if you release high pressure gas into a vacuum it enters without doing any work or releasing any energy. This is called "Free Expansion" and was proven by Joule. Since the gas exerts no force when it hits the vacuum there is no force to be equal and opposite to.

Therefore while a rocket works in the atmosphere it will not in a vacuum because it depends on properties of gasses.

Saying Newton's law will work with rockets in space is like saying a unicorn can run faster than a horse. What is the point of arguing with someone who believes a unicorn is real?

The burden of proof on NASA/shills is to show that gas can and does exist in space in such a form and with properties that would make it useful for propulsion. No such proof exists, only shills shilling hard, diverting the issue and playing associated tricks on themselves and others.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 37781229
Netherlands
10/04/2013 09:16 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Recoil. How does it work.

book
_____________________________________________________________​____________________
I will give a hundred bucks (EUR100,-) to the first person who can prove a single relevant evidential fact ever claimed by any hoaxmonger.
The Halcyon Dayz EVIDENCE or STFU! Challenge.
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 39914502
United States
10/04/2013 10:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Many NASA shills and useful idiots refer to Newton's 3rd Law (equal and opposite reaction) as a reason why rockets work in the vacuum of space. This is an absolute lie from NASA and ignorance on the part of everyone else. Why?

Newton didn't study gasses and he didn't study gasses in a vacuum. He worked with solid bodies. Newton never intended his results to be applied to rockets expelling gasses.

The people who did study gasses in a vacuum found, first of all, that gas does not exist in the vacuum. According to Boyle's Law gass must be under some pressure to exist at all. Therefore there can be no gas in space. The so-called "clouds of gas" that NASA refers to are in fact dust particles and not "gas". Saying they are the same is like saying if you throw up a handful of sand in the air it becomes a "cloud". Rockets are not based on "high pressure dust particles."

The second major result of gasses in a vacuum is that if you release high pressure gas into a vacuum it enters without doing any work or releasing any energy. This is called "Free Expansion" and was proven by Joule. Since the gas exerts no force when it hits the vacuum there is no force to be equal and opposite to.

Therefore while a rocket works in the atmosphere it will not in a vacuum because it depends on properties of gasses.

Saying Newton's law will work with rockets in space is like saying a unicorn can run faster than a horse. What is the point of arguing with someone who believes a unicorn is real?

The burden of proof on NASA/shills is to show that gas can and does exist in space in such a form and with properties that would make it useful for propulsion. No such proof exists, only shills shilling hard, diverting the issue and playing associated tricks on themselves and others.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47569105


rockets don't use "gas"

rockets work based on transfer of mass. the state (liquid, solid, gas, plasma) of the mass that leaves the rocket has NO EFFECT* on the thrust provided.

FFS, they can use inert nitrogen thrusters in space because all you need is relative few molecules released in succession to move the ship in the opposite direction. Gas is used EXACTLY because of the reasons you think it wouldn't work.

the phrase "it's not rocket science" exists for a reason . . . if you aren't a rocket scientist, you should probably shut up about rocket science.

*discounting secondary effects like friction, etc
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17989993
United States
10/04/2013 10:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Satellites and the ISS are in space and were placed there by rockets. They can be seen and communicated with. Farther out are multiple other satellites and spacecraft. An easy one to prove is STEREO which consists of two satellites that see other sides of the sun than we do from Earth. These have seen sun spots BEFORE they were visible to arth. These were also put in place with rockets.

Rockets work.
scottfree

User ID: 47774543
United States
10/11/2013 02:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
DIPSHIT THREAD FROM A DIPSHIT THAT DOESN'T KNOW HIS ASS FROM A HOLE IN THE GROUND. YOU DUMBASS'S WILL NEVER LEARN. SAME AS SYING THE EARTH IS FLAT. NOTHING BUT DIPSHIT DUMBASS LITTLE BOYS WHO SPEND THEIR TIME LISTENING TO B/S, AND SPREADING B/S.

