| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312115
10/14/2007 5:42 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"Above Armstrong's Line (~63,000 ft/~19,000 m), pressurized suits are needed in the sparse atmosphere."
[ link to en.wikipedia.org]
Pressurization is needed above 12,00 feet because of a lack of oxygen.
If one dons an oxygen mask, and can breathe air, pressurization is not an issue.
This is why oxygen masks drop on an airliner if pressurization is lost.
If the astronauts had breathable air, why would they need to pressurize suits? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/14/2007 5:50 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The actual point here, which goes completely ignored, is that we dont have to prove we did it. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
A scientist who cannot prove what he has accomplished has accomplished nothing. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312115
10/14/2007 5:54 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The actual point here, which goes completely ignored, is that we dont have to prove we did it.
A scientist who cannot prove what he has accomplished has accomplished nothing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
This is the quote of all quotes. "We dont have to prove it, you bastards just have to believe it".
Maybe you cant prove it, but we dont have to believe you. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/14/2007 6:02 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
All that is actually present in the NASA information are scads of detailed scientific documentation of what happened, hundreds of pounds of lunar return, dozens of hours of film and video, thousands of photgraphs, and overwhelming verification of all of this by the world-wide scientific community. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Any large organization, including a movie studio, can generate reams of documents, grainy video, fishy photographs, and suspicious rocks. Your claim of independent verification is a bald-faced lie--none of this dubious stuff can be verified by anyone because no one else has been able to reproduce the experiment, not even NASA itself.
By the objective standards of science and exploration, the moon walk is merely an anecdotal legend.
And since the astronauts and other NASA personnel refuse to be cross-examined under oath, the moon walk has absolutely zero legal evidence in its favor either.
The alleged moon rocks--what you euphemistically call the "lunar return"--were the closest NASA had to evidence of the moon walk. But those same rocks have now become the laughingstock of astronomy. Researchers now admit that a single genuine lunar meteorite found in Antarctica tells us more about the moon than the bushels of rocks NASA tried to pawn off on us from Apollo:
[link to www.cosmosmagazine.com]
---
A rare, golf-ball-sized lunar meteorite recently discovered in the snow fields of Antarctica can tell us more about the Moon than samples taken directly from the lunar surface, according to researchers.
...
Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon as a whole, he said.
--- |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312115
10/14/2007 6:05 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"It also provided liquid and solid nourishment,"
Can you show us where, exactly, on the space suit that contained the food and water that nourished the astronauts?
Was there a tank for Tang? Water? Hot dogs. Its a big issue for such a suit.
Can you show us the excrement bag for the human waste? Not to be disgusting, but it is an issue. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/14/2007 6:19 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Here's an interesting inconsistency. The lunar meteorite from Antarctica is considered much more valuable than all the alleged Apollo moon rocks because it came from the lunar maria ("seas"):
[link to www.cosmosmagazine.com]
---
The meteorite, known as MIL 05035, is similar in bulk and composition to basaltic lavas that fill the lunar maria, an expansive part of the Moon's surface not sampled by the U.S. Apollo program.
---
But according to this pro-NASA web site, the Apollo moon rocks did come from the maria:
[link to www.permanent.com]
---
All samples come from the lunar nearside, in and around the mares...
---
For those of you who don't know Latin, the plural of mare ("sea") is maria. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/14/2007 7:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Before I answer the following questions about the space suits, can I just ask how the questioner believes the suits used on the ISS differ from the Apollo suits?
Ok, then explain how this suit can: Produce air Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312115
It doesn't 'produce' air, it has an oxygen tank in the PLS backpack along with an LiO2 carbon dioxide scrubber.
The ISS backpacks work exactly the same way. They do not get oxygen via an umbilical cord.
Produce air conditioning in an airless environment. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312115
By the use of a porous plate sublimator, in which the evaporation of a water supply in the backpack carries away the astronaut's excess metabolic heat. The suit's high albedo is sufficient to deal with the radiative heat from the external environment.
Again, the IS suits work exactly the same way.
Collect and expel or contain human waste. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312115
They don't crap in the suits. There is a urine collection device, but the astronauts are usually put on a low reside diet prior to a space or moon walk to eliminate the need for defecation.
Again, the ISS suits are exactly the same.
Appear unpressurized, yet be pressurized. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312115
Ther is a tough outer protective garment, the pressure layer is underneath.
Once more for the cheap seats at the back: This is the same as the IS suits.
And why would pressurization be needed? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312115
Because full-body hickies are really embarrassing. Zero pressure causes you to haemorrhage through your skin.
