PDA

View Full Version : Lunar Lander Debate



somnambulance
09-20-2005, 12:07 PM
I was far more impressed by the fellas who went into space privately.

I am not convinced that man walked on the moon in the first place. I think sending 100 billion dollars into space is a waste, especially with such counter productive ideas.

Cant wait to see the new CG video in 5 years of somebody walking on Mars.

cresshead
09-20-2005, 12:57 PM
back in the 60's computers were huge!...no problem we'll just make a huge room or set of rooms to place them in!....but wait the design needs of a rocket and lander for a moon mission NEEDED to have a computer small enough and light enough to be launched on a saturn V rocket..there was not such a thing as a portable computer bfore the space race NEEDED one!...
yup your 'personal'computer was dreampt up by design needs of nasa and the cccp russion space race to the moon... same with telecommunications and your mobile phone......so...what huge leaps in technology will be due for us to use with living on the moon and going to mars on a manned mission?

we don't know as yet but history tells us that the human race can only GROW if we dare to tread where others do not...yes it's costly...but we need to expore to further our race otherwise we'd still be riding horses to the coalmine everyday and posting letters rathe then writing emails.

also for those who have doubts we ever went to the moon in the 60' and 70's well that's your right..do you also believe that the earth is flat and that airplanes are nothing but metal birds and not a means of fasst transit for humans.................. :cat:

Meaty
09-20-2005, 01:36 PM
also for those who have doubts we ever went to the moon in the 60' and 70's well that's your right..do you also believe that the earth is flat and that airplanes are nothing but metal birds and not a means of fasst transit for humans.................. :cat:
Yeah, there was a lot of ballyhoo about a theory that the moon landing was faked... I think it was a special on Fox after When Bears Attack #7 or something. It was one of those situations where, if you are not familiar with low gravity physics, film emulsion, and some other topics, it was easy to convince an audience that the landing was faked. Each point, however, has been thoroughly debunked.

somnambulance
09-20-2005, 02:52 PM
also for those who have doubts we ever went to the Ö

If I did think the world is flat, could you explain to me why it isn't? You call the metal birds "airplanes"... very interesting, I am going to look into that.

I haven't sat down and done the calculations, but the logic of the propulsion system used to break the moon's gravitational pull that was used on the moon lander doesnít add up. Look at the energy used to get out of the earths pull, do you really think that that little moon lander (that has a millionth of the HP of the rocket that got it out of earth's atmosphere) has the capability of breaking the moons gravity? 1/6 the gravity of earthÖ if you dig up the specs on a modern rocket engine and the weight of the moonlander with fuel (after the alleged landing on the moon) and fuel quantity, I would be more than happy to get my calculator out.

Do you believe everything you see on TV and everything you are told? I will believe that man walked on the moon when I see it first hand. Funny how you can't see any evidence from any telescope on Earth.

Certainly many technological advancements came about at the same time as the space program, some as a result of the space program. However you cant say that these things would never exist without the NASA, because you cant prove it. Aside from a few satellites, there really hasnít been any advancement in the human race as a result of leaving our atmosphere.

If there had been any major breakthroughs in technology that would be implemented in a new space rocket, I would be supportive. For $100,000,000,000.00 I expect more than a polished rocket from the 60's with Intel inside.

As far as going to the moon to learn how to sustain lifeÖ we need to do so here on Earth first. Mankind can split an atom, but we use the same technique of a water wheel to gather the energy from it, and you want to go to Mars.

robewil
09-20-2005, 03:16 PM
The biggest difficulty in escaping the Earth is air resistance. Since there is none on the Moon, lifting off from the Moon requires substantially less effort than leaving the Earth.

somnambulance
09-20-2005, 04:11 PM
The biggest difficulty in escaping the Earth is air resistance.

Wow, I didnt realize. For some reason when I was working out the other day, I thought that adding weight to the bar made it so that gravity would pull the weights toward the earth, there by increasing the resistance. Little did I know that the increased air resistance of the weights is what causes resistance. :bangwall:

I would still love to see the specs on both the moon lander and a rocket that runs on oxygen, and do the calculations my self to see if it is possible.

cresshead
09-20-2005, 05:50 PM
Funny how you can't see any evidence from any telescope on Earth.

it's 250,000 miles away....
some of the very best spy plane cameras that have telescopic lenses can have serious trouble seeing a car for only 10miles up....

and you expect to see a luna rover [smaller than a car] through our atmosphere and 250,000 miles away :D

cresshead
09-20-2005, 06:01 PM
have a read an use your microsoft calculator [remember they used slide rules for most of the moon landing calculations.......]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

http://www.answers.com/topic/escape-velocity

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm

as for air resistance not having any part in escape velocity....why did the phrase aerodynamic come about then!..............and the air or atmosphere is used as a break when retuning to earth...that's why they have a heat shield...geez! basic stuff here!

maybe people might like to read up abit on physics and history of transport and learn some background information on such things. :hey:

cresshead
09-20-2005, 06:08 PM
quote___If I did think the world is flat, could you explain to me why it isn't?___
i could make a simple oberservation.........

stand on a beach and watch a sailboat sail off to the horizon....the rigging will still be visible even though the lower potion of the boat is over the horizon...this could mean that the earth is not flat but is curved.....a theory but a well founded one way back when others thought the earth was flat and everything revolved around the earth including the stars.....then gallelio came on the scene and ruined it all!...bah humbug!


that's that they surmised back in ye olde days...before 1999!
okay...a long time ago!....

cresshead
09-20-2005, 06:12 PM
here's a simplified link.....

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF6/661.html :thumbsup:

robewil
09-20-2005, 06:16 PM
Wow, I didnt realize. For some reason when I was working out the other day, I thought that adding weight to the bar made it so that gravity would pull the weights toward the earth, there by increasing the resistance. Little did I know that the increased air resistance of the weights is what causes resistance.
Think of it this way, drop a brick and a feather off of a building on the Earth and the brick beats the feather by a landslide. Do the same thing on the Moon and you'll have a tie. Air becomes a major factor at high speeds. this is why a 500 hp car may accelerate significantly faster than a 400 hp car, but their top speeds (assuming all other factors are the same) would be nearly identical.

cresshead
09-20-2005, 06:16 PM
also you might want to type this into your equations about the moon and leaving it....

yep the escape velocity is 11,000 mph


and earth is 25,000....

so why does the shuttly only go 17,500mph????.....cos it's not trying to 'escape'....but go into orbit...low earth orbit......

note that the command module was inserted into a 60mile orbit obove the moon so the lander does not need 11,000 mph to 'escape' but only the speed/power to enable a 60mile lw orbit insertion to meet up with the command module......

add that into your calcs!..........good luck! :thumbsup:

somnambulance
09-20-2005, 08:42 PM
Ok, we have ourselves a good ol discussion here! :dance:

I think these suckers (http://www.noao.edu/kpno/) are a little bit more high powered than a spy plane zoom lens.


as for air resistance not having any part in escape velocity....
I dont believe that I said it has NOTHING to do with it. I do believe that the most difficult issue is gravity. Thanks for the links, I will get to those in a minute. I was going to use my TI-85, why did you assume I would use Microsoft Calculator?


Think of it this way, drop a brick and a feather off...

A) You think of it this way; without gravity, you wont be dropping anything.
B) Take your 500hp car, connect a chain to it, wrap that chain around 50 ton boulder and give the driver a gallon of gasoline. Your car aint go'in no where, and air resistance has nothing to do with it.

cresshead, that was a pretty good go at explaining why the world is round, but I am sort of a disbeliever, so I would just think that the ship was gone in the hase. Besides, I live in Colorado, you going to fly me 2000 miles in one of those metal birds to go see the ocean? :D

somnambulance
09-20-2005, 09:14 PM
Ok, I just looked over those links and couldnt find any specs on the moon lander. I did read that they supposedly loaded up 840 pounds of moon dirt before they left... LOL. I also found some footage... look at this clip (http://www.fotosearch.com/CRT802/001180cf/). Do you really think that I am going to believe that that dinky little craft (loaded up with 840lbs of dirt) has the juice to get off the moon with 1/6 the gravity of earth, because there is no atmosphere?!

840lbs of earth dirt is approx 5 cbuic feet, where is the space for 5 cubic feet, 2 people, electronics, heaters, atmosphere, insulation, air lock, thrusters, parachute, and... um.. oh... did we come all this way and forget fuel?

The ratio of liquid oxygen the space shuttle uses is 20:1 thats 20 pounds of fuel to 1 pound of craft and cargo. The escape velocity of the moon is 22% of the earth, shouldn't that craft require 20% the ratio? That is about 4.3:1 meaning that there should be 4.3 pounds of liquid oxygen to every pound of craft and cargo. I am not seeing it.

Now take a moment to think all that through, then watch this (http://www.fotosearch.com/CRT802/001177cf/). And now ask yourself, how did that guy that panned the camera up get that film to the lab, when his ride left without him?

OH, robwil, dont you think that if air resistance was a major issue, they would move the lauch site to a mountain top in Colorado where there is less atmosphere?

robewil
09-20-2005, 10:00 PM
OH, robwil, dont you think that if air resistance was a major issue, they would move the lauch site to a mountain top in Colorado where there is less atmosphere?Well, then you'd have the logistical problem of hoisting all that heavy equipment to a mountain. Also, the temperature at high altitudes would be a problem. That's one reason why they launch in Florida.