EDGAR MITCHELL,(RELATIVE) I KNOW. THEY WENT TO THE MOON DIPSHITS
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 789570


oh... golly gee Mr. Wizard.... (with my finger in my dimple) thank you so much for that clear refutation of the facts. Now I don't have to think anymore with you thinking for me.

But do you have to yell?
scottfree = the truth shall make you free

"I may not know much, but I suspect alot!" Junior Sample on Hee Haw

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians chap 3, verse 29

"The first time I saw Billy, he came walking out of a cloud." McMurtry
Raphael

User ID: 46812713
Canada
10/12/2013 10:51 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax


Now do something singularly unique and be the first hoaxie to explain how dust that was blown away from where the LM landed could have ended up where the LM landed.

 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


LOL

the shrill thrill shills need to get your stories straight.
other silly frilly shills suggest the thrusters were a non-issue to begin with...

it is obvious ye been blinded by fairy dust or did puff the magic dragon scare you as a kid, or maybe the NASA NAZIS got ya and turned you into a ... ?

why don't you do something singularly unique and be the first 'NAZA NASI' to show me a HI-RES image of anything the ASTRONOTS left behind on the moon?

AND I AM NOT impressed by those BULLSHIT low low low res pixel 'PIXAR' images NASA has the average patri-idiot like ye buying into ....

Between 1969-72 the ASTRO-NOT took GREAT GREAT STUDIO worthy PICTURES with their eyes closed wearing big clunky gloves that should have been useless in a vaccum, and here we are 40 years later and not ONE HUMAN has gone beyond the SAFE ZONE of about 300 miles PLUS the only pictures of the Lunar surface are SHIT SHIT SHIT while images of UFOS get BETTER BETTER BETTER?

What does not make sense is how lousy fuzzy UFO images since the 1950s have improved and kept pace with CGI but yet the images we get back from the lunar surface have gotten worse?

Or should I say if the issue is contentious ... all of a sudden the image and the story becomes FUZZY WUZZY?

Even the shutter crazy Japanese tourists who sent up Selene to take pictures of the Moon forgot to put a decent HI RES camera on board?

p.s. BTW everything those LYING SOBs wanker ASTRO-NOTS said they did could have been done with robots.

ROBOTS always go first and the ASTRO-NOTS should follow, that is the protocol.

What was the rush to get to the MOON?
Because the dead president made a promise?

LOL LOL

that is the way science works
ROBOTS first
just like Mars?

ye are wankers or idiot clones yourself to believe otherwise.

ASTRO-NOTS never went.

selah

Last Edited by Raphael on 10/12/2013 11:53 AM
The swastika is an inherent part of Intelligent Design.

[link to at37.wordpress.com]

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Einstein
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/12/2013 01:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
LOL

the shrill thrill shills need to get your stories straight.
other silly frilly shills suggest the thrusters were a non-issue to begin with...

it is obvious ye been blinded by fairy dust or did puff the magic dragon scare you as a kid, or maybe the NASA NAZIS got ya and turned you into a ... ?
 Quoting: Raphael


You are interpreting. It has never been the stance of anyone who understand the project that the Moon was "swept clear" by the descent engine and that explains the lack of airborne dust.

The explanation is simpler. No air.

why don't you do something singularly unique and be the first 'NAZA NASI' to show me a HI-RES image of anything the ASTRONOTS left behind on the moon?

AND I AM NOT impressed by those BULLSHIT low low low res pixel 'PIXAR' images NASA has the average patri-idiot like ye buying into ....
 Quoting: Raphael


Pixar makes IMAX films. They could easily render a still at any arbitrary resolution. What -- you think that just because it is a billion-dollar conspiracy, they can't use last-year's special effects?



