OFFICIAL NASA VIDEO ADMITS To NEVER SENDING PEOPLE TO THE MOON

The claim itself was that it had just been discovered, meaning it had to be observable, otherwise the claim is false. Given the low altitude over the horizon of the predicted location and low angle of separation between the "object" and the sun that automatically ruled out most professional observatories including Hubble from being able to even attempt to look there to see or discover it.

He never actually explicitly stated what it was supposed to be, only that it was about "348 meters" in size. He certainly never called it an "asteroid." In fact, he corrects someone who was speculating that it was a neutron star so if anything we could take that to say he was insinuating it to be an abnormally small neutron star. He never claimed it was an asteroid, just a "body" in space.
Thread: You all are a bunch of goofy little freaks but you all are good news hounds, so I'm giving you this little tidbit (Page 3)

I "right" checks? Yeah, I'm not the one suffering from a lack of intelligence here...

Last Edited by Astromut on 03/03/2015 06:11 PM

You're disqualifying yourself alright, but by all means, continue failing at relatively simple math and reminding everyone of previous victories of mine. I'm still waiting for those delta-V figures.

That's it, see how much mileage you can get out of a typo you dumb freak



The point is not whether someone else could observe it, the point is you claimed you could if it was there, and there is no way in hell you could have.

Good advice, Astro, Every time you go against me you come away looking like a fucking blowhard and idiot. it isn't me doing it, it's you.

And then i get banned for it. I didn't force you to post a delta V calculation using an idea rocket equation I baited NASA shillbots with.

You did it yourself, in an effort to prove i am wrong. All you really proved is you don't have the intellectual capacity or scientific aptitude to know if I am.

What you in fact did is prove I am right without intending to.

I'm honestly using science to prove my positions and you are helping me.

There is a fourth course. Dr. Astro can continue to demonstrate that your knowledge of even basic physics can be written on the head of a pin with a sledge hammer.

Compared to Dr. Astro, you are a joke. You are getting as obsessed with him as you have with JayUtah.

Like Jay, Dr. Astro is the Adversary who has dared to question your Brilliance, and must therefore be smitten.

Only you have nothing to smite with but ignorance and obscenities.

Can we get on with the computation to determine the time the ascent engine can fire without discussing who is right thus far? If you are, everyone that has a fairly advanced degree of knowledge involving physics is going to know for certain which one of us is, and I'll let you in on a hint, Astro, it's not you.

Your calculation using the idea rocket equation came up with a theoretical delta V approximating but coming in a @ 100m/s lower than that of the "burn to depletion" results on the A-9 ascent stage engine done in orbit. there is a reason for that. Can you guess what that reason is? Can you not see that if the rocket engine had to oppose the force of gravity in addition to accelerating the ascent stage that the delta V would be considerably lower?

I'll tell you another secret you might not be aware of. this disqualification is the first I had ever heard of, when I was about 9 YOA. At the time I didn't believe it. But I do now,

Jay Windley is a blowhard and a liar. And that's a fact. The big pink show poodle that hides from the big bad wolf.

Well, i just took a dump in his yard.

Just BAN the MF already. No contribution but NOISE and CRYING

POP the pimple

Actually, given that it was claimed to have just been discovered, yes the point that it was supposedly observable according to the claim. It was not, however, ever claimed to be an asteroid. Just a body in space, maybe even a neutron star.

Mistakes and outright lies aren't the same thing. I don't believe Astro has the goods to know how and why he's wrong. But Windley KNOWS he's defending a goddamned lie. And he pretend to occupy the high moral and intellectual ground.

I don't "hate" Astro. In fact I have expressed a desire to him to awaken him to the fact that he has been deceived about a great many things, that his perception of reality is the only thing that causes him to despise me. It's not a good reason, I'll tell you that. I always like to believe those who are still growing intellectually have a chance. A man like Windley is already to his destination. he's not going to change his mind. he knows he's a scumbag.

But Windley not only hates me, he fears engaging me on a level and fair playing field. i have offered him that opportunity repeatedly and he has always balked.

I have repeatedly seen these couple of dozen or so NASA and NASA contractor shills exhibit a schizophrenia attitude towards me. At one point they're complaining I'm the most competent of the debunkers while comparing me to people like Hoagland or White, and the next minute they're throwing feces.

To be perfectly blunt, i know , regardless of what they claim that every one of them is completely aware Apollo was a hoax.
I made sure they were.

He does occupy the high moral and intellectual ground. You've been banned from every forum you ever tried to debate him on and your claims were easily shown to be ridiculous. You lost. And in your bitterness you lash out at everyone more intelligent than you, including me.