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3222
10/14/2007 7:35 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
A scientist who cannot prove what he has accomplished has accomplished nothing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
So then:
1. What would you consider "proof" of Apollo?
2. What "proof" do you have for any of the alternative "theories" explaining evidence provided by Apollo?
3. What scientific data provided by Apollo is incorrect? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312178
10/14/2007 7:49 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Just wanted to bring in one more point.
There is ONE video of the lander being tested on Earth. It crashed. This was, to the best knowledge of anyone I talked to, and everything I read, the only test conducted.
Basically, they went ahead with this mission without even knowing the lander would function correctly. In fact, knowing it had ZERO successful trials.
That is a big problem for me on this. They could not get the thing to balance and hold the load steady, it would roll over.
That problem would exist with a reduced gravity, by the way. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312115
10/14/2007 8:15 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Before I answer the following questions about the space suits, can I just ask how the questioner believes the suits used on the ISS differ from the Apollo suits?
Ok, then explain how this suit can: Produce air
It doesn't 'produce' air, it has an oxygen tank in the PLS backpack along with an LiO2 carbon dioxide scrubber.
The ISS backpacks work exactly the same way. They do not get oxygen via an umbilical cord.
Produce air conditioning in an airless environment.
By the use of a porous plate sublimator, in which the evaporation of a water supply in the backpack carries away the astronaut's excess metabolic heat. The suit's high albedo is sufficient to deal with the radiative heat from the external environment.
Again, the IS suits work exactly the same way.
Collect and expel or contain human waste.
They don't crap in the suits. There is a urine collection device, but the astronauts are usually put on a low reside diet prior to a space or moon walk to eliminate the need for defecation.
Again, the ISS suits are exactly the same.
Appear unpressurized, yet be pressurized.
Ther is a tough outer protective garment, the pressure layer is underneath.
Once more for the cheap seats at the back: This is the same as the IS suits.
And why would pressurization be needed?
Because full-body hickies are really embarrassing. Zero pressure causes you to haemorrhage through your skin. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
"It doesn't 'produce' air, it has an oxygen tank in the PLS backpack along with an LiO2 carbon dioxide scrubber.""
Where is the tank?
"Ther is a tough outer protective garment, the pressure layer is underneath."
Pic?
"They don't crap in the suits. There is a urine collection device, but the astronauts are usually put on a low reside diet prior to a space or moon walk to eliminate the need for defecation."
Low residue? Explain.
"Because full-body hickies are really embarrassing. Zero pressure causes you to haemorrhage through your skin."
How so? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312388
10/14/2007 8:21 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
This is another attempt at spreading disinformation, there is no doubt that the US went to the moon and returned successfully. Maybe 'everything' is a conspiracy? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/14/2007 8:22 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
1. What would you consider "proof" of Apollo?
2. What "proof" do you have for any of the alternative "theories" explaining evidence provided by Apollo?
3. What scientific data provided by Apollo is incorrect? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3222
1) The standard for scientific evidence is reproducibility. The claimant publishes his procedure, then independent others apply the same procedure and report whether they achieved the same result. An alleged but irreproducible result is, at best, an anecdote.
The standard in exploration is similar. Unless someone else successfully visits the same land described by an alleged discoverer, it is merely a legend.
Not only has no other entity been able to reproduce NASA's alleged moon landing, but NASA itself has been utterly unable to achieve anything remotely close to it. Astonishingly, the head of NASA now predicts that the Chinese will get to the moon before we do:
[link to www.floridatoday.com]
---
“I personally believe that China will be back on the moon before we are,” NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in a low-key lecture in Washington two weeks ago, marking the space agency’s 50th anniversary, still a year away.
---
The standard for legal evidence is sworn testimony under cross-examination. No account is acceptable to a court unless under oath and subject to cross-examination, and no evidence is acceptable unless whoever collected and preserved that evidence testifies to its authenticity under oath and subject to cross-examination. Neither the astronauts nor anyone else associated with NASA is willing to testify to the moon walk under oath at all, much less subject to skeptical cross-examination.
Absent this standard, the moon walk is merely hearsay.
2) Evidence of "alternative" hypotheses is unnecessary. It is NASA who is making an utterly extraordinary claim, and therefore it is NASA who must provide the extraordinary evidence to back that claim. Absent such evidence, the null hypothesis applies by default.
3) The alleged "scientific data" published by NASA is unverifiable. It may or may not be correct, but it is utterly useless scientifically.
Consider, for example, the hundreds of pounds of alleged moon rocks, which are now considered worthless in comparison to a single lunar meteorite found in Antarctica:
[link to www.cosmosmagazine.com]
---
A rare, golf-ball-sized lunar meteorite recently discovered in the snow fields of Antarctica can tell us more about the Moon than samples taken directly from the lunar surface, according to researchers.