Between 1969-72 the ASTRO-NOT took GREAT GREAT STUDIO worthy PICTURES with their eyes closed wearing big clunky gloves that should have been useless in a vaccum, and here we are 40 years later and not ONE HUMAN has gone beyond the SAFE ZONE of about 300 miles PLUS the only pictures of the Lunar surface are SHIT SHIT SHIT while images of UFOS get BETTER BETTER BETTER?
 Quoting: Raphael


Eyes closed? Where are you getting this stuff? The pictures were hardly studio, and many of them were scrubs; there's more than one picture of an astronaut's thumb (or, rather, the nearest equivalent).


What does not make sense is how lousy fuzzy UFO images since the 1950s have improved and kept pace with CGI but yet the images we get back from the lunar surface have gotten worse?
 Quoting: Raphael


Exactly. It doesn't make sense from a conspiracy viewpoint. If there was a conspiracy, they would provide images of whatever arbitrary resolution would satisfy unbelievers.

It only makes sense out in reality-land, where bandwidth and lens length are real constraints.

Or should I say if the issue is contentious ... all of a sudden the image and the story becomes FUZZY WUZZY?

Even the shutter crazy Japanese tourists who sent up Selene to take pictures of the Moon forgot to put a decent HI RES camera on board?
 Quoting: Raphael


Bandwidth, and lens length. The lowest orbit yet on Lunar probe is 50 kilometers. Run down to the mall right now and tell me which off-the-shelf camera there will return a detailed picture of your car from fifty kilometers away.

And then explain why you are going to stop all scientific return from a satellite for a week just to download that one pic.


p.s. BTW everything those LYING SOBs wanker ASTRO-NOTS said they did could have been done with robots.
 Quoting: Raphael


Hoaxies are ignorant about multiple fields, not just the space sciences. Read up on period robotics.

Or look at the capabilities of the Viking lander (launched a few years after Apollo) and compare that to what astronauts could accomplish.


ROBOTS always go first and the ASTRO-NOTS should follow, that is the protocol.
 Quoting: Raphael


They did. Unmanned landings were first, in several different series of probes.


What was the rush to get to the MOON?
Because the dead president made a promise?

LOL LOL

that is the way science works
ROBOTS first
just like Mars?

ye are wankers or idiot clones yourself to believe otherwise.

ASTRO-NOTS never went.

selah
 Quoting: Raphael


It was a political goal.

But it was also a sensible goal. The sentimentality didn't hurt, but the real point was the exercise. "We chose to go to the Moon...because it is hard." It required intensive and collaborative work between industry and science, it jumpstarted a dozen industries, it got a new interest in what are now called STEM fields among students. It spun off commercial and military applications.
Raphael

User ID: 46812713
Canada
10/15/2013 09:17 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax


You are interpreting. It has never been the stance of anyone who understand the project that the Moon was "swept clear" by the descent engine and that explains the lack of airborne dust.

The explanation is simpler. No air.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


I am surrounded by experts and I can guarantee not one of ewe wankers has been to the moon and back.
No air between your ears?
I agree.

Pixar makes IMAX films.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Duh I was making a dig, ya dig?
Do you NASA Nazis have a sense of humor?
Pixar makes non-IMAX films too herr expert.
geesh give it a rest.

Eyes closed? Where are you getting this stuff?
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


oh sorry point and shoot
how they worked those gloves in that vacuum only a NASA NAZI knows.


Exactly. It doesn't make sense from a conspiracy viewpoint. If there was a conspiracy, they would provide images of whatever arbitrary resolution would satisfy unbelievers.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


it sure does...
ewe went off on a tangent gent.
comprehension problems?

The lowest orbit yet on Lunar probe is 50 kilometers. Run down to the mall right now and tell me which off-the-shelf camera there will return a detailed picture of your car from fifty kilometers away.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


50 km eh?
run down to the mall?
LOL

ya wanker, the NASA NAZIS had camera technology since the 1960s that could take a Hi-res image 3 inches across from 100 miles up, and the moon has no atmosphere so 50 km. should be a snap crackle and pop goes the weasel.

ewe are the weasel btw.

we have NOT gone above the safe zone i.e. low earth orbit since Dec. 1972 according to the official records wankers never ever question...