Go ahead and believe what you want to believe. Really, if you believe the Moon landings were fake then you are a very different person than me and we are never going to see eye to eye.

cresshead
09-21-2005, 03:13 AM
i'm truly amazed at the negativity of the comments posted here for human exploriation of our solar system..also surpised not to have seen the ususal rant of what about the starving millions in [name your fav 3rd world country].


maybe forums are just a collection of opposite thoughts....

shame on you for wanting to go back to a 'square wheel'...after all it won't roll away on a hill eh?
:confused:

digital verve
09-21-2005, 03:24 AM
Sorry to bursts everyones bubble.

The Earth is flat. Yes it is. It says so here:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
so it must be true.

All the earlier moon landing etc were special effects by Gerry Anderson.
All modern flights to outerspace rendered in LW 4.0 and upwards. :D

:neener:

Seriously. I think going to the moon again is a great idea as long as it is a step to more exploration, science and discovery. If its a repeat of Apollo (which it does not seem to be), then it is a waste of time and money. If it helps us to explore and get manned missions to other bodies in the solar system (Mars etc) then I'm all for it.

This website below lists many technologies because of NASA and space exploration. The European Space Agency are devloping cool stuff too. If we stayed in mud huts and caves and didn't explore, where would we be. For starters, I don't think there would be any computers or Lightwave. :D

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

starbase1
09-21-2005, 07:56 AM
Lunar landing conspiracy theories are all b0ll0cks. It might be difficult to spot things on the moon, but watching them go there was easy. I did it myself, and before it moved too far away Apollo capsules were an easy naked eye object.

Bright metal in direct sunlight on a black background is about as easy to track as it gets! If you know what to look for its easy to see many many satellites with the naked eye on a summer evening.

Working out where they are in space is also not difficult - back the the children at Kettering grammar school would do it regularly, picking up Russian launches before the US spooks.

Speaking of which, why on Earth (ha!) would the Russians go along a conspiracy like that? :twak:

Anyway, the current project...

I am a strong support of space exploration, but I think this latest idea just won't happen. Look at the current situation.

In round figures, the international space station is 250 miles up. And with the shuttle grounded again, it will be unable to meet it's commiments for that project before it is decommisioned. America has no manned space program.

They are currently getting some technology treaties changed so they can buy in Soyuz technology. A mere 250 miles up, and the USA can't get there on their own.

The moon is a thousand times longer journey, Mars a million times further.

And in the meantime the Russians are starting to plan space tourism flights to the moon, Apollo 8 style.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0810_050810_moontrip.html

NASA is MUCH better at unmanned solar system exploration, and orbitting observatories. I'm much more interested in things like a Europa lander, a Mercury orbitter, Pluto fast flyby... These can happen with a feasible budget.

Nick

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 08:40 AM
I suppose you believe in big foot too? Seriously, look at it, and get your calculator out. It is so far from being possible, that itís laughable. Donít just say my attitude stinks and donít just believe what your told, do the math for yourself.

crosshead, I suppose since your from the UK, you donít really care how US leaders embezzle US tax payers money. Give me $100,000,000,000.00, 10 years and I think I could come up with a series of clips of man waking on mars. :lwicon:

starbase1
09-21-2005, 08:49 AM
So why did the Soviets go along with your conspiracy?

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 08:51 AM
Why and how did/do they go along with it? Who do you think the videos were setup for? If you can buy a orbit around the moon for $100 mil, why cant you buy a moon walk for $300 mil?

Did you do the math for youself?

Karmacop
09-21-2005, 08:51 AM
OH, robwil, dont you think that if air resistance was a major issue, they would move the lauch site to a mountain top in Colorado where there is less atmosphere?

Ok, two things. Firstly air resistance is important. Terminal velocity is the maximum speed that an object can reach when free falling. At this point the air resistance becomes too strong for the gravity and thus gravity cannot pull the object down any faster, so air resistance is a problem.

Secondly, even though launching on top of a mountain would mean less air resistance and I guess less distance to travel, the atmosphere wouldn't be as thick for the rockets to push on and accelerate the craft.

digital verve
09-21-2005, 08:55 AM
The moon landing is provable fact. Real scientists and real photography experts have debunked the moon hoax. These pseudo scientists and so called experts supporting the hoax myth don't have much credibilty imho.

Get the real facts:

http://www.clavius.org/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

As for bigfoot. Well actually, there is some evidence to suggest that it exists. It's probably only an ape that lives in cold mountainess regions. Nothing fancy like a a snaked head medusa. :D

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 09:06 AM
Ok, two things. Firstly air resistance is important...
Secondly, even though launching on top of a mountain would mean less air resistance and I guess less distance to travel, the atmosphere wouldn't be as thick for the rockets to push on and accelerate the craft.

RAOFL. Are you serious! Yes, air resistance is an issue, for the third time, I NEVER SAID IT WASNT! karmacop, (laughing) are you saying it hurts or helps? My point was that if air resistance was a major issue, moving your launch site to somewhere like Leadville CO, which is flat enough and at a much higher altitude and has the land available for such facilities, that it would be done. However, air resistance is NOT the major issue, gravity is.

Lude
09-21-2005, 09:10 AM
Hey somnambulance do you not remember the big foot, foot prints they made casts of while on the moon. Now if they werenít really there then how did they do that!

It's a proven fact, big foots are from the moon. :alien: :rolleyes:

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 09:19 AM
As for bigfoot. Well actually, there is some evidence to suggest that it exists...

You must have missed the news, the people who made the film in CA exposed the truth about it.

Anybody do the calculations yet? No need to discuss it any further until anyone can prove that a thruster has the capibility of moving that moon lander off the moon, and how much liquid oxygen it would take.

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 09:22 AM
It's a proven fact, big foots are from the moon. :alien: :rolleyes:

LOL, I heard santa claus poured the mold while osama bin laden was salvaging the moon lander for spare parts.

Lude
09-21-2005, 09:24 AM
Ok somnambulance do the math on this :neener:

"Some guy straps a bunch of jets filled with what appears to be compressed air to the back of his backpack. He then releases the air sending him hundreds of feet into the air."

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/backpackjets1.html

Karmacop
09-21-2005, 09:33 AM
RAOFL. Are you serious! Yes, air resistance is an issue, for the third time, I NEVER SAID IT WASNT! karmacop, (laughing) are you saying it hurts or helps? My point was that if air resistance was a major issue, moving your launch site to somewhere like Leadville CO, which is flat enough and at a much higher altitude and has the land available for such facilities, that it would be done. However, air resistance is NOT the major issue, gravity is.

I know that you think air resistance is an issue, I was just stating that at a certain point it becomes more of an issue than gravity, so as a certain point gravity is NOT the major issue.

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 09:43 AM
We can argue stupid loophole's about terms all day long.

This is why I am a disbeliever (http://www.fotosearch.com/CRT802/001177cf/). Until someone can explain how that little thing had enough thrust and fuel to get off the moon, your all going to look like a bunch sheep to me.

Lude
09-21-2005, 10:05 AM
The moon's gravity is one-sixth that of the Earth's. So there for it would stand to reason that you only need a sixth of the power to get of it and thatís before considering the lack of atmosphere.

Also as you started yourself ďthat little thingĒ the lunar Lander was pretty small and the smaller something is the less trust it will need.


This is why I am a disbeliever.
Who was working that camera?

LOL

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 10:22 AM
Like I said before:
"The ratio of liquid oxygen the space shuttle uses is 20:1 thats 20 pounds of fuel to 1 pound of craft and cargo. The escape velocity of the moon is 22% of the earth, shouldn't that craft require 20% the ratio? That is about 4.3:1 meaning that there should be 4.3 pounds of liquid oxygen to every pound of craft and cargo. I am not seeing it."

Bigfoot is running the camera.

T-Light
09-21-2005, 10:25 AM
Lude-

Also as you started yourself ďthat little thingĒ the lunar Lander was pretty small and the smaller something is the less trust it will need.

The less 'TRUST' it will need? Freudian slip there Lude :D

Karmacop
09-21-2005, 10:33 AM
So we can fly people to the moon, but you don't think we could have a remote control camera? Come on ...

As far as maths, this is what I've been able to find

Earth
----------
escape velocity: 10.186 km/s

Saturn V
----------
weight: 2,900,000 kg


Moon
----------
escape velocity: 2.38 km/s

LM Ascent module
----------
weight: 4,547 kg


Now just from these numbers, there's a pretty big difference. Moving the LM off the moon would me much easier than getting the saturn V off the Earth.

T-Light
09-21-2005, 10:47 AM
Yup.

Weight of craft (tiny) +
Weight of fuel required to get craft up (reasonable) +
Weight of fuel required to get craft & fuel up. (progressively massive)

Heavy stuff is fuel.

Roll on the discovery of anti-gravity. Of course we all know they've secretly had that since Roswell, haven't they?

spec24
09-21-2005, 10:47 AM
this might be helpful - along with a thousand more websites

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 11:14 AM
Weight of craft (tiny) +
Weight of fuel required to get craft up (reasonable) +
Weight of fuel required to get craft & fuel up. (progressively massive)

You with me on this?

I agree leaving the moon is easier, much easier. Looking at volumes in the images and reading about the mass, I still dont think it adds up. There is without a doubt less fuel (in pounds) on that craft than the craft and cargo itself. If someone can actually step up to the plate with some figures on the weight of the moon lander, how much thrust the rockets provide, then this wouldnt even be a discussion.

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 11:17 AM
this might be helpful - along with...[/url]

I didnt see that show, so I dont know what they are debunking.

Simply put, my point is: fuel to get the moon lander off the moon not present.

starbase1
09-21-2005, 11:42 AM
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard... The USA fakes a moon landing in 1967, so that the soviets can sell tickets to tourists 30 years on? Active collaboration between two superpowers that were at each others thoats with the threat of nukes?!?!