STFU, cretin. I'm doing more than any AC shillbot hack could ever do.

And it isn't me crying to have you banned, fuckface.

I couldn't give a shit less whether or not you or anyone else posts. i can hold my own against ANYONE.

I have never seen ANYONE describe you that way.

Astro, if you ( Windley orany other NASA protard) actually believe that you could earn 20 grand proving it. All you have to do is score no lower that 30 points lower than myself on any standardized IQ test or higher on a scientific aptitude test. But of course you have to put up your own 20 grand in the likely case that you will lose.



Take the challenge boy

But keep in mind the purpose is not just to take the 20,000, but to publish the results. In your case, it would be no great "propaganda" value, but to take down large game like the big dog or bob the nazi would be.

Thats why they hide and send you idiots in to be battered.

Astro, to call a lying degenerate the man who occupies the high moral and intellectual ground is disgusting. It makes me wanna puke on your shoes. You claim you have a wife and a child, let me ask you this, does a man like Windley actually represent what you want that child's future to be in the hands of?
I might not be kind to everyone, but where I draw the line is being a bad influence or bringing harm to the next generations.

If i hate you ass you've earned it, and not just by pissing me off.

So in your opinion Jarah White , Bart Sibrel and Hoagland have a more intelligent argument?

I actually think the clerk that worked fro rocketdyne wrote a good book, to tell the truth. it wasn't very sciency, but it was convincing.

I don't know who the fuck you are and what you claim to believe does not interest me (or ANYONE)

That wasn't the question. You claimed that debunkers are "complaining I'm the most competent of the debunkers while comparing me to people like Hoagland or White,". Again, I have never seen anyone describe you that way and I'll bet you can't link to a post anywhere where they do.

I have quotes from all of the main players to that effect, that of all of debunkers I am the most effective. Maybe not in those exact words, but saying the same thing in different words. Like I said, your opinion is irrelevant because you are unwilling to identify yourself.

I know I have debunked Apollo. I don't know if you realize that, but people like Windley and Bob the nazi do.

They use you idiots like heel hounds.

.
It would make good fodder for a book jacket, don't you think?

yet you reply to the post and ask a question.



Sure you do. You'll show that about the same time that non-existent book comes out, right?

Now we need to derive the time the rocket motor of the ascent stage could burn, and we need to interpolate it from from fixed, known values we have at hand.

The following formula is a derivative of Newtons second law. (force=ma)
To my knowledge Newtons second law is still valid, and is excepted today as it was in 1979 when I took Physics 101.

Where:

T-Thrust

Burn rate- DMe/DT

Exhaust gas velocity relative to rocket- (V+Ve)

Thrust is represented by the following formula:

T=(V+Ve)DMe/DT


*note, the lower case "e" is a subscript

There is one unknown value that NASA has been extremely careful in not allowing itself to be pinned down, but I believe the time in seconds the rocket motor can be ran can be determined by interpolation of the above formula, and the specific impulse values (a known value)

NASA reps have presented three values for the time in seconds the ascent engine could burn on a known fuel and oxidizer mass. What we need to determine is how long it could burn, by interpolation and by using fixed laws of physics that cannot be disputed.


[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

Above is a "press release" that describes a test on page 22(page 46 of the PDF due to diagrams) where Apollo 9 did a "burn to depletion" on the ascent stage motor (while in orbit) and achieved 1724 meters a second delta V. In my view if this test and it's description are true, the press release could have proved the engine and fuel were inadequate. There are no other tests involving the ascent engine that would have expended fuel.

The problem is, it can't be used to prove anything because NASA might have been using reduced fuel quantities, as they did in previous missions. (they didn't always "fill the tanks")
Once we know total burn time possible, we can determine a precise value for the amount of work the engine could perform at it's known thrust value. By adding to this value an approximation of the work the RCS attitude adjustment rockets could add, and we will then have the exact energy in joules possible, total. If this quantity is lower than that of the computations made earlier to determine energy require to lift and accelerate the ascent stage to the required velocity and altitude.

[I found it interesting that in this press release there is a diagram illustrating the descent stage motor firing while docked to the CM/SM Labeled "Docked DPS burn" on page 35 of this PDF, and a description of that test on page 33. I recall hearing in a similar PDF describing Apollo 13 that this was untried )

*Please note that my archives might not have the same page numbers as the link, but I believe they are the same.