LOL

Because no human has ever gone above it to begin with.

hiding

Last Edited by Raphael on 10/15/2013 09:24 PM
The swastika is an inherent part of Intelligent Design.

[link to at37.wordpress.com]

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Einstein
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/15/2013 11:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Pixar makes IMAX films.


Duh I was making a dig, ya dig?
Do you NASA Nazis have a sense of humor?
Pixar makes non-IMAX films too herr expert.
geesh give it a rest.
 Quoting: Raphael


Yes, they do. What's you point?


Eyes closed? Where are you getting this stuff?


oh sorry point and shoot
how they worked those gloves in that vacuum only a NASA NAZI knows.
 Quoting: Raphael


Only NASA knows? Which? Vacuum? Or space suit gloves?



The lowest orbit yet on Lunar probe is 50 kilometers. Run down to the mall right now and tell me which off-the-shelf camera there will return a detailed picture of your car from fifty kilometers away.


50 km eh?
run down to the mall?
LOL

ya wanker, the NASA NAZIS had camera technology since the 1960s that could take a Hi-res image 3 inches across from 100 miles up, and the moon has no atmosphere so 50 km. should be a snap crackle and pop goes the weasel.

ewe are the weasel btw.
 Quoting: Raphael


Link them. Show the evidence for them. Spysats on Earth are heavy and have long lenses. They aren't dimestore cameras you can duct-tape on to the outside of a lightweight probe.

And, yes...the Lunar Orbiter got down to 50 centimeters. That's pretty damned good resolution for orbital photography, whatever you believe.

So if you have a problem with that, you should first specify how good an image you think is necessary. Specify, don't just wave your hands and say, "whatever is real, isn't enough, and whatever is enough, they didn't have."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 46528635
United States
10/16/2013 12:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
DIPSHIT THREAD FROM A DIPSHIT THAT DOESN'T KNOW HIS ASS FROM A HOLE IN THE GROUND. YOU DUMBASS'S WILL NEVER LEARN. SAME AS SYING THE EARTH IS FLAT. NOTHING BUT DIPSHIT DUMBASS LITTLE BOYS WHO SPEND THEIR TIME LISTENING TO B/S, AND SPREADING B/S.

EDGAR MITCHELL,(RELATIVE) I KNOW. THEY WENT TO THE MOON DIPSHITS
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 789570



Every time I see a reply like this It makes me laugh.

attacking the poster instead of refuting the material all while having the Caps Lock on............Priceless
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22500714
United States
10/16/2013 12:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The Apollo Program cost $25 Billion in 1969 dollars, that would be over $150 Billion in today's dollars. NASA's budget this year is $17 billion. You're right. They don't have the money to go back.
 Quoting: curlytail2000


The Real Question: What is the ROI for Apollo and NASA? What discoveries have bettered lives of Americans? How many private sector jobs has NASA created?
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/16/2013 04:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The Apollo Program cost $25 Billion in 1969 dollars, that would be over $150 Billion in today's dollars. NASA's budget this year is $17 billion. You're right. They don't have the money to go back.
 Quoting: curlytail2000


The Real Question: What is the ROI for Apollo and NASA? What discoveries have bettered lives of Americans? How many private sector jobs has NASA created?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22500714


How many did the war in Iraq?



Actually, it did create a LOT of private-sector employment. And even more money for dishonest contractors with cozy connections.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28566565
United States
10/16/2013 11:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
how they worked those gloves in that vacuum only a NASA NAZI knows.

hiding
 Quoting: Raphael


The gloves seem to work fine in a vacuum for the people on the ISS and the Space Shuttle. And the Gemini missions. They also worked fine for the Soviet/Russian space walks. And they seem to work fine for Taikonauts.

Why wouldn't gloves that work in Earth orbit not work on the Moon?
Same vacuum.