No, I did not bother to do your sums for you.

I have dealt with people who think that a rubber suit full of offal is an alien autopsy, biblical idiots who swear they can prove were the water for noahs flood came from (and went too), those who claim that UFO's have impressive radar stealthing to hide behind, yet light up their craft like christmas trees, those who claim to have photos of alien cities on Mars, (the blocky patterns were quite clearly JPG compression artefacts), those who wanted me to measure the height of the lids sliding across craters on the moon, (hard to measure the thickness of a shadow), and those who claim that thousands of 'intelligent' aliens are visiting Earth to shove things up people bottoms and meddle with cows.

I learnt a lot from these people.

Mainly I learnt that while science and knowledge has its limits, willful ignorance is completely bottomless.

Your teachers were presumably professionals at the remedy of ignorance - I would not aspire to attempt what they failed at.

Now how about we give the thread back to the guy who wants feedback on his graphics?
:hijack:



Why and how did/do they go along with it? Who do you think the videos were setup for? If you can buy a orbit around the moon for $100 mil, why cant you buy a moon walk for $300 mil?

Did you do the math for youself?

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 11:46 AM
The USA fakes a moon landing in 1967, so that the soviets can sell tickets to tourists 30 years on? Active collaboration between two superpowers that were at each others thoats with the threat of nukes?!?!

Now how about we give the thread back to the guy who wants feedback on his graphics?

Ok, I didnt say any of that, and there is no guy who wants feedback, it is simply a link to NASA's site. You certianly dont have to be insulting just because I question it.

And you still havnt done the math for yourself have you?

Karmacop
09-21-2005, 11:47 AM
If someone can actually step up to the plate with some figures on the weight of the moon lander, how much thrust the rockets provide, then this wouldnt even be a discussion.

Weight of the Ascent module: 4,547 kg

Ascent propulsion system: 15.6 kN

EDIT: a newton is the force it takes the accelerate 1kg at a metre/second/second. Thus the Ascent propulsion system could accelerate the module at about 3m/s/s by my math. So in one second it'd already reached escape velocity.

Tiger
09-21-2005, 11:54 AM
On the moon or not...what did they do there?
Brought back some rocks which you can find in Arizona dessert...
actually exactly the same kind of rocks.
Smells fishy to me :thumbsdow

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 12:01 PM
Ok, I got these figures off some random website:

The LM weighed in at 2700 lbs on the moon, when it landed. So it ditched some of that weight, say 1/4 to be in your guys favor. so that's 2025lbs on the moon, or 12150 on earth. They loaded up 840 pounds of lunar dirt. which brings the total weight up to 12990. There were 5200 lbs of fuel. Bringing the craft and cargo weight to 7790. This is approximatelly 1:1.5, 1 pound of fuel to 1.5 pounds of craft and cargo. Saying that the craft would only make it about 1/6 the way to break the moons gravity.

I found those figures on a hoax debunking site, so they must be true.

digital verve
09-21-2005, 12:02 PM
On the moon or not...what did they do there?
Brought back some rocks which you can find in Arizona dessert...
actually exactly the same kind of rocks.
Smells fishy to me :thumbsdow

They are different. Independently analysed by many top scientists in several countrys to be of unearthly origin. :)

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 12:08 PM
EDIT: a newton is the force it takes the accelerate 1kg at a metre/second/second. Thus the Ascent propulsion system could accelerate the module at about 3m/s/s by my math. So in one second it'd already reached escape velocity.

Where did you get the figures on the engine power? Can I see your math? I found the landing module was capable 10,000 lbs of thrust, but that was on the defunking website as well.

Tiger
09-21-2005, 12:39 PM
They are different. Independently analysed by many top scientists in several countrys to be of unearthly origin. :)

Of course they say so...you don`t want to loose your job or life!
There is more to the picture than meets the eye.
Ok...back to LightWave :)

Lude
09-21-2005, 12:45 PM
Latest images of nasa's new lander.

Karmacop
09-21-2005, 12:48 PM
Where did you get the figures on the engine power? Can I see your math? I found the landing module was capable 10,000 lbs of thrust, but that was on the defunking website as well.

I got them from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module . Maybe not the most reliable resource, but I'm sure they were taken from a reliable resource.

My math ..

weight = 4,547 kg
thrust = 15.6 kN

thrust/weight = 15,600/4,547
= 3.43 m/s/s

As I said before the escape velocity of the moon is 2.38 km/s, so this is where my math error comes in (I knew I must have done something wrong).

then 2380m/s / 3.43 m/s^2 = 694 seconds

The actual burn time was 7 mins 18 seconds (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/nasa-tnd-6846pt.1.pdf) but this is difference because of the changing gravity etc.

Sorry for my original mistake, it's late here ;)

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 01:03 PM
Sorry for my original mistake, it's late here ;)
LOL, I kind of thought you forgot gravity, I know how that goes. So you came up with 694 seconds which 11.56 minutes. I am not aware of gravitational feilds, if I were... anyway, lets just hand the 7min 18 sec to NASA, because I cant prove otherwise.

Now the question is: is 5800 lbs of propellant enough to burn full blast for 438 seconds? And was there enough volume within the moon lander to account for everything?

starbase1
09-21-2005, 01:10 PM
You consider me insulting?

What about your attitude to the Apollo astronauts, who you imply are frauds, liars and fakes? (I've met Buzz Aldrin, don't try that line with him...)

You are ignorant of the correct way to even frame the question!

Why should a weight ratio of a shuttle component operating in an atmosphere have any simple relationship to a weight ratio of a hypergolic fuel system operating in a vacuum?

Why do you think the LEM achieved Lunar escape velocity?
It didn't!
It only went up to a VERY low lunar orbit! They didn't take the whole lot down into a gravity well. The astronauts used to kid each other about hitting an unusually high mountain on the back of the moon.

The service module and command module needed to to reach lunar escape velocity, the LEM was dumped!

(Come to that, the shuttle is a long way short of escape velocity too)

If you seriously want to know how these things work, then at least learn enough to phrase the question correctly. And that will involve the use of some terms such as delta-V, mass, and specific impulse.

Note in particular theat MASS does NOT vary with the gravitational field.

The delta-v / specific impulse should be sufficient to reach a stable orbital velocity around the moon a few km up. Similarly for Earth orbiting craft the requirement is to reach orbital velocity a few hundred miles up.

THAT is what you should be comparing, nothing as facile as the relative surface gravity.

You will not need to know the weight of the craft under lunar gravity, it's mass on Earth will be sufficent. You will not need to know the relative strengths of Earth and Lunar gravity.

They simply do not enter the (correct) calculation.

You are combining the wrong numbers in a meaningless way and then calling some very brave and accomplished men frauds because your sums don't add up!

But if it amuses you to generate random numbers, feel free...

starbase1
09-21-2005, 01:25 PM
Local gravity is a complete red herring.

Consider a spacecraft floating at the lagrange point where Earth and Moons gravity cancel. Local gravity / escape velocity is therefore zero. (Same applies a long way from any loarge body).

Do you therefore think that therefore an infinitesmal amount of fuel can make a craft go arbitrarily fast?

Nick

T-Light
09-21-2005, 01:49 PM
Back to Earth with a bump. Just made a quick edit of Apollo and the Lem filmed 2-3 years ago for the debate (lighthearted side only), and my s*dding FTP servers down. Bummer.

I actually agree that NASA's been to the moon, I was pretty shocked when the first TV shows started broadcasting stating otherwise.

1) I agree with Somnambulance that the Lem looks way too small to carry enough thrust to get off the Moon, not saying it didn't, just saying it looks that way.

2) One thing did come up in the debunking programs, I think it was a show debunking the debunkers. It was basically a shot taken from one of the earlier missions, they put it side by side with a shot from a later mission taken from hundreds of miles away. Both shots had the same backdrop.

Either
a) There's some identical mountains/craters on the Moon.
or
b) The mountains/crators where large enough to be photographed hundreds of miles apart and the photograph happened to be taken pointing in a similar direction. This would also assume the Moon is larger than it is (The mountains shouldn't show due to the curvature of such a small body)

Don't know if a reasonable explanation has been given for those pictures, again, not saying there isn't a good explanation, it's just the one given on the show was hogwash.

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 01:50 PM
You are ignorant... of the correct way to even frame the question!

You are combining the wrong numbers in a meaningless way and then calling some very brave and accomplished men frauds because your sums don't add up!

But if it amuses you to generate random numbers, feel free...

You called me ignorant. Name calling quickly converts discussions into arguments. Please make an attempt to avoid that in the future. I would appreciate it if you stopped making assumptions about me. Furthermore, I believe it is ignorant to believe things based only off what you are told. Those numbers may be inaccurate, as I am slowly running across NASA's claims; I am finding that they are relatively accurate with NASA's figures.

Thanks for the diversion, now back to the discussion:

T-Light
09-21-2005, 02:02 PM
Lude-

Latest images of nasa's new lander.
That's impressive, you most know some people in high places :D
Anyone care to work out the new Newton-Fuel-Weight ratio from those pics?

Chuck
09-21-2005, 03:40 PM
You called me ignorant. Name calling quickly converts discussions into arguments. Please make an attempt to avoid that in the future. I would appreciate it if you stopped making assumptions about me. Furthermore, I believe it is ignorant to believe things based only off what you are told. Those numbers may be inaccurate, as I am slowly running across NASA's claims; I am finding that they are relatively accurate with NASA's figures.