[I combined all of the relevant posts of the last few pages that I made so far in a single post so that any "mistakes" could be brought to my attention. I did not include my punishment of Astro for using the idea rocket equation to calculate delta V]

The much more accurate and easier method of calculating delta v is by using the actual thrust value and how long it is possible to run the engine with the fuel and oxidizer available. the same m0 and m1 enter into it the same way, but the result is much more accurate because actual and not theoretical values are being used. The only real difficult part of it is factoring in the energy required to raise a given mass a given distance in a gravity field that is decreasing in inverse proportion to the distance from the mass center.

The idea rocket equation cannot work except in theory, and then only when no other factors are resisting acceleration than accelerating mass and overcoming its inertia.

The gravitational acceleration constant of Earth of 9.8m/s^2 DOES NOT enter into a calculation determining a delta V in the moons gravity.



It is a naive individual that thinks he can plug in mass values to the idea rocket equation and get an accurate delta v. It's giving a theoretical value.
Taking the theoretical out of the picture and using real numbers to reach real conclusions is how real engineers keep from killing real people in the real world.

The ideal rocket equation CANNOT be used to determine a delta V value. It can be used to give a theoretical value, assuming only inertia as resistance to acceleration.

In the case of the lunar ascent module,the ascent stage engine had a thrust value of 15000 N (3500 lb) and an amount of fuel available is long enough to run the engine for long enough to raise the spacecraft 100kms from the lunar surface while achieving a velocity of 700m/s. It IS possible to achieve a higher velocity, but for every 100m/s you'd be losing 16-18kms in altitude attainable.

The computation to determine delta V is extremely complex. It cannot be determined using a simple equation like the idea rocket equation, that is laughable and ridiculous. What can be determined is how quickly the fuel would be expended with the specific impulse values, thrust and fuel mass. The computations involved in determining a fairly accurate delta V amount to dozens of equations and derivatives.

When you are done doing them, you have a close estimate, nothing better.

This is a big part of the reason why NASA failed so often and covered up the failure. The truth is rocket science is very complicated and persons like 74444 and Astro are simply not up to the task of understanding that. Obviously.

While I do not claim I can give a definitive figure for a final velocity or delta V, what I can say with absolute certainty, just as I did with the radiation that the facts don't come close to matching NASA's claims.

The conclusion I came to is that in order to make the LEM able to return lunar samples to lunar orbit would require gutting the life support and logistics and taking the mass of the astronauts and their supplies out of the equation and replacing them with fuel, which matches my theory about what the missions actually entailed.

I also believe that if NASA were going to send men out of low Earth orbit beyond the magnetosphere, they would use a ghost crew that no one knew about, and present a fake crew to the world in case the crew was lost or made extremely ill. It is simply not believable that NASA would fail to send other mammals on a similar trajectory prior to sending men they had to account for and chance the propaganda nightmare of losing a crew to radiation.

This could explain the strange look and behavior of the three astro-NOTS after the quarantine. They could have known real astronauts died in their place, which to be honest would not surprise me at all.

Actually it is extremely easy to compute how much work is done lifting mass a given distance against a gravitational field, these are basic physics calculations and it doesn't matter if you use a rocket to do it or what angle to the gravitational field you use, it still takes the same amount of work over the total vertical distance.

The moon has a gravitational field strength or acceleration constant approximately 1/6 the that of Earth. To calculate approximate work done to lift the mass of the ascent stage requires only to take an average of the mass (mo+m1)/2 and multiplying it by the number of meters that mass is raised, in this case to attain lunar orbit at the same altitude as the CM module, that is approximately 100,000 meters. The work done lifting the ascent stage to 100,000 meters : kg f X meters ; (4,700 kg+2,150 kg)/2= 3425 kilograms averagemass To get weight in the moons gravity, this value must be divided by 6.12 , or multiplied by the decimal equivalent .1632 .


.1632 X 3425kgs =558 kgs

558kg X 100,000 meters = 55,800,000 kg force meters or 547,398,000 joules

A joule is a watt-second, so the total energy consumed lifting the mass of the ascent stage to the orbital altitude of the command module/service module is approximately equal to a megawatt applied for approximately 9.1 minutes.

This is a considerable percentage of the total energy required to achieve orbit ,and IT CANNOT BE IGNORED by using the basic rocket equation.



A megawatt is enough energy to power a medium sized town of 2.000 people, to put it into perspective.
Now it is time to compute the work in joules required to accelerate the spacecraft to the velocity required to achieve lunar orbit. The idea of course is to determine to a precise degree exactly how much energy is required to place the spacecraft in an orbit allowing for rendezvous with the command module.
In the computations there is no wiggle room, it takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate a certain amount of mass to a certain velocity.

Since the mass is a variable that changes with time, the calculation must involve taking that into account.