You haven't provided anything other than your opinion. Please do a little research.
Raphael

User ID: 46812713
Canada
10/16/2013 01:02 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The Apollo Program cost $25 Billion in 1969 dollars, that would be over $150 Billion in today's dollars. NASA's budget this year is $17 billion. You're right. They don't have the money to go back.
 Quoting: curlytail2000


iamwith

everywhere else in the world it is easy to prove that technology (miniaturization etc.) makes EVERYTHING cheaper, so I am not surprised that a NASA NAZI complains about hard times.

How much of that BS budget back in the heyday of theft and graft was consumed by NASA NAZI wankers ordering hammers that cost $700?

Good thing NASA doesn't run the banks dude.

patri-idiots are idiots ... especially those that reBLEAT idiot stats about budgets.

Yes budgets reflect the bigger picture, especially pointing out what the black ops are. ;)

your silly nilly POV suggests kindergarten is on recess.

rockon

Last Edited by Raphael on 10/16/2013 01:19 PM
The swastika is an inherent part of Intelligent Design.

[link to at37.wordpress.com]

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Einstein
Raphael

User ID: 46812713
Canada
10/16/2013 01:16 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
how they worked those gloves in that vacuum only a NASA NAZI knows.

hiding
 Quoting: Raphael


The gloves seem to work fine in a vacuum for the people on the ISS and the Space Shuttle. And the Gemini missions. They also worked fine for the Soviet/Russian space walks. And they seem to work fine for Taikonauts.

Why wouldn't gloves that work in Earth orbit not work on the Moon?
Same vacuum.

You haven't provided anything other than your opinion. Please do a little research.
 Quoting: Eastsider


different gloves tounge

why would a cash strapped NASA NAZI outfit waste money on expensive gloves when cheaper ones should do fine?

Would an astroNOT need the same protection in a low earth orbit as an astroNOT would need on the moon fully exposed to the elements (a walk in the park eh?) ... does a kiddie like ye know the diff between walking on the moon which is about 250,000 miles away and being up in sky about 250 miles >>> as ALL astroNOTs have been because NOT ONE has gone beyond the low orbit threshold since Dec. 1972?

PhDUH can I suggest the SPACE STATION be renamed HD the Low Earth Orbiter - HD is Homer's Donut.
Mind if I ask do you have a PHDoH?

go back to shleep kindergarten dude ... I would not want sheepish ewe to miss your afternoon nap. deadhorse

Last Edited by Raphael on 10/16/2013 02:06 PM
The swastika is an inherent part of Intelligent Design.

[link to at37.wordpress.com]

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Einstein
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/16/2013 02:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The gloves seem to work fine in a vacuum for the people on the ISS and the Space Shuttle. And the Gemini missions. They also worked fine for the Soviet/Russian space walks. And they seem to work fine for Taikonauts.


different gloves
 Quoting: Raphael


How so?

You seem to think you are being clever and terse. What you are being is obscure. No-one understands what it is you think is wrong with the gloves. If you want an honest answer, get off the horse and write a full sentence explaining what you mean.

why would a cash strapped NASA NAZI outfit waste money on expensive gloves when cheaper ones should do fine?
 Quoting: Raphael


Challenger.

NASA went through a phase of "do it cheap." That got them crashed probes and dead astronauts.

And the budget of later years wasn't enough to go to the Moon on top of the pet projects of other people (like the Shuttle).

Would an astroNOT need the same protection in a low earth orbit as an astroNOT would need on the moon fully exposed to the elements (a walk in the park eh?) ... does a kiddie like ye know the diff between walking on the moon which is about 250,000 miles away and being up in sky about 250 miles >>> as ALL astroNOTs have been because NOT ONE has gone beyond the low orbit threshold since Dec. 1972?

 Quoting: Raphael


Low Earth orbit is still vacuum.

What changes? In low Earth Orbit, the thermal situation is worse. You've got the Earth sitting there radiating infrared at you and bouncing visible light at you, and you also lose a big part of the sky for possible radiators. That's why you see the shuttle drifting along with cargo doors open; it is trying to radiate away some of that heat.

You are above atmosphere so x-rays, gamma, uncharged particles, and high-energy cosmic rays are all striking you.