Thanks for the diversion, now back to the discussion:


The discussion had already been steered into argument by the contrarian assertion that the space program was a hoax. Frankly, just telling someone they don't know something, such as how to frame a question regarding a technical issue, is certainly nowhere near to being in a league with accusing an entire organization plus other major elements of the government of perpetrating a massive fraud, when it comes to the subject of "name-calling". You are in fact casting serious aspersions on the characters of a very large group of people.

It is also the case that your argument that others are in the wrong because they are simply believing what they were told applies just as much to you - you are just choosing to believe what another source has stated about whether the Moon landings happened. The source you have chosen to believe is one that reaps profit in exploiting the thirst that so many have for conspiracy, pseudoscience, and for fiction portrayed as fact.

All that said - Let's do try to steer the tone of the thread back to a more polite and diplomatic tone, on all sides.

cresshead
09-21-2005, 03:54 PM
thanks for that chuck...
i surpose the best thing would be for those who do not think that the USA explorers landed on the moon then they should start a separate thread on it and not hijack this one....and relate it to the new propsed moon landings due for 2018 also being fake.........

btw i made a lw model and scene of the moon to scale and then zoomed a camera in to a polygon that was 10feet across [apx size of the lander]....
if any one wants it to have a look at re just why we can't see the lander from your average telescope from a mere 236,000 miles away let me know and i'll email it to them to look at.

myself i quite strongly believe in such rockets....after all V2 rockets fel around my parents in the second world war in the u.k....they were not fake.

starbase1
09-21-2005, 05:19 PM
People rarely realise just how flimsy the LEM was - the astronauts were warned it would be extremely easy to break the hull with a scrwdriver or careless elbow. It was incapable of even supporting it's own weight under Earth's gravity - the ones you see in museums are much, much stronger than the real thing. It had only two strong areas, the docking cone on the top, and the engine bells underneath.

One option seriously considered to solve the weight problems was to leave the hull off entirely, and keep the astronauts in suits the whole time.

In one of Micheal Collins' books he describes the landing scenario with this vehicle, coming down from orbit hanging onto a handrail, looking over the edge!

The LEM was always considered the most challenging piece of engineering, due to the hideously tight weight constraints. It was also the last major item finished, one reason why Apollo 8 was sent to the moon without one.

The other major reason being that they knew the Russians were lining up their giant N1 moon rockets, and generally sending a lot of stuff in the moon's direction. As Kennedy did not specify LANDING on the Moon, just going there, this would give them the chace to claim they got there first even if they only orbitted, rather than landing.

In the event, all 4 N1 launch attempts ended in catastrophic failure, (and the Soviets were actually going for a landing too, theough I think I am correct in saying their lander was not on any of the failed N1's).

There were pencilled in plans to assemble a 58 ton lunar vehicle in Earth orbit, using 4 x N1 launches. This would return by direct ascent, to avoid the docking.

Many on the design side were distictly nervous about the whole lunar orbit rendezvous strategy, due to its complication. But the weight requirements of landing something with direct ascent to Earth capabilty would mean a launcher much bigger than a Saturn 5, (or N1).

For in depth reading Chaikin's book on the Apollo program is excellent, but Collins has a wonderfully warm and readable style, and its a bit more special when written by someone who was actually there. Consider his comment on his photo of the LEM ascent stage rising to rejoin him, with the Earth in the background - "I'm the only human not in this picture!"

Nick

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 06:48 PM
The discussion had already been steered into argument by the contrarian assertion that the space program was a hoax.

It is also the case that your argument that others are in the wrong because they are simply believing what they were told applies just as much to you - you are just choosing to believe what another source has stated about whether the Moon landings happened. The source you have chosen to believe is one that reaps profit in exploiting the thirst that so many have for conspiracy, pseudoscience, and for fiction portrayed as fact.

All that said - Let's do try to steer the tone of the thread back to a more polite and diplomatic tone, on all sides.

Dont be rude and then tell me to be polite. Chuck, are you saying all this as a represintitive of Newtek? I would like to know what exactly are the sources I believe in that you are telling me about? I actually TRYING to think it through with everyone in a discussion, insted of simply accepting what I am told, so you are wrong there Chuck.

I have already said this several times: what caused my disbelief is the takeoff from the moon, it looks silly to me. I am not swearing by anything and I have not gotten upset until a Newtek rep deciced to chime in. It looks silly enough to me that I want to see some numbers. Nobody (excpet for karmacop) seems to be willing to investigation. They just want to call me stupid for questioning where my tax dollars are being spent.

If I walked on the moon with out NASA's help, woulnt you ask how it was done?

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 06:53 PM
if any one wants it to have a look at re just why we can't see the lander from your average telescope from a mere 236,000 miles away let me know and i'll email it to them to look at.

The optics at Kitt Peak are not your average telescope, I provided a link already.

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 07:10 PM
Right now you guys have the oppertunity to prove me wrong. We have established weight of the craft & cargo, and the fuel, an approx distance and burn time. The storage tanks for the fuel are said to be 70 cubic feet. My questions are: What kind of fuel was it that was dense enough to fit 5400 lbs in 70 cubic feet? Is 5400 lbs of that enough to burn for 7 min 18 sec?

Karmacop
09-21-2005, 08:11 PM
Dont be rude and then tell me to be polite. Chuck, are you saying all this as a represintitive of Newtek? I would like to know what exactly are the sources I believe in that you are telling me about? I actually TRYING to think it through with everyone in a discussion, insted of simply accepting what I am told, so you are wrong there Chuck.


Chuck isn't trying to be insulting, he's just saying that people insulting you is similar to you insulting the work that NASA had done, and that you are believing a few that think it's a hoax (and sell books etc to prove it) along with one video that you don't think looks right, compared to nasa and I guess every scientist around the world.

Now, back to the math ...

The volume (I guess that the whole thing takes up) is 6.65 m^3. So lets say half of that is the descent module, and then half of the ascent module is solid so you can't put anything in it. This probably isn't right because it's very cramped, but even this gives us 1.6625m^3 . Now from what I can figure out (I can't find anything on the web), the volume of a vuman is about 0.15m^3. Lets say with the extra volume with the suit and to sit comfortably they need twise that, so 0.3m^3. So 3 people would be 0.9m^3, leaving 0.7m^3 for taking stuff, which I would say is a fair amount. Remember that moon rocks are heavier than earth rocks too.


Now the weight of the ascent propellant is 2,353 kg, and it burnt for 418 seconds, which is 5.6kg/s ... I can't find any information on how much fuel it should burn, but my car has say a 30 litre tank of fuel and can frive for say 6 hours on that fuel. From that, my car uses 0.00138 litres of fuel per second. I'm not sure how much fuel ways but it's lighter than water, so lets just double it for fun, so lets say it's burning 0.00276 kg of fuel per second and add to this that car fuel is very inefficient. Anyway, even using this very basic and probably very wrong math, the ascent module is burning 2000 times more fuel per second than my car, so I'm going to say it's enough fuel.

This is all really bad, but I can't find better numbers for any of this, and I'm doing it all in metric which you may not understand as well as me (just like I can't think in feet), but I hope it helps.

Karmacop
09-21-2005, 08:42 PM
I thought the flat earth website was good, but I have something else amusing Intelligent falling (http://english.ohmynews.com/TALK_BACK/bbs_view.asp?ba_code=63&bb_code=298730). The flat earth people are serious (I think) while this article is actually from the onion, but still, funny :)

connerh
09-21-2005, 08:45 PM
Um... I'm pretty certain they use liquid hydrogen as fuel... I may be completely wrong, but that's why they have to deal with ice on the massive fuel tanks on the main launcher. I don't see why the wouldn't use either liquid hydrogen or some other fuel source in conjunction with solar panels (remember, sunlight is many many times more powerful in space than after it has diffused through our atmosphere).

Integrity
09-21-2005, 09:24 PM
Uh...I guess I'm the only one that noticed this. somnambulance I believe I have your explanation to your take-off video.

Did you bother to notice that the movement of the camera is very linear and smooth? It is VERY possible that NASA or an editor had taken that footage and post-processed a zoom out and a scan from center to top to keep the lander in frame. Maybe that is what the editor was doing when it was planned to be released from NASA to news organizations, or maybe it was the news editors themselves. ESPECIALLY since the link you gave is from a stock photography website.

T-Light
09-21-2005, 09:28 PM
connerh-

sunlight is many many times more powerful in space
Funny you should mention light, did anyone see the research being carried out regarding lazers being fired at a polished saucer to accelerate it into the atmosphere?

Can't remember if it was Nasa, JPL or just individuals experimenting, it was just plain bizarre.

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 09:30 PM
Uh...I guess I'm the only one that noticed this. somnambulance I believe I have your explanation to your video.


We arent on any video or film issues.

Karmacop, yes I am confused by your measurements. I did a search to see at what rate jet engines burn fuel. I found a couple I just need to see how much thrust they have.

Okay, I think I have some realistic numbers here. Keep in mind Karmacop that internal combustion engines are provided with free fuel on earth, oxygen. A NHRA certified Jet Funny car burns about 22-44 (I used 23) gallons of gas in a 1/4 mile run. They acomplish this in just under 6 seconds (I used 6). This means that the jet engine is burning 3.84 gallons a second. At this point I thought geez I was totally wrong, because that number is 3363.84 gallons of jet fuel (av gas) burned over the 7 min 18 seconds. Then I realized that we are talking about weight of fuel. Gasoline weighs 6.5lbs per gallon, thats 10904lbs, and it is mixed with oxygen provided in our atmosphere.