The meteorite, known as MIL 05035, is similar in bulk and composition to basaltic lavas that fill the lunar maria, an expansive part of the Moon's surface not sampled by the U.S. Apollo program. Only one other meteorite of this type has ever been found.
"If you look at a map where the U.S. Apollo and Soviet Luna missions went, they only covered something like 17 per cent of the Moon and those were all near-side, near-equatorial sites," said Timothy McCoy of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. "As it turns out, this region is geochemically different from the rest of the Moon."
Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon as a whole, he said.
---
The explanation above for the Apollo rocks' worthlessness appears to be a bald-faced lie. This source asserts that the Apollo rocks were indeed taken from the lunar maria:
[link to www.permanent.com]
---
All samples come from the lunar nearside, in and around the mares...
--- |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/14/2007 8:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
there is no doubt that the US went to the moon and returned successfully. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312388
Your bald assertion does not make it so. If you have no doubt, prove its truth. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 8:27 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
On the subject of combustion in a rocket engine, without exception . exothermic oxidation -reduction reactions produce visable EMR. There is no way to "burn" a substance without producing visable light, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Just one more NASA lie. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 8:32 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
As pointed out above, NASA bears the burden of proof. I am not the one making an outrageous claim when I say the moonlandings were a hoax. I am making a sensible claim based on empiracle evidence that no manned mission occured.
Producing faked moon rocks and movies wont do, from my point of view.
It would take independant confirmation, and no such conformation has ever been made, or ever will be.
A manned mission to the moon in an apollo spacecraft was impossible, for many reasons.It isnt just one or two problems, it is serious issues never adressed.
The probability that the moonlandings were faked is absolute at 100%. There is absolutely no cause for reasonable doubt. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/14/2007 8:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"It doesn't 'produce' air, it has an oxygen tank in the PLS backpack along with an LiO2 carbon dioxide scrubber.""
Where is the tank? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312115
In the backpack.
[link to history.nasa.gov]
"Ther is a tough outer protective garment, the pressure layer is underneath."
Pic? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312115
Have you done no research on this at all? This stuff can be found in just seconds with Google. How can you be so suspicious of all this when you clearly have made no effort to examine the publicly available facts?
[link to www.myspacemuseum.com]
"They don't crap in the suits. There is a urine collection device, but the astronauts are usually put on a low reside diet prior to a space or moon walk to eliminate the need for defecation."
Low residue? Explain. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312115
Google for "low residue apollo eva".
"Because full-body hickies are really embarrassing. Zero pressure causes you to haemorrhage through your skin."
How so? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312115
Google for "effects of zero pressure on human body" |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 9:28 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I concur that pressurization was neccessary because the human body is simply not designed to operate in a vaccuum.
What protection from deadly cosmic radiation did the suits afford? Secondary from the surface? What about solar radiation? Solar X rays? Solar protons? High energy electrons? Cumulative effect ring a bell? Wasnt it during a solar maximum? See, you can bullshit your way through with some people Barls and get by, but I'll make a fool out of you every time you show your face where I can see it and respond to it.
You will never address the real disqualifiers, you'll only claim they were not an issue or those who ask the questions are ignorant, stupid , or just crazy.
The truth is that after 40 years damned near,according to every piece of scientific data we now have in our possession, no incontrovertable proof of a manned lunar mission has ever been presented.
When I was young I realized there were things about apollo that didnt make sense. I knew there were radiation bands around the Earth and deadly cosmic radiation in interplanetary space, I always assumed they were using leading edge and secret technology to shield the astronauts, and the secrecy was a normal part of the cold war.. Thats why and HOW I was fooled. . In the past ten years NASA has revealed it broke the treaty and put plutonium in space. I have no doubt they did , because they have recently. It was an easy solution to the compact power supply problem. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312419
10/14/2007 9:44 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
On the subject of combustion in a rocket engine, without exception . exothermic oxidation -reduction reactions produce visable EMR. There is no way to "burn" a substance without producing visable light, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Just one more NASA lie. Quoting: IDW 312020
You mean, like respiration? I'll let you know the next time my lungs light up. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 9:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
BArls, why dont you just kick yourself in the crotch this time?
I enjoy making you look like a lying asshole who doesnt know any real science.
You claim to have alot of knowledge concerning the Apollo saga, let us see how your version of reality holds up.
Answer the real questions.
Lets start with an easy one!
How could the lunar landing of 1969 represent the very first successful powered descent in a rocket engine powered machine?
Wasnt that a bit odd?