What you get when you are enroute to the Moon; a better thermal situation, but more lower-energy charged particles, plus a non-zero chance of getting caught in a solar flare.

It isn't safer in LEO -- it is just different.
Raphael

User ID: 46812713
Canada
10/16/2013 02:26 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

You are above atmosphere so x-rays, gamma, uncharged particles, and high-energy cosmic rays are all striking you.

It isn't safer in LEO -- it is just different.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


ye are a patri-idiot for sure.
now listen here kiddie after your nap get yourself a library card and stay off the internet, it is making ye more stupid by the moment.

The Earth is surrounded by a blanket of air, which we call the atmosphere. It reaches over 560 kilometers (348 miles) from the surface of the Earth.

How many astroNOTs have been beyond 348 miles since 1972 OR ever in fact? LOL LOL LOL

It appears according to you the village patri-idiot that the atmosphere that the low orbit space station flies around in is MORE hostile than what the astroNOTS encountered on their 500,000 mile roundtrips?

Who let out the clowns during recess?

Stratosphere
The stratosphere starts just above the troposphere and extends to 50 kilometers (31 miles) high. Compared to the troposphere, this part of the atmosphere is dry and less dense. The temperature in this region increases gradually to -3 degrees Celsius, due to the absorbtion of ultraviolet radiation. The ozone layer, which absorbs and scatters the solar ultraviolet radiation, is in this layer. Ninety-nine percent of "air" is located in the troposphere and stratosphere. The stratopause separates the stratosphere from the next layer.

Mesosphere
The mesosphere starts just above the stratosphere and extends to 85 kilometers (53 miles) high. In this region, the temperatures again fall as low as -93 degrees Celsius as you increase in altitude. The chemicals are in an excited state, as they absorb energy from the Sun. The mesopause separates the mesophere from the thermosphere.

The regions of the stratosphere and the mesosphere, along with the stratopause and mesopause, are called the middle atmosphere by scientists. This area has been closely studied on the ATLAS Spacelab mission series.
 Quoting: patri-idiot NEWS


So what does these simpleton TRUTHS reveal about your voodoo outer space program?
s226
All of it tells me ye are a patri-idiot not far removed from Dumber and Dumber. rockon

Thermosphere
The thermosphere starts just above the mesosphere and extends to 600 kilometers (372 miles) high. The temperatures go up as you increase in altitude due to the Sun's energy. Temperatures in this region can go as high as 1,727 degrees Celsius. Chemical reactions occur much faster here than on the surface of the Earth. This layer is known as the upper atmosphere.

The upper and lower layers of the thermosphere will be studied more closely during the Tethered Satellite Mission (TSS-1R).
 Quoting: patri-idiot NEWS


The upper and lower layers of the thermosphere will be studied more closely during the Tethered Satellite Mission

The upper and lower layers of the thermosphere will be studied more closely during the Tethered Satellite Mission

The upper and lower layers of the thermosphere will be studied more closely during the Tethered Satellite Mission

The upper and lower layers of the thermosphere will be studied more closely during the Tethered Satellite Mission

Will they be TETHERING a astroNOT to the satellite too?

So EWE mean still no astroNOTS daring to leave low earth orbit ... not even approach the upper limits of the MIDDLE atmosphere?

tounge

Last Edited by Raphael on 10/16/2013 02:30 PM
The swastika is an inherent part of Intelligent Design.

[link to at37.wordpress.com]

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Einstein
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28566565
United States
10/16/2013 02:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
how they worked those gloves in that vacuum only a NASA NAZI knows.

hiding
 Quoting: Raphael


The gloves seem to work fine in a vacuum for the people on the ISS and the Space Shuttle. And the Gemini missions. They also worked fine for the Soviet/Russian space walks. And they seem to work fine for Taikonauts.

Why wouldn't gloves that work in Earth orbit not work on the Moon?
Same vacuum.

