Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?

its called a clock. They knew the time of liftoff and started the pan up 2 seconds before.

Asto shill might have been laid off like the other shills.

Maybe he is coding now

Ya know I would believe if we went back, with updated tech, but just the fact that we have not gone back with all this new tech and materials, tells me we never went. The tech was lost or destroyed, what a laugh. Believe what you want, technology has caught up to Nasa and now we the public would be able to follow every step of the way to the moon and they know that. That is the main reason we never went and won't ever go.

Wow you are really reaching now.

Sorry you can't appreciate the truth.

Rockets are still largely the same and still expensive. A faster computer doesn't get anything more into orbit. Congress has not wanted to pay for it since apollo.

So you think they also used polyethylene on Apollo too? If you know then NASA also know - right? So you've just proven that NASA didn't lose any radiation shielding tech. used on Apollo: Congratulations. Funny they are still working on it. Why do you think that is?
BTW Geo-stationary satellites are proof that electronics are not an issue for space travel: it proves the hurdles are purely biological.

Then you want me to prove that the radiation was low enough for them all to be fine, after I've just explained that it wasn't. Nice try, but it's NASA's job to prove they did it, not mine. Maybe they could prove that by going above LEO - but they never do. That's a proof that they cannot.

However NASA have stated that they only got a few 'chest X-rays' worth of radiation, but that is then enough to fog film. Your response is that you want me to prove a chest Xray fogs film, that's easy, just pop into your local hospital and look at a chest X-ray. Duh. Enjoy arguing with the radiologists.

Your odd comment that there were no CME's/flares from the Sun directed toward earth during a mission is both irrelevant and meaningless, well done. Many people survive russian roulette for similar reasons. Know any astronauts who have played?

So apart from some general noise, Have you got even a single bit of proof for Apollo that you can share here? Just ONE thing that proves they went?

Rockets are not largely the same, the russian rockets are considerably better than any American one, particularly the dreadful F-1 they used for the Saturn V show.

Since Apollo went around the belts and for interplanetary trips they'll have to go through them, the problems are partially biological. Geo-stationary satellites have extra shielding already and live in a part of the belts further out. They are not shielded for all parts.


Please read. I asked you to prove it was too much. As for going above LEO, where would they go if not to the Moon? Since they don't currently have a heavy lifting rocket, how would they get to the Moon or anywhere else? So then what is the point?


Again, learn to read. Prove the film got that much radiation.


Not irrelevant as it is true. Since there were none earth directed at the time, then it wasn't a problem. But they did have some contingency plans. Since they have some warning before an Earth directed flare hits, they can plan to turn the space craft so the fuel tanks of the CSM are in the direction of the Sun, and they can also elongate their orbit around the Moon so they spend more time on the other side. Nobody ever claimed they had no risk.


shifting the burden of proof already? Not a single hoax claim stands up to scrutiny. but thanks for the humor.

Is that why the Russian equivalent, the N-1, blew up every time they used it?

Siriously tho

3 pages into a discussion like this and that fellow astro mutt hasn't shown up

Looks like he was a paid to comment shill after all

Essentially the RD-180 type engine that the US is forced to buy from Russia (because it's the best engine) is the exact same design as the NK-33 used in the N-1.

Perhaps you can tell me why the Anti-Russian US government buys a version of the engine you are telling us is no good? An engine design that was actually built, tested and working in 1969 at the same time America was using the dreadful F-1.

I also note you didn't try to defend the Saturn V's F-1 motor, very wise.

I said nothing about the engine design. I mentioned their heavy lifting rocket. As I don't know much about the F-1 I don't care to comment. YOU claim it is dreadful then YOU should say why instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

yawn... dipshits don't realize that elites want to find away to preserve themselves from the next global catastrophe and part of that plan is to get people off the earth and find a place to seed a new civilization eg. one they run.

There is no way around the belts from the trajectory used for Apollo. Duh. The only way 'around' them is on the polar axis.


Please read. It is NASA's job to prove they went.


Err - this isn't my fault. That's NASA's job. A better question is WHY haven't they developed a heavy lifting rocket in 50 years?



Again, learn to read. Just pop into your local hospital and look at a chest X-ray. Duh. Enjoy arguing with the radiologists.




Shifting the burden of proof already? Not a single piece of evidence from NASA stands up to scrutiny. but thanks for the humor.

NASA: PROVE you went to the moon with Apollo. You can't.

Last Edited by Drone#6 on 02/07/2019 10:42 AM

Why not? That was the point I was making.
ENGINE DESIGN.

At least you admit you were deflecting. The N-1 assembly is irrelevant in a discussion of rocket engines or technology.




You entire defence of NASA's Apollo story is that we must prove it was false, or 'prove a negative', I've now asked you three times for ANY proof that NASA went to the moon.



Have you any proof?

Incorrect.