23 gallons in 6 seconds = 3.8333 gallons (14.51 liters) in 1 second
438 seconds of burn time = 1678.9854 gallons (6355.65 liters)
1678.9854 gallons at 6.5 lbs a gallon = 10913.4051lbs (4950.23728 kg)
*the claim was that there is 5400lbs (2449.3988kg) onboard.

All this means nothing other than it is safe to say that it wasn't running on av gas. because the gas alone would equal 1458.91 cubic feet (41.3117307 cubic meters), not to mention the lack of oxygen.

So, I am starting to think it isnt possible to find out the fuel type used and how fast it burns..

Also, I didnt find any answers, but its a fun site to look at GEAE (http://www.geae.com/education/engines101/).

Integrity
09-21-2005, 09:44 PM
I was just trying to answer your repeated asking of someone to prove how the video was shot and moved with no one there, and I gave an answer.

digital verve
09-21-2005, 10:04 PM
Uh...I guess I'm the only one that noticed this. somnambulance I believe I have your explanation to your take-off video...


A quote found from a previously posted link http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

When Apollo 17's Lunar Module lifted-off the Moon the video camera followed the ascent, yet no one was left on the surface to operate the camera.

Apparently the hoax advocates have never heard of a remotely operated camera. The video camera that shot the LM launch footage was mounted on the Lunar Rover and was controlled remotely from Mission Control in Houston. The signal commanding the camera the pan upward was sent early to account for the 1.3-second time delay.

Karmacop
09-21-2005, 10:10 PM
Um... I'm pretty certain they use liquid hydrogen as fuel... I may be completely wrong, but that's why they have to deal with ice on the massive fuel tanks on the main launcher.

Yes, they use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as fuel. If this message was in reply to my message about my car, I was simply trying to get across that car fuel (and cars) are very inefficient with energy and it still only has to use a small amount of weight of this fuel. So if the ascent module is burning 2000 times more weight of a more efficient fuel then it should have a lot of power.

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 10:28 PM
oh crap, I guess that was an edit.. check up above

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 10:31 PM
Yes, they use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as fuel.

Not from what I found, the volume is too high so they needed a denser fuel. I will work on finding the volume of liquid oxygen/per pound.

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 10:38 PM
A quote found from a previously posted link...

that is where I found this:
The fuel tanks of the Lunar Module were nowhere near one-sixth the size of those on the space shuttle, as one would expect to achieve lunar orbit.
This comment, by Bart Sibrel, fails to take into account propellant density. It is not the "volume" of the propellant that matters; it is the "mass". The main engines of the Space Shuttle consume liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Since liquid hydrogen has an extremely low density, a very large tank is required to store it. The LM, on the other hand, used propellants of much higher density. On average, the LM propellants were 3.3 times denser than the propellants stored in the large external tank of the Space Shuttle. With an average specific gravity of 1.19, the 5200 pounds of propellant stored in the LM's ascent stage would displace a volume of only 70 ft3 (2 m3). This volume is consistent with the size of the tanks we see in photographs of the LM.

...I have performed some rough calculations and have determined that, for the type of propellant used, this is just the right percentage needed to overcome the Moon's gravity and achieve lunar orbit.

I would have loved for him to say what the propellant was, along with his calculations.

Tiger
09-21-2005, 10:45 PM
The astronaut has a very hard time trying to keep the flag still as it blows in the wind... :D

Watch the clip at the very end of the page:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

somnambulance
09-21-2005, 11:33 PM
Pure liquid oxygen at 5200 lbs would occupy 83 cubic feet. Liquid oxygen is 16 times heavier than liquid hydrogen. The fuel that was used for the rockets is LOX/LH2. It is a 6:1 liquid oxygen to liquid hydrogen. Its too late to keep searching and calculating, so I will be back tomorrow to finish.

starbase1
09-22-2005, 12:19 AM
You are still barking up the wrong tree completely.

The lunar lander's ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine, and also nitrogen tetroxide.

So yes, you are ignorant of the relevant facts here.

And as I pointed out before, the LEM does NOT reach lunar escape velocity.

You continue to do meaningless sums with the wrong numbers.

It's not like any of this information is hard to find...

cresshead
09-22-2005, 02:00 AM
hi
thanks for hi jacking the thread and turning it into a nasa is a fake organisation that just steals taxpayers money for no real use.....

next time i post a new thread i'll place a note to 'stay on topic' and not turn it into a soap box for those who have a beef with nasa and their tax dollars. :agree:

cheers

steve g

cresshead
09-22-2005, 02:02 AM
also the flag was designed and built with springs to simulate the wind as themoon had none......

read up on a subject before you make yourself look dumb. :hey:

starbase1
09-22-2005, 04:15 AM
I see that NASA have just had approval for their request to buy a few Soyuz, so they can still send men up into orbit!
:deal:

They are very good reliable systems all round, I was very impressed with the one I was in... :king:

Oh and you conspiracy guys - I hope you are aren't using NASA figures, directly or indirectly. After all, if they are capable of faking a lunar landing, you certainly can't trust them to give an accurate weight for a non existent craft, or its fuel... :tsktsk:

BeeVee
09-22-2005, 05:29 AM
I've just read through the whole thread and while I am bemused at the fact that there are people who don't believe the NASA moon landings of 69-72, I do appreciate the idea of trying to work out the sums to prove them to yourself. My main disappointment with the ISS and the new moon landings is that it would be of more sustainable use (IMO) to have built the Space Station at the Lagrange point. After all, the cost of escaping the Earth's gravity well is probably the biggest expense in any space mission, and making a sizeable station at the L5-point would obviate the need to start all exploration of our solar system or beyond from Earth itself.

B

Chuck
09-22-2005, 07:09 AM
Dont be rude and then tell me to be polite. Chuck, are you saying all this as a represintitive of Newtek?

There was nothing rude about my message, and your posts have most certainly been argumentative in nature - and I note you excised the portion of the message where I explained that your assertions that the moon landings were a hoax does in fact amount to maligning the character of everyone involved in those programs. The opinions I expressed about the matter are my own. I would note that the observation about the character maligning implicit in the assertion that the moon landings were faked is just a statement of fact, not an opinion.


I would like to know what exactly are the sources I believe in that you are telling me about? I actually TRYING to think it through with everyone in a discussion, insted of simply accepting what I am told, so you are wrong there Chuck.

From what you've said, I have to conclude that you've chosen to believe the folks who have asserted that the moon landings were a hoax. That you are trying to work it through is certainly encouraging because I'm sure the facts are available to lead to the proper conclusion. If they weren't we'd have heard so from thousands of scientists, if not the entire worldwide scientific community, even before the missions ever got off the ground.

And now, I will speak as a moderator: that's enough talk about people. If the participants want to continue to hash over the facts of the matter politely, fine, keep at it. I'll review the thread with the moderation staff, and we may indeed split it, per Cress's very reasonable request. If anyone has any complaint about this directive or my comments in this message, you can take it up with me privately.

Tiger
09-22-2005, 09:47 AM
Why no dust?

The lunar lander used two engines stacked on top of one another. The LEM's descent engine used hyperbolic propellants, that means two different fuels that light at the same time. The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas, instead we see the bursting apart of the milar covering as it leaves the Moons surface? The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today, and we can clearly see the exhaust smoke coming from them, so why not the LEM?

digital verve
09-22-2005, 10:15 AM
Why no dust?

The lunar lander used two engines stacked on top of one another. The LEM's descent engine used hyperbolic propellants, that means two different fuels that light at the same time. The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas, instead we see the bursting apart of the milar covering as it leaves the Moons surface? The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today, and we can clearly see the exhaust smoke coming from them, so why not the LEM?

As I am lazy :) here is another cut and paste from that site.

Video footage of the Lunar Module's ascent from the Moon should show an exhaust plume from the engine, yet there is no visible plume.

The hoax advocates' claim that an exhaust plume should be visible is due to their experience seeing launches of such rockets as the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle, where large columns of smoke and flame are seen trailing the vehicle. Whether an exhaust plume is visible or not is mostly due to the type of propellant used. The Saturn V's first stage burned liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene, which produces an opaque yellow flame. The plume we see trailing the Space Shuttle comes from the solid-propellant boosters; however, if you look closely at the three main engines at the stern of the Shuttle orbiter, which burn LOX and liquid hydrogen, you will see very little flame. The Lunar Module used a propellant mixture consisting of nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50 (a 50-50 mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine), which produces exhaust gases that are nearly invisible. This photograph [ http://www.braeunig.us/space/photo18.htm ] shows a close-up view of the engines of a Titan 2 missile during the launch of Gemini 11. This missile uses the same propellant as the LM - note the near invisibility of the flame. In space, the flame is even less visible as the plume expands and cools very rapidly in a vacuum.

The FOX program points out NASA illustrations showing an exhaust plume coming from the LM's ascent engine. This is a simple case of NASA taking artistic license. The illustrations are a dramatization of a LM launch and are not meant to be scientifically accurate.

Intuition
09-22-2005, 10:43 AM
Having worked on The Mars Underground documentary my portion of the debate has nothing to do with the moon landing and its legitimacy.

Believe me, if the USA pulled a hoax, every single scientist and astronomer in the world in 1969 would have pointed it out. The entire Earth observed the moon landing. Many telescopes watched the craft go behind the moon and come back out from behind it. We didn't have high enough magnification to see the landing craft back then but we also went back to the moon multiple times.

If we had not really gone to the moon there would have been many people pointing out that a craft was not flying to the moon.