You haven't provided anything other than your opinion. Please do a little research.
 Quoting: Eastsider


different gloves tounge

why would a cash strapped NASA NAZI outfit waste money on expensive gloves when cheaper ones should do fine?

Would an astroNOT need the same protection in a low earth orbit as an astroNOT would need on the moon fully exposed to the elements (a walk in the park eh?) ... does a kiddie like ye know the diff between walking on the moon which is about 250,000 miles away and being up in sky about 250 miles >>> as ALL astroNOTs have been because NOT ONE has gone beyond the low orbit threshold since Dec. 1972?

PhDUH can I suggest the SPACE STATION be renamed HD the Low Earth Orbiter - HD is Homer's Donut.
Mind if I ask do you have a PHDoH?

go back to shleep kindergarten dude ... I would not want sheepish ewe to miss your afternoon nap. deadhorse
 Quoting: Raphael



You still haven't provided anything other that your opinion except for adding some baseless insults.

What different elements are astronauts exposed to on moon besides the surface temperature & dust? BTW, there is no ambient temperature on the Moon, so only the actual surface gets hot/cold.

What is the difference? You have failed to provide any information to back up your claims.

And if you can't contribute to a discussion without making insults, I think you need a nap, kid.
Raphael

User ID: 46812713
Canada
10/16/2013 02:34 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
how they worked those gloves in that vacuum only a NASA NAZI knows.

hiding
 Quoting: Raphael


The gloves seem to work fine in a vacuum for the people on the ISS and the Space Shuttle. And the Gemini missions. They also worked fine for the Soviet/Russian space walks. And they seem to work fine for Taikonauts.

Why wouldn't gloves that work in Earth orbit not work on the Moon?
Same vacuum.

You haven't provided anything other than your opinion. Please do a little research.
 Quoting: Eastsider


different gloves tounge

why would a cash strapped NASA NAZI outfit waste money on expensive gloves when cheaper ones should do fine?

Would an astroNOT need the same protection in a low earth orbit as an astroNOT would need on the moon fully exposed to the elements (a walk in the park eh?) ... does a kiddie like ye know the diff between walking on the moon which is about 250,000 miles away and being up in sky about 250 miles >>> as ALL astroNOTs have been because NOT ONE has gone beyond the low orbit threshold since Dec. 1972?

PhDUH can I suggest the SPACE STATION be renamed HD the Low Earth Orbiter - HD is Homer's Donut.
Mind if I ask do you have a PHDoH?

go back to shleep kindergarten dude ... I would not want sheepish ewe to miss your afternoon nap. deadhorse
 Quoting: Raphael



You still haven't provided anything other that your opinion except for adding some baseless insults.

What different elements are astronauts exposed to on moon besides the surface temperature? BTW, there is no ambient temperature on the Moon, so only the actual surface gets hot/cold.

What is the difference? You have failed to provide any information to back up your claims.

And if you can't contribute to a discussion without making insults, I think you need a nap, kid.
 Quoting: Eastsider


go back one step and read my last post to the other patri-IDIOT who beLIEves everything that Uncle Sam shows them on the 'idiot-box' the 'boob tube' and 'ewe tube' too.

Bible + Jesus the 'Sun-of-a-gun god' was a con rigged since 70 AD
TV game shows were cons rigged in the 1950s
TV Apollo the Sun gods travelling to the Moon 9 times was a con rigged between 1968-72
TV + WMD post 911 conned Christians into going on a Crusade in Iraq looking for WMD, it all proves what?
Are you going to force me watch WWII newsreels and make me cheer for the patri-idiots next?

All of the above PROVES to me that thousands of IGNORANT sheeple can be in on a conspiracy and not even know it.

The wanker walking on water, and 'we the sheeple' wanting to beLIEve it rings true with Apollo too.
rockon

Last Edited by Raphael on 10/16/2013 02:51 PM
The swastika is an inherent part of Intelligent Design.