If only the unfueled mass were involved, it would be a simple energy calculation along the lines of Ke= 1/2(mv^2)

But it's not that simple, be cause the mass changes as the vehicle is accelerating.

The velocity required to attain lunar orbit is about 1,852 m/s. So that value needs to be in the equation in place of velocity, so the the only thing we need to work out is what value for mass we need to use.

The fueled and expended fuel mass of the spacecraft are known. When we are done computing the energy required to accelerate that variable mass, we need only add it to the energy required to lift the mass that distance in the last post, and determine if the thrust value over the maximum amount of time the engine can run equals or exceeds that value.
Since the mass is variable over time, that fact needs to enter into the equation. Since the mass changes at a fixed rate and there are no exponents involved in the mass part of the equation, we can use the general mo+m1 /2 format for calculating delta V with rockets in the place of mass in the general energy equation. Since this method works in the basic rocket equation, there is no reason to assume it won't work equally as well in another formula to determine energy, with delta v a known value.
As we saw above in the previous posts, the fueld mass of the ascent stage is 4,700 kg, and the expended fuel mass is 2,150 kg

so the equation looks like this: Ke=1/2(m1+m0 /2)V^2

Since we know all of the values in the equation besides kenetic energy to a certainty, again, there is no possiblity of error.

Ke= 1/2(m1+m0 /2)V^2

Ke= 1/2 (2150kg+4700kg /2) 1852m^2)(1852m^2)

56149121200 kgf*m
kgf*m=9.81 joules
56149121200 kgf*m =550,822,878,972 joules or 5.509 X 10^11 joules
56149121200 kgf*m
kgf*m=9.81 joules
56149121200 kgf*m =550,822,878,972 joules or 5.509 X 10^11 joules

550,822,878,972 joules

as we saw in previous posts, the energy required to lift the mass of the ascent stage to the same altitude as the command module in order for rendezvous to take place is 547,398,000 joules, and the energy required to accelerate it to 1852km/s is 550,822,878,972 joules.

The total energy required is equal to the amount of energy required to lift the vehicle added to the amount of energy required to accelerate it.

TE= 551370276972 joules

Now all we need to do is find out what the thrust value was (a known value) and the number of seconds the engine can run (a fluid value that has changed three times since 2001).

Once we have gotten that value , we can convert it to joules and see how it compares to the computations already done.
NOW COMES THE FUN PART

How long could the ascent stage engine run?

Aldrin was not a scientist an actually believe the 1/6th gravity of the moon would result in the G forces due to acceleration being 1/6th what they were on Earth. MY Conclusion is he was not ever on the moon and nor did he ride an ascent stage from the lunar surface. As you will see, this fits my theory about that actually DID happen...

Now we need to derive the time the rocket motor of the ascent stage could burn, and we need to interpolate it from from fixed, known values we have at hand.

The following formula is a derivative of Newtons second law. (force=ma)
To my knowledge Newtons second law is still valid, and is excepted today as it was in 1979 when I took Physics 101.

Where:

T-Thrust

Burn rate- DMe/DT

Exhaust gas velocity relative to rocket- (V+Ve)

Thrust is represented by the following formula:

T=(V+Ve)DMe/DT


*note, the lower case "e" is a subscript

There is one unknown value that NASA has been extremely careful in not allowing itself to be pinned down, but I believe the time in seconds the rocket motor can be ran can be determined by interpolation of the above formula, and the specific impulse values (a known value)

NASA reps have presented three values for the time in seconds the ascent engine could burn on a known fuel and oxidizer mass. What we need to determine is how long it could burn, by interpolation and by using fixed laws of physics that cannot be disputed.


[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

Above is a "press release" that describes a test on page 22(page 46 of the PDF due to diagrams) where Apollo 9 did a "burn to depletion" on the ascent stage motor (while in orbit) and achieved 1724 meters a second delta V. In my view if this test and it's description are true, the press release could have proved the engine and fuel were inadequate. There are no other tests involving the ascent engine that would have expended fuel.

The problem is, it can't be used to prove anything because NASA might have been using reduced fuel quantities, as they did in previous missions. (they didn't always "fill the tanks")
Once we know total burn time possible, we can determine a precise value for the amount of work the engine could perform at it's known thrust value. By adding to this value an approximation of the work the RCS attitude adjustment rockets could add, and we will then have the exact energy in joules possible, total. If this quantity is lower than that of the computations made earlier to determine energy require to lift and accelerate the ascent stage to the required velocity and altitude.