All the goelogists who have studied the moon rocks we brought back would have shown that the rocks we originally from earth by pointing out simple elemental similarities of which there were extremely few. Which proved the rocks were not of Earth origin and did not have the carbon scoring that you get when something comes here through the atmosphere.

Anyways...besides all this stuff ...My problem with the project is that I think we should skip the moon and focus on going to Mars.

I know the moon can be a nice testbed for craft designed to go and stay on Mars but Mars allows you to live off the land.

This sounds like wacky stuff but, as some of you may know Robert Zubrin has made a case for this almost 10 years ago. There are holes in his plan (saturn 5 is out of production) but these are not project killers.

I don't want to get into the details but the Moon requires alot more fuel to get to and return from then Mars. Mars on the other hand is a longer stay and a higher physical risk. But if you are going to risk sending someone to space, which can be fatal on just the launch, I believe that you want to get the most for your risk.

I say, go to Mars cause the Moon seems like a distraction from real scientific progress.

I'm a little too optimistic about this as is Zubrin but as JFK said "we do these things and the other things NOT because they are easy but because they are hard.".

mattclary
09-22-2005, 10:49 AM
All I can say is, "wow". These types of threads are why I stopped frequenting Space.com message boards years ago. I find it amazing that people are susceptible to the garbage spewed by conspiracy theorists.

Lesson in history:
The main reason we went to the moon was because it was a strategic move in the cold war. We had to prove we could do it to the USSR. The whole Sputnik thing caught us with our pants down...

Now, ask yourself this: Don't you think the USSR had the brainpower to figure out if the moon landing were possible or not? Don't you think a counter to our strategy of faking a moon landing would have been to denounce and PROVE it was faked? Don't you think there are REPUTABLE scientists SOMEWHERE in the world who would be able to figure it out if it was a hoax? What about the guys who walked on the moon? At age 80+ don't you think ONE of them would have spilled the beans after living a lie for decades?

This conspiracy theory stuff is borderline pathological. :rolleyes:

Tiger
09-22-2005, 11:06 AM
Ok, they went to the Moon-then what? To have Leaders who goes to another planet to collect rocks at the cost of MegaMiljon$$$ are (to me) highly suspicious. That money could have been spent to make a better world for the taxpayers ( or donated to NewTek) :thumbsup:

gjjackson
09-22-2005, 11:13 AM
I haven't read ALL the posts on this but has anyone mentioned the laser range finding that was left on the moon in order to range the distance from the earth - moon. This is done from one of the telescope sites in the west, if I remember right. It's suspicious that none of the debunkers of the moon landing ever mentions this and attempt to discredit.

cresshead
09-22-2005, 11:41 AM
re:-
I haven't read ALL the posts on this but has anyone mentioned the laser range finding that was left on the moon in order to range the distance from the earth - moon. This is done from one of the telescope sites in the west, if I remember right. It's suspicious that none of the debunkers of the moon landing ever mentions this and attempt to discredit.

maybe nasa 'beamed' it there but doesn't want to own up to having teleportation up and working just yet..........

and thanks to chuck to separating the thread up into the two camps of 'fake' and true science exploration in the near future....

cheers

steve g :lwicon:

robewil
09-22-2005, 11:47 AM
Ok, they went to the Moon-then what? To have Leaders who goes to another planet to collect rocks at the cost of MegaMiljon$$$ are (to me) highly suspicious. That money could have been spent to make a better world for the taxpayers ( or donated to NewTek) :thumbsup:The answers to many of humanity's problems (food, energy, elbow room) are in outer space. Before we will reap the huge benefits of space, we have to take baby steps. The exploration of outer space is for the benefit of (to use a Moody Blue's album title,) our children's, children's, children. The exploration of space transcends our own petty, individual needs. In my opinion, there is no greater cause for all humanity than to come out from our planetary cradle.

colkai
09-22-2005, 12:38 PM
We go to the moon and Mars for the same reason we left the caves and moved out across the world.
We are, by nature, an incredibly curious creature and have a built in need to explore.
Even those who may consider themselves "normal", part of the sheep of society, will slow down at a crash simply to see if they can see if anyone is injured. We need to know things, small things, big things, it's what makes us tick.
Sooner or later, we are gonna have to leave this little rock, be it because we finally screwed the pooch and raped the planet, or because eventually, the sun WILL die.
Personally, I am one of the generation that grew up firmly believing that by now, I would be at the very least driving a hover car or jet car and it could be automated, taking me where-ever I desired.
Space flight should have been an every day occurence, not something we toy with.
As to taking peoples quotes about what is, and is not, possible, I'm amazed anyone is still restricted by "cannot".
Heavier than air flight was thought impossible. Speeds of over 20mph would cause the bodies organs to collapse. For every naysayer who said "such a thing is not possible", there has always been a dreamer who proved otherwise.
As a child, even the concept of a man orbiting the earth was pure science fiction. A contraption to heat food in minutes instead of hours? pure fantasy.
I agree though that rather than focussing on the moon "been there..done that", why not get around to finally building a couple of decent space stations so we can launch missions from there and avoid all the hassles.
We need a viable space plane, the idea of sticking to Saturn V type rockets is a total waste. My money is on a commerical venture putting space planes into use long before NASA gets its act together to provide a viable fast turn-around system.
I still reckon Branson and his partner who developed the X-project winner have one advantage, they will be appealing to those very rich people who do things simply because they can.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/virgin_space_040927.html
He's already registered the domain name heh!
http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/

robewil
09-22-2005, 12:58 PM
Instead of a space station, we could think about incorporating an idea by Sir Arthur C Clarke (read Fountains of Paradise). He proposed a magneto-powered "space elevator" to a assembly/launch platform in outer space. It would probably more practical than a space station. If this idea seems crazy, remember Clarke wrote about geostationary communications satellites in 1945. People thought that idea was crazy until Sputnik was launched in 1957.

T-Light
09-22-2005, 01:44 PM
Wow this is strange, last night I tried to FTP a quick video up to my server showing the size of the Lem vs the main Apollo craft and my FTP server went down. Tonight I've tried to post a message containing UFO's on the moon and Newtek's server's gone down. This whole thing's turning into conspiracy City.

Anyway, here's what I was going to post...

Cresshead-

has anyone mentioned the laser range finding that was left on the moon
Don't think so, It was an array of mirrors called the 'lunar laser ranging retroreflector array', first time I heard about that was on a 'debunk the debunkers' show :)

When I was looking for the two pictures I mentioned earlier in the thread (possibly found my sensible argument for them, well maybe), I came across a site that mentioned the mirrors.

Rather than debunking the Moon landing, this stuff involves alien collaberation, so pop on your sensible hats and off we go....

------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil and Buz are out on the lunar surface when one of the TV cameras goes awry. Radio enthusiasts on Earth pick up the conversation via radio while everyone watching on television has lost transmission.

The conversation went like this...

Armstrong & Aldrin: Those are giant things. No, no, no - this is not an optical illusion. No one is going to believe this!

Houston (Christopher Craft): What ... what ... what? What the **** is happening? What's wrong with you?

Armstrong & Aldrin: They're here under the surface.

Houston: What's there? (muffled noise) Emission interrupted; interference control calling 'Apollo 11'.

Armstrong & Aldrin: We saw some visitors. They were here for a while, observing the instruments.

Houston: Repeat your last information!

Armstrong & Aldrin: I say that there were other spaceships. They're lined up in the other side of the crater!

Houston: Repeat, repeat!

Armstrong & Aldrin: Let us sound this orbita ... in 625 to 5 ... Automatic relay connected ... My hands are shaking so badly I can't do anything. Film it? God, if these ****ed cameras have picked up anything - what then?

Houston: Have you picked up anything?

Armstrong & Aldrin: I didn't have any film at hand. Three shots of the saucers or whatever they were that were ruining the film

Houston: Control, control here. Are you on your way? What is the uproar with the UFOs over?

Armstrong & Aldrin: They've landed here. There they are and they're watching us.

Houston: The mirrors, the mirrors - have you set them up?

Armstrong & Aldrin: Yes, they're in the right place. But whoever made those spaceships surely can come tomorrow and remove them. Over and out.

------------------------------------------------------------------
A later conference type situation where Neil Armstrong spoke to the audience...

Again from the site.

A certain professor, who wished to remain anonymous, was engaged in a discussion with Neil Armstrong during a NASA symposium.


Professor: What REALLY happened out there with Apollo 11?

Armstrong: It was incredible, of course we had always known there was a possibility - the fact is, we were warned off! There was never any question then of a space station or a moon city.

Professor: How do you mean "warned off"?

Armstrong: I can't go into details, except to say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology - Boy, were they big!...and menacing! No, there is no question of a space station.

Professor: But NASA had other missions after Apollo 11?

Armstrong: Naturally - NASA was committed at that time, and couldn't risk panic on Earth. But it really was a quick scoop and back again.

------------------------------------------------------------------

OOH SPOOKY :D

Absolutely no idea how much (if any) of the above is valid, anyone wishing to follow it up, here's the link.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html

somnambulance
09-22-2005, 01:52 PM
I think it is disgusting that there was any opposition to my inquiry. If you KNOW that man walked on the moon, then there should be no fear in somebodyís acquisitions, and their inquiry should have a warm welcome. This isn't religion where things are based only on belief.