[link to at37.wordpress.com]

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Einstein
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/16/2013 03:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The Earth is surrounded by a blanket of air, which we call the atmosphere. It reaches over 560 kilometers (348 miles) from the surface of the Earth.

 Quoting: Raphael


Wrong.

Read the material you quoted. The atmosphere doesn't have a clear boundary.

If you think the protection of atmosphere is identical through its depth, then go ahead an open a door the next time you are on a transatlantic flight.

You can WALK (aka mountaineer) above the death zone; where there is too little oxygen to sustain life. At the height of commercial airliners (up to 13 km) cosmic rays are already several times stronger (actually, the cosmic ray background is already higher if you live in Denver or other high-altitude cities).

The Kaman line is at 100 km, and by this point you are above 99.9999 % of the atmosphere by mass. At around 150 hm is when meteorites burn up and somewhere around there is the ozone layer as well; by the time we get to the ISS we are above almost all the protection from ultraviolet, neutral particles, primary cosmic rays (even though some of the showers start even higher up, we are already in a zone with a mean free path of over a kilometer for air molecules.

Am I saying there is no protection at the level of the ISS? Hardly. IT is still within the Earth's zone of magnetic influence. But the thin wisps of atmosphere at that height are nearly useless as protection.
Raphael

User ID: 46812713
Canada
10/16/2013 03:37 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The Earth is surrounded by a blanket of air, which we call the atmosphere. It reaches over 560 kilometers (348 miles) from the surface of the Earth.

 Quoting: Raphael


Wrong.

Read the material you quoted. The atmosphere doesn't have a clear boundary.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


iamwith

ye say that with such conviction...mr. 'no' brainer

the NASA stooge (you) is now going to use semite semantics, this is the next ploy in the manual?

ye are splitting hares yet ye probably can't tell me why christians beLIEve in shit like easter bunnies based on an easter jesus, and why Apollo Sun God Heroes pretended to go through a rite and ritual of going to the moon 9 times?

jesus walked on water and the patri-idiot astroNOTs walked on the moon too ...

LOL LOL


If you think the protection of atmosphere is identical through its depth, then go ahead an open a door the next time you are on a transatlantic flight.
 Quoting: Raphael


PhDoh no that is not what I think.
It is in fact a thought that crept into your pea brain sir.
Here is what I think.
I think flying in a low earth orbit hundreds of miles inside the Van Allen belts is far safer than OUTSIDE the Van Allen belts and flying around for 500,000 miles...dodging cosmic bullets tomatotomatotomatotomato on your way to the moon and back again.

bsflag

I also think you are NOT a NASA stooge.
I think ye are three stooges in one...dumb, dumber, and dumbest. s226

5a

Last Edited by Raphael on 10/16/2013 03:45 PM
The swastika is an inherent part of Intelligent Design.

[link to at37.wordpress.com]

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Einstein
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/16/2013 03:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Here is what I think.
I think flying in a low earth orbit hundreds of miles inside the Van Allen belts is far safer than OUTSIDE the Van Allen belts and flying around for 500,000 miles...dodging cosmic bullets


 Quoting: Raphael


You just made a 180 there. First you argued the air would protect you. Now you don't...so you switch to the magnetic field instead.

Which I never argued against.

But you misunderstand just what the magnetic field does for us here on the ground. It touches only lower-energy charged particles. That's it. Higher-energy ones are merely deflected -- they still lance down through the skies in a shower of pions, and can be detected under several meters of solid rock.

X-rays, gamma rays, are moderated almost not at all. Our atmosphere blocks UV pretty well, but at a level below where the ISS flies. Same for the around 20% reduction of visible light.

For pretty much everything save the solar wind, the ISS is just as exposed as a spacecraft on the Moon would be.

And the thermal environment is much harsher.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/16/2013 03:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
And I apologize for all the qualifiers above, but the poster is nearly incoherent, I have a busy morning, and it isn't worth my time to double-check whether, say, the kaman line is 100 miles or 100 km. Much less try to boil down the actual absorption across spectrum at different depths of the atmosphere into a single statement.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!