[I found it interesting that in this press release there is a diagram illustrating the descent stage motor firing while docked to the CM/SM Labeled "Docked DPS burn" on page 35 of this PDF, and a description of that test on page 33. I recall hearing in a similar PDF describing Apollo 13 that this was untried )

*Please note that my archives might not have the same page numbers as the link, but I believe they are the same.

Can't tell without seeing these quotes.

So link to a few.

Let's keep on track here. I am satisfied with allowing your insistence they do not exist FTTB.

This post is not about me, you, bob the nazi or even jay windbag.

If Windey wants to come up for air , I will post some quotes' Otherwise, y'all 'll just have to wonder if I know what cretin matches what user ID.


You know, I'm not SURE of all of them myself!

Oh I not saying that they don't exist. I'm just asking you to show us a few links to the originals, so we'll know what they actually say. Perhaps they aren't as complementary as you think.


All of your posts are about you.


What does this mean? Are you claiming that you know who every poster really is? Ha.

I'm not sure of all of them myself!





No, hell no, but I know who a lot of them are. Some of the "common corers" () don't do a good job of concealing who they are. I've also got a few issuing some pretty heavy threats, and I know exactly who they are.

One of them is a certified homicidal psychopath that threatened my family and even my tribe, I've got a dedicated stalker who has made over a 150,000 posts with me as the only subject and appears wherever i post no matter the time of day or night when I discuss the moon landing hoax, and another calling himself Nomuse who has threatened me by claiming he could plant radioactive materials in my home.
I know who these three are.

I know which one is Windley wherever he posts, it's impossible for him to hide that "personality", and I can pick bob the Nazi out of crowd. Phil Plait posts anonymously here from time to time, he's afraid to surface like WIndley.

Yeah, i know who a lot of you are.

Sigh. Is there *nothing* you don't exaggerate? I haven't appeared day and night whenever you've posted *on this thread,* let alone appearing "whenever you post."

And 'you as the only subject' is a gross exaggeration, as well -- but one that fits nicely with your delusions of grandeur and importance.



Yeah, you've said you've been 100% certain of who I am, yet whenever I challenge you to prove it, you come up with nothing but excuses.

And I have evidence of *exactly* what your 100% certainty is *actually* worth.

How funny. That's not what you claimed way back when. Seems to me you've simply admitted those who were debunking you in that thread were correct, without *actually* admitting it.

How typical of you.

I know who you are,and I know what you are.

The fact that an enemy of the people of this nation is paid by its governemnt using taxpayer funds to stalk ,slander and intimidate American citizens (or anyone) is something that should not be tolerated, but I have no choice.

We are all aware of the governments criminal usurpation of the principals and laws that govern this nation (and of decent ,civilized behavior in general), the examples are continuously in the news and range from spying en masse on American citizens to mass murder.

You're the enemy, it's that simple. That's who ,and what you are.

Prove it. After all, I do not believe what I am told without proof.



Excepting that I am not paid by anyone to post here or anywhere else, and contrary to your grandeur delusion, opposing *you* on a forum does not make me an "enemy of the people of this nation."




Excepting that you do. You can get rid of me any time you choose, simply by modifying your behavior, and issuing some apologies for past missteps and actions. That your ego cannot see fit to do this simple thing is a failing of *yours,* and no one else's -- much like your numerous extensive missteps quantified in the Big List.



How fortunate that I do not work for the government, then.



So you were merely waxing poetic, and in fact have no idea who I am as you have repeatedly claimed in the past.

Again, pointing out *your own past claims and mistakes* does not make me an enemy of anything. It just keeps *you* honest -- or as close as you tend to get, anyway.

Wait, hang on a second...

First IDW plagiarises someone's post on another forum, using the Tsiolkovsky equation (aka "the rocket equation") to calculate rocket efficiency, as his own work, and claims it in some way proves the ascent stage couldn't achieve orbit.

Then, when he's called out on it, he suddenly changes tune and says the Tsiolkovsky equation doesn't apply to calculating the delta-v.

He then starts coming up with random equations which he thinks in some way represent the launch and ascent situation, even though they are extreme simplifications and not in any way accurate.

Oh, but, he can't find the burn time for the ascent engine, which is kind of important information when working out if it could reach orbit. Funny, but a quick search turned up a huge number of sites with exactly that information ("About 1,090 results (0.60 seconds) ") and I found it in less than 30 seconds.

I for one would like to see more "IDW maths". It's most amusing to see him actually trying to work something out (even though he claims to be a genius scientist with an IQ in the bazzilions :-) ).

Go on IDW, show us some more calculations and I'll let you know about the ascent stage burn times...

Claimed is 440seconds, possible is around 300 seconds