So instead of acknowledging your reading error, you instead shift the burden of proof.


NASA doesn't build rockets. They hire contractors to do so. Contractors like to get paid. Congress hasn't put forward the money to do so.




so you can't prove the film got that much. Got it. Or do you think the film was just left out just kicking around all the time?


There is tons of evidence. All internally and externally consistent. But the real question is what would you actually accept?


I'm not NASA and they have.

Fixed your quotes by the way.

Your entire defence of NASA's Apollo story is that we must prove it was false, or 'prove a negative', I've now asked you FOUR times for ANY proof that NASA went to the moon.



Have you any proof?

Last Edited by Drone#6 on 02/07/2019 10:46 AM

They used to at least on paper but all the data got misplaced, what their word isn't good enough? What do you need LEMS leaving blast craters in the soft 'moon' surface?

And I had always been talking about rockets. And they are still largely the same (they still used large controlled explosions using lots of fuel) and are still expensive. YOU tried to steer away from that point claiming they were not largely the same then put forward an engine which still works in the same manner and is still expensive.



so you can't say why it was dreadful?

What would you even accept?

There is the testimony of those that went. The fact that the spacecraft were seen leaving Earth orbit. The fact that they were tracked there and back. The fact that others were able to listen in on their radio conversations. The fact that the pictures and video shows signs of low gravity and no atmosphere. The fact that there were many people involved and none have ever confessed it was fake not even a deathbed confession. If you claim that few would have to be in on it then the contractors would make working equipment, so why not use it?
And yes, the hoax claims don't stand up to scrutiny. They instead often betray that the hoaxies don't understand the subject. That is why there are still people that claim there should be stars in the photos or ask who took the video of the first steps.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 02/07/2019 10:51 AM

You admit you know considerably less about the F-1 rocket motor than I do yet you continually accuse me of being a) a 'hoaxer' and b) 'having no understanding of the subject.

Are you aware how ridiculous that looks?


I've seen the Apollo 11 press conference - have you?


Seen by who? NASA? No one else saw them leave. Today NASA doesn't show a single continuous shot of a SINGLE Apollo takeoff.


By NASA yes, great. NASA says they went so NASA can't be lying - bit of a circular argument.


Radio? Because everyone always knows the exact source of their radio signals. Go find the original evidence and logs: oh that's right: you can't.


So did Space 1999. And numerous other films. Duh!


You forget Gus Grissom. He told all. He died.

You are just throwing out hearsay - have you got a single piece of EVIDENCE?

800 pounds of lunar samples, examined by amateurs and experts around the world, with complete documentation as to where they were discovered, and how they were collected, which you can examine yourself if you craft the right kind of experiment.

[link to curator.jsc.nasa.gov (secure)]

Go.

not very. Should everyone be expected to know details of a complex engine?


Yes, I've seen it all and not just the cherry-picked parts. There are plenty of parts where they are happy.


By many people on the ground. observers all around the world saw Apollo when in Earth orbit and observed the TLI burn.


By third parties as well.


gosh, if only people knew how to use directional antennas.


And yet Space 1999 and numerous other films still got it wrong many times.


Nope. He was a strong supporter and compained about how the simulator wasn't being kept up with changes made to the real spacecraft making it harder to train. No proof he was killed. Actually absurd to think he would be killed in such a public accident that nearly shuts down the program and invited more scrutiny.


did you EVER say what you would accept? No? As expected, you handwave away everything. Thanks for the humor.

'complete documentation as to where they were discovered' from NASA. Ok, Circular argument.

As for being examined, one turned out to be petrified wood.
Even if they were real, there's no proof they came from Apollo, so on TWO counts they don't prove anything.

One 16 second web search later...

[link to www.universetoday.com (secure)]

Have a nice day.

you are also obligated to prove otherwise and none of you have done so.

NOW who is using supposition without evidence?

The 'petrified wood' story:

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

As for 'no proof they came from Apollo,' you now have to establish, with evidence, how we got them. Your dismissal of all the evidence with handwaving isn't enough.

There is photographic evidence for the samples on the surface of the Moon.
There is written evidence detailing the collection and retrieval of said samples.
There is testimony by experts related to the authenticity of the samples.
There is the ability to get and test the samples *yourself* with the proper experiment.

Versus this you present: nothing.

Please, by all means, try again.

You are not everyone, you are a believer in NASA's Apollo and claim an interest in it.

WHY have you never bothered to study the main engines, even if they do date from 1962 ? Did you even know Rocketdyne designed and made them? Do you know the construction?

If not: WHY not?


'Plenty of parts'. Yup, real winners weren't they. Perhaps they all left NASA shortly after as they were too happy?


Yes I have said multiple times, I'll accept ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
So far you've just given me 'NASA said..'.

Have you got ANY evidence?

Wrong. NASA makes the claim: they must prove it.