Why is my inquiry so unwelcome and the replies to it come with such disgust? Is it that you are afraid I am going to uncover something you donít want to believe?

starbase, you are the prime example, if you know so much about it, why not offer you knowledge in a more inviting manner? Yes, I am ignorant to it, which is why I am questioning it. As a matter of fact I am sure 99.9% of the world's population is ignorant to the engine used on the moon lander and the fuel type used. Since you know, how about you post some links that would provide that information.

as far as barking up the wrong tree, I would like to know what you are talking about.

starbase1
09-22-2005, 01:56 PM
The problem with the space elevator ON EARTH is that the elevator itself requires a structural strength greater than any known material - including diamond. (And AAC knows this, he is smart enough to separate his science from his fiction).

It could work well on a smaller body though.

mattclary
09-22-2005, 02:04 PM
I think it is disgusting that there was any opposition to my inquiry. ...

Why is my inquiry so unwelcome and the replies to it come with such disgust?

OK, sorry.

What EXACTLY is you question?

And who on this board do you expect to have an answer?

somnambulance
09-22-2005, 02:08 PM
On this board, nobody. The only thing any would be looking for on this board is a bunch of Lightwavers talking themselves in circles. I sucessfully posted many times and you sucessfully closed the loop Matt. Thank you, my mission is over.

robewil
09-22-2005, 02:11 PM
The problem with the space elevator ON EARTH is that the elevator itself requires a structural strength greater than any known material - including diamond. (And AAC knows this, he is smart enough to separate his science from his fiction).

It could work well on a smaller body though.The space elevator is not a large tower that goes into space. It would have a base on Earth and a geostationary platform in space. There would be no structure between them other than a very strong cable. Clarke, himself will tell you he doesn't make stuff up. Virtually every story he has written is based on feasible technology. Look here. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm)

starbase1
09-22-2005, 02:21 PM
I typed 'lunar module fuel' into Google, to check my memory.
Now that's not rocket science!

I explained the correct way to phrase the problem, and the units you require. Again Google will show plenty of explanations.

I consider your references to escape velocity particularly ridiculous - it really should be pretty obvious that the LEM did not acheive lunar escape velocity, (and neither does the shuttle come to that).

This kind of error is just plain lazy.

I also pointed out that you are not even using the correct dimension units to describe the problem - (see previous messages). This is a category error in formal logic terms.

It makes no more sense than saying that the program cost 2 million cubic dollars, its a nonsense.

Oh, and I do not call your claims that the entire staff of the apollo program are liars fakes and frauds a query. Its an accusation.

And when the best you can do to back it up is to make ridiculous school boy errors, and blame the discrepancy on a massive international conspiracy, that is just arrogance.

It's not what you don't know that's the problem, its what you do know that aint so.

Oh, and I am still waiting for a sensible explanation as to why communist Russia, communist China, and every other enemy of the USA went along with the con.

And the many, many labs who received lunar material for analysis.


I think it is disgusting that there was any opposition to my inquiry. If you KNOW that man walked on the moon, then there should be no fear in somebodyís acquisitions, and their inquiry should have a warm welcome. This isn't religion where things are based only on belief.

Why is my inquiry so unwelcome and the replies to it come with such disgust? Is it that you are afraid I am going to uncover something you donít want to believe?

starbase, you are the prime example, if you know so much about it, why not offer you knowledge in a more inviting manner? Yes, I am ignorant to it, which is why I am questioning it. As a matter of fact I am sure 99.9% of the world's population is ignorant to the engine used on the moon lander and the fuel type used. Since you know, how about you post some links that would provide that information.

as far as barking up the wrong tree, I would like to know what you are talking about.

robewil
09-22-2005, 02:28 PM
The space elevator is not a large tower that goes into space.Okay, re-read the article and I now realize that there actually is a structure to the elevator. It is still a feasible idea, though.

Tiger
09-22-2005, 02:35 PM
The answers to many of humanity's problems (food, energy, elbow room) are in outer space. Before we will reap the huge benefits of space, we have to take baby steps. The exploration of outer space is for the benefit of (to use a Moody Blue's album title,) our children's, children's, children. The exploration of space transcends our own petty, individual needs. In my opinion, there is no greater cause for all humanity than to come out from our planetary cradle.

I think there should be enough food, energy and elbow room for all living beings on this planet if every country shared natures gifts somewhat equally.
But because of greed, they rape the planet and Mother Earth is kicking back.
Just see the weatherchanges now :devil:

robewil
09-22-2005, 02:42 PM
I think there should be enough food, energy and elbow room for all living beings on this planet if every country shared natures gifts somewhat equally.That is not true. The planet Earth can only support about 1 billion people and keep its eco-system intact. I admit that I'll have to find the article where I have read this. As third-world countries become industrialized, as human populations expand into desert areas, and as we pour billions of dollars into technologies to enable us to live longer, the Earth is going to become smaller and more inhospitable.

somnambulance
09-22-2005, 03:05 PM
I consider your references to escape velocity particularly ridiculous - it really should be pretty obvious that the LEM did not acheive lunar escape velocity, (and neither does the shuttle come to that).
You can consider it what ever you would like, you are welcome to your own opinion and I will not argue with that. FYI, I used the data on NASA's site to figure how much fuel was used to gain low orbit.


This kind of error is just plain lazy.
Yes, not checking before you say something is lazy. Did you read what I wrote before you replied?


I also pointed out that you are not even using the correct dimension units to describe the problem - (see previous messages). This is a category error in formal logic terms.

It makes no more sense than saying that the program cost 2 million cubic dollars, its a nonsense.
Please quote me on that one, you havenít used any logic to point out anything. If you are referring to my use of av gas, then you didnít read everything. If you are referring to the Oxygen/Hydrogen mix, then you didnít read everything.


Oh, and I do not call your claims that the entire staff of the Apollo program are liars fakes and frauds a query. Its an accusation.
Again, please quote me.


And when the best you can do to back it up is to make ridiculous school boy errors, and blame the discrepancy on a massive international conspiracy, that is just arrogance.
What errors? Right, you didnít read what I wrote.


It's not what you don't know that's the problem, its what you do know that aint so.
You're really getting clever here; dazzle me with more of your intellect.


Oh, and I am still waiting for a sensible explanation as to why communist Russia, communist China, and every other enemy of the USA went along with the con.
I donít have an explanation; I never said they went along with it. Why should I explain something that exists only in your head?

You appear to be quite a blockhead starbase1. You have no mathmatics to offer. You believe in it so strongly but you cant explain it. Your opinion is set, such as a strong religious belief, and I do not believe this conversation with you will make any progress. So, since you are going to have to have the last word, go ahead and attempt to insult my intelligence. You failed at convincing me of something you claim there are cold hard scientific facts of.

T-Light
09-22-2005, 03:16 PM
Repost - earlier one did get through.

Tiger
09-22-2005, 03:31 PM
I think if Human kind live in harmony with nature, for sure, earth can host more than 1 billion people. It`s a question of balance...give & take :thumbsup:

I just read an article that the rich countries in the world are becoming more rich, and the poor countries getting poorer. So why waste Big money into space, when you can learn for ex. people in poor countries to grow their own food and live a happy, peaceful life?

No...becasue we don`t care! Again-Greed for more,more more! I have 1 billion...ahh not enough, I want more! 10 billions...
1000 billions! Expand at the cost of what? A totally ruined environment!
Of course, the heads of states and scientist are fully aware of that, and a big change have to take place in our livinghabits, otherwise it`s quite much goodbye.

Ok...back to modeler :)

robewil
09-22-2005, 04:10 PM
I think if Human kind live in harmony with nature, for sure, earth can host more than 1 billion people. It`s a question of balance...give & take :thumbsup: Quite the opposite. It is technology, starting with agriculture that allowed humans to thrive on this planet. The human race lived for tens of thousands of years with minimal harming of nature and we weren't expanding in population. Then agriculture, then the beginning of civilization as we know occurred and the human population has been continually expanding ever since (with a few setbacks like the black plague).
Again-Greed for more,more more! I have 1 billion...ahh not enough, I want more! 10 billions...Without the human drive for "more, more more", we wouldn't have this discussion on the Internet, would we? It is our thirst for something better that got us out of our caves.
otherwise it`s quite much goodbye.All the more reason to explore space.

By the way, I haven't even mentioned what is perhaps, the single-most important practical reason to explore space. What if an asteroid was found to be on a collision course with Earth? If that happened today, it would be goodbye to the human race, just like the dinosaurs.

Oh, and the single-most important true reason to explore space; Because it's there. :D

starbase1
09-22-2005, 04:27 PM
I just read an article that the rich countries in the world are becoming more rich, and the poor countries getting poorer. So why waste Big money into space, when you can learn for ex. people in poor countries to grow their own food and live a happy, peaceful life?

Ok...back to modeler :)

I think you can make a pretty good case for a lot of the unmanned stuff, as delivering direct benefits. Earth resources satellites, weather satellites, telecommunications satellites, GPS systems...

If you are going to manage a planetary environment, you are going to need that kind of information.

Similarly with planetary science in other parts of the solar system - this is not big money, I think the planetary science budet which brought us stunning successes like Voyager, has never exceded 3% of the budget in total.

The manned stuff is a lot harder to justify.

Self sustaining colonies off the Earth still seem to be a VERY long way off.

Operations in low earth orbit make sense and need not be very expensive.

I'm sure I'll be glued to the television again if they return to the moon or mars, but is someone asked me what it was for, I'd be stumped. Apollo was a great adventure, but racing the russians was not a good reason to go...

However I find it difficult to accept that the poor here on earth are a good reason to cut back the space program. I simply don't beleive that they are alternatives. If you scrapped NASA, The ESA, Energia corporation, would any poor people be better off?

There's a lack of political will to fix it.

somnambulance
09-22-2005, 04:29 PM
Without the human drive for "more, more more", we wouldn't have this discussion on the Internet, would we? It is our thirst for something better that got us out of our caves.All the more reason to explore space.