Think about it. I am educated enough and experienced enough to know that if the device was never successfully tested it was never actually used. It wouldnt have worked. The main thrust vector was very low to the center of gravity which would tend to make the machine inherently unstable, and the attitude adjustment rockets were inadequate to actually control the machine through gimbaling of the main engine. If you watch the videos of the flying bedstead, you'll see control was never fully achieved, and no powered landing was ever succesful.
Why didnt NASA use a powered descent on Mars so material could be returned? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312419
10/14/2007 9:50 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"It doesn't 'produce' air, it has an oxygen tank in the PLS backpack along with an LiO2 carbon dioxide scrubber.""
Where is the tank?
In the backpack.
[ link to history.nasa.gov]
"Ther is a tough outer protective garment, the pressure layer is underneath."
Pic?
Have you done no research on this at all? This stuff can be found in just seconds with Google. How can you be so suspicious of all this when you clearly have made no effort to examine the publicly available facts?
[ link to www.myspacemuseum.com]
"They don't crap in the suits. There is a urine collection device, but the astronauts are usually put on a low reside diet prior to a space or moon walk to eliminate the need for defecation."
Low residue? Explain.
Google for "low residue apollo eva".
"Because full-body hickies are really embarrassing. Zero pressure causes you to haemorrhage through your skin."
How so?
Google for "effects of zero pressure on human body"
Yes. An embarrassing thread. I am ashamed to share a virtual room with people this lazy. Design of the excursion suits is EASY to find.
And the basic math can be checked. I did the numbers myself once, based on pressure available in common SCUBA tanks, and the known density of Lithium Hydroxide, to find the physical size of those elements. My numbers came out within 50% either way of what NASA says they used. And you can get close enough to a PLSS in several museums to measure one for yourself.
Walked through a few other things; battery requirements, water used by the porous-plate sublimator, and the numbers appeared to add up there, too. If NASA faked the suits, they did it well.
Heck -- you can have your own suit custom-made these days. There's at least one company making them for hopeful space tourists. The technology, and the numbers, are not exactly state secrets.
I have this to say to the babblers; DO try to answer your own questions before you open your mouth. Showing such a basic ignorance of Apollo and the associated sciences doesn't make it look like a hoax -- it makes you look like a dodo. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 9:54 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
On the subject of combustion in a rocket engine, without exception . exothermic oxidation -reduction reactions produce visable EMR. There is no way to "burn" a substance without producing visable light, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Just one more NASA lie.
You mean, like respiration? I'll let you know the next time my lungs light up. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 312419
This is not the same as oxidizing a fuel in a combustion chamber. Oxidation occurs on an oxygen deprived reaction, where heat produced equals only 30 degrees above room temperature. This is a very slow exothermic reactioon, not actually qualifying as rapid oxidation like BURNING ROCKET FUEL.
COmparing the burning of rocket fuel to biochemistry is a wierd twist, even for you Nomuse. The fact is you did point out correctly that not all oxidation reduction reactions produce VISABLE light, youd esrve the recognition for being correct for a change. I recognized my mistake after I posted it and wondered if anyone else would.Often time the energy levels to produce visable light are never achieved, and only long wavelength emr is emitted. THIS IS LIGHT by the standard definition, though it isnt visable to the human eye. "Light" is more or less physics slang for electromagnetic radiation as a whole. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 9:58 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
On the subject of combustion in a rocket engine, without exception . exothermic oxidation -reduction reactions produce visable EMR. There is no way to "burn" a substance without producing visable light, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Just one more NASA lie.
You mean, like respiration? I'll let you know the next time my lungs light up.
edit for content and typos:
This is not the same as oxidizing a fuel in a combustion chamber. In biochemical oxidation reactions, oxidation occurs in an oxygen deprived reaction, where heat produced equals only 30 degrees above room temperature. This is a very slow exothermic reaction, not actually qualifying as rapid oxidation like BURNING ROCKET FUEL.
Cmparing the burning of rocket fuel to biochemistry is a wierd twist, even for you Nomuse. The fact is you did point out correctly that not all oxidation reduction reactions produce VISABLE light, you deserve the recognition for being correct for a change. I recognized my mistake after I posted it and wondered if anyone else would. Often times with biochemistry and slow oxidation, the energy levels to produce visable light are never achieved, and only long wavelength emr is emitted. THIS IS LIGHT by the standard definition, though it isnt visable to the human eye. "Light" is more or less physics slang for electromagnetic radiation as a whole. Quoting: IDW 312020 |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/14/2007 10:07 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
How could the lunar landing of 1969 represent the very first successful powered descent in a rocket engine powered machine? Quoting: IDW 312020
Simple. It wasn't.