We wouldnt have intercontental balistic missles armed with nuclear warheads either, god knows we cant live without those.

We pave our path of our own self destruction. This reminds me of the winning painting in the CGSociety challenges: Entry for Linda Bergkvist (http://features.cgsociety.org/challenge/masterandservant/entry.php?challenger=5833). If/when humans discover a habital planet, someone will claim it as their own and be selling real estate before man ever sets foot.

robewil
09-22-2005, 04:34 PM
We wouldnt have intercontinental balistic missles armed with nuclear warheads either, god knows we cant live without those.You have to take the bad with the good. Funny how this is a theme in the film "2001: A Space Odyssey". (I'm a fanatic about that film in case you don't recognize my avatar.)

CB_3D
09-22-2005, 09:57 PM
If/when humans discover a habital planet, someone will claim it as their own and be selling real estate before man ever sets foot.


I remember in the 80s one nifty salesman actually managed to sell lunar terrains to millionaires.

LMAO :D

starbase1
09-23-2005, 06:01 AM
You have to take the bad with the good. Funny how this is a theme in the film "2001: A Space Odyssey". (I'm a fanatic about that film in case you don't recognize my avatar.)

I have to agree - I keep finding myself swiping stuff from that film - mainly viewpoints for space stuff which is not very obvious, but Kubrick's pacing and style are just awesome.

This first became really obvious to me way back when I was doing everything in Povray - I modelled a 'discovery' and found that pretty much the only effective camera angles were the ones he used.

Also try looking carefully to see how much of it was done with flat images on glass plates - once you start looking with an animators eye its all over the place. He knew where something needed to be done thoroughly, (Eg the centrifuge), and when you could get away with a cheap trick.

Can't say I can see the space program as a source of weapons proliferation though - the treaties against weapons in space seem to have held up much better than the Earthly equivalent. (They prevented the wonderfully psychotic nuclear bomb powered 'Orion' for example, something Kubrick considered using in 2001, but rejected as too Dr Strangelove).

Seems to me it was more the other way around, the first generaton of launchers were all adapted from ICBM's, from Gagarin's Vostok, to the USA's Atlas, etc. And your Saturn V was of course put together by German V2 designer Werner von Braun, ("He aimed for the stars but he hit London").

Which brings us back to Kubrick and Dr Strangelove again.

Nick

kennez
09-23-2005, 06:35 AM
Going back to the rate of fuel usage and everything, why do you assume that the LM used full throttle for the entire ascent? The LM engine had a throttle control, similar in principle to that used on aircraft - the amount of fuel mixed in the firing chamber was controlled by the throttle. Therefore, as the LM got higher, the throttle would be reduced, reducing the thrust of the engine, therefore reducing the consumption of fuel.
If you don't believe me, listen to any lunar landing audio, of, for that matter, any launch video of the shuttle. Just after launch, the engine is throttled back because of the G-force. If the engine was not throttled back, the craft would be shaken to bits. A certain amount of time into the flight, the launch checklist calls for 'throttles up'. The thrust of the engine is increased to after the period of high G-force in order for the craft to get into orbit.

In addition to this, and to prove that the LM engine had a throttle, look at the Apollo 13 mission. After the oxygen tank exploded, Mission Control did not trust the SPS engine. This left them with the LM descent stage engine. One of the mid-course correction burns was completed using, I think, 10% throttle. Watch the movie. Before anybody says that Hollywood has improvised anything, I have been in contact with Gene Kranz, and I asked him about this. He says that it was true. It also mentions it in his book.

In short, the LM had an ascent engine connected to a throttle, allowing a variable thrust. The rate of fuel consumption would be altered with the throttle setting. Therefore the argument about the amount of fuel being insufficient does not stick.

BeeVee
09-23-2005, 06:39 AM
For those of us keen to see man permanently escape the earth's gravity well, I can thoroughly recommend Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. It starts off with a mission to Mars but goes through hundreds of years of "evolution". I'd love for it to be an account of reality, rather than a science-fiction writer's dream, but Kim's science is pretty hardcore. He also deals with space elevators. The main problem on Mars being that they are prone to terrorist attack and the cable needs to be long enough to go several times around the whole world to escape Mars' atmosphere/gravity well... (don't want to spoil the story!)

B
PS. Going a bit further into the future, I can also thoroughly recommend Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy. It's somewhat horrific in places, but the ideas he has for the further development of a human race at home in the cosmos are superb.

BeeVee
09-23-2005, 06:42 AM
In addition to this, and to prove that the LM engine had a throttle, look at the Apollo 13 mission. After the oxygen tank exploded, Mission Control did not trust the SPS engine. This left them with the LM descent stage engine. One of the mid-course correction burns was completed using, I think, 10% throttle. Watch the movie. Before anybody says that Hollywood has improvised anything, I have been in contact with Gene Kranz, and I asked him about this. He says that it was true. It also mentions it in his book.


The R2 Apollo 13 DVD (at least) also has an excellent commentary from Jim Lovell - one of the few DVD commentaries I've listened to all the way through...

B

simonbrewer
09-23-2005, 07:01 AM
For those of us keen to see man permanently escape the earth's gravity well, I can thoroughly recommend Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.....

:i_agree:

Seconded! Very in-depth and well thought-out. If we're going to colonise Mars one day, thats how it should be done!

Can I also recommend "A Man on the Moon", which is an fantastic account of the Apollo programme as told by the astronauts and people involved. Takes you through every Apollo flight and gives a huge amount of information and stories about the moon shots.


Simon

Riplakish
09-23-2005, 08:32 AM
Think of it this way, drop a brick and a feather off of a building on the Earth and the brick beats the feather by a landslide. Do the same thing on the Moon and you'll have a tie. Air becomes a major factor at high speeds. this is why a 500 hp car may accelerate significantly faster than a 400 hp car, but their top speeds (assuming all other factors are the same) would be nearly identical.

Funny you should mention this test. The Museum of Science in Boston has a 3-story demonstration of this test where they do pretty much the same thing. A heavy object (think its a brass sphere or something similar) and a bunch of feathers. Alternating drops operate at nominal pressure (pretty close to sea-level, as they're only a few feet above) and near vacuum.

The effect is both dramatic and convincing.

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 08:36 AM
Going back to the rate of fuel usage and everything...

Yes, that is correct, the LM did have throttle control. Unfortunately my entire notion continues to be diverted from, as if my incorrect use of terms would give the LM enough fuel to get off the moon.

Riplakish
09-23-2005, 08:36 AM
Certainly many technological advancements came about at the same time as the space program, some as a result of the space program. However you cant say that these things would never exist without the NASA, because you cant prove it. Aside from a few satellites, there really hasnít been any advancement in the human race as a result of leaving our atmosphere.


Actually, there are a number of materials advancements that require low-G environments to properly form and maintain a [relatively] uniform consistency, and a number of subtantial changes to terran materials processing because of what was learned during those (ongoing) low-G experiments.

Riplakish
09-23-2005, 08:43 AM
Wow, I didnt realize. For some reason when I was working out the other day, I thought that adding weight to the bar made it so that gravity would pull the weights toward the earth, there by increasing the resistance. Little did I know that the increased air resistance of the weights is what causes resistance. :bangwall:

I would still love to see the specs on both the moon lander and a rocket that runs on oxygen, and do the calculations my self to see if it is possible.

Actually it does, although from a physics or mechanical engineering standpoint, it would be called a "secondary effector". The slower you push up on the mass, the less of an effect it will have over a fixed time. The faster you try to push it up, the larger the effect over a fixed time.

This is why, for instance, that any man made machine can not reach infinate speeds. A fraction of the horsepower goes to keeping the machine in motion due to contact
friction (after all, no friction, inertia would never slow it down), and the rest is in air friction (resistance).

Gravitational attraction is based on mass (not weight), and actually reduces based on the square [root - depending on which way you set up your equation] of the distance between the objects in question. A bar that you lift from a 50 story building will actually be fractionally easier to lift than one at sea level.

I recommend a good fluid dynamics book.

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 09:04 AM
Gravitational attraction is based on mass (not weight),...
I recommend a good fluid dynamics book.

Geez, thanks. Weight is calculated from gravity and mass.

spec24
09-23-2005, 09:05 AM
this may be the most pointless argument going. Even with all the experts, who I'm sure have a little bit more knowledge on the subject than somnambulance, and all the websites with essays written by the experts that refute all the things the skeptics say, giving detailed explanations for absurd claims, somnambulance won't believe it. The argument will go no where. The conspiracy theorist's arguments have no merit, are contradicting, and don't stand up to any of the facts. You want to believe we didn't go there in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary you go ahead.

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 09:05 AM
materials advancements that require low-G environments ...

Yeah... still havent seen any benifit from it.

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 09:09 AM
... absurd claims, somnambulance won't believe it.

No, you're correct there. I dont believe some guy that said something like "I did rough calculations that prove otherwise" and have no explaination of the type of fuel.

Once I do all the math, I will get back to you.

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 09:13 AM
Actually it does
... ROTFL again... you mean to tell me that people go to the the gym and add "weights" to a "weight bar" so they can increase the air resistance?

spec24
09-23-2005, 09:14 AM
Yeah... still havent seen any benifit from it.

No offense, but you need to get out more. Your world would be quite a different place without the advancements made on the space program.

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 09:19 AM
No offense, but you need to get out more. Your world would be quite a different place without the advancements made on the space program.

and... the example of this is....?

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 09:20 AM
There is no point to posting beyond here without complete LM thruster specs, because anything