You seem to be forgetting the Surveyor probes.
Did the Surveyors have low CoG issues? Were they inherently unstable? How about the Vikings, or the upcoming Mars Phoenix lander?
Why didnt NASA use a powered descent on Mars so material could be returned? Quoting: IDW 312020
They did use a powered descent, on the Viking probes. As to why they didn't do a sample return - where was the ascent stage fuel? They would have had to carry it with them, as I'm sure you know. This would have blown the mass budget by at least an order of magnitude. The ability to do a powered descent in no way automatically leads to the conclusion that the craft had enough fuel to return. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 10:08 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
It seems like to me NASA has to explain why they dont have powered descent yet if they had it in 1969. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/14/2007 10:09 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I recognized my mistake after I posted it and wondered if anyone else would. Quoting: IDW 312020
Sure, IDW. We believe you.
Did you recognise your mistake about Apollo 11 being the first powered descent, too? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312419
10/14/2007 10:12 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
BArls, why dont you just kick yourself in the crotch this time?
I enjoy making you look like a lying asshole who doesnt know any real science.
You claim to have alot of knowledge concerning the Apollo saga, let us see how your version of reality holds up.
Answer the real questions.
Lets start with an easy one!
How could the lunar landing of 1969 represent the very first successful powered descent in a rocket engine powered machine?
Wasnt that a bit odd?
Think about it. I am educated enough and experienced enough to know that if the device was never successfully tested it was never actually used. It wouldnt have worked. The main thrust vector was very low to the center of gravity which would tend to make the machine inherently unstable, and the attitude adjustment rockets were inadequate to actually control the machine through gimbaling of the main engine. If you watch the videos of the flying bedstead, you'll see control was never fully achieved, and no powered landing was ever succesful.
Why didnt NASA use a powered descent on Mars so material could be returned? Quoting: IDW 312020
Powered descent;
[link to www.daviddarling.info]
[link to www.transchool.eustis.army.mil]
[link to www.scienceandsociety.co.uk]
(I might have let a ducted fan or two slip in there as well; this is just the links that came up with a cursory search).
You are entirely wrong on the flight history of the LLRV as well. The first of five logged 175 flights in the first two years. The second series built another three of them. Total flight time is in the hundreds of hours. Not saying there weren't some accidents here and there!
I don't want to get to CG with you, but having your thrust chamber close to the CG is good; it gives you better ability to maneuver. It is not however intrinsically more stable or less stable. If the thrust axis points through the CG, you fly in a straight line. Nothing more and nothing less.
As to the Mars landing question; oh, come on! You are a lot smarter than that, and you DO know your basic science. You know the answer to that one and pretending you don't is, I feel, below your dignity. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 10:14 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
WHat was the logic of a powered descent with Viking?
Mars has an atmosphere, after all.
What makes you think viking or any of the other probes are any more believeable than the apollo missions, anyway?
DOnt give me that crap about all of the people who were in contact with these probes, either, because thats provable as a load of crap. The extraordinary claim that the voyager space probe is still sending data is an example. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/14/2007 10:18 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Are you abandoning your claim that Apollo 11 was the first powered descent? I notice the conspicuous absence of any acknowledgement of the Surveyor probes.
WHat was the logic of a powered descent with Viking?
Mars has an atmosphere, after all. Quoting: IDW 312020
They did use parachutes in the upper atmosphere, but the air is so thin that terminal velocity is still too high to land on parachutes alone. Also, if they landed just on parachutes, then the 'chute would likely end up on top of the lander. The 'chute was jetissoned some way above the ground, and the final stage was done on rockets.
What makes you think viking or any of the other probes are any more believeable than the apollo missions, anyway? Quoting: IDW 312020
The IDW method - when someone comes up with a counterargument, just assert that it too is made up. Whatever. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/14/2007 10:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Why didnt NASA use a powered descent on Mars so material could be returned? Quoting: IDW 312020
WHat was the logic of a powered descent with Viking?
Mars has an atmosphere, after all. Quoting: IDW 312020
Cognitive...dissonance...hurting...brain... |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 10:26 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
This vehicle form your first link is a ducted fan aircraft. It does not use a rocket engine:
[link to www.daviddarling.info]
This is not rocket engine powered descent.
About the CG, Barls, the higher up on the axis of the center of gravity the engine was, the better the stability. Common sense. If the thrust is above the center of gravity like in a bottle rocket, stability is inherent. Placing the center of gravity above the thrust owuld be insanely unstable. Th viking was a short, stubby vehicle, wasnt it? Its highth to width ratio was what? APollo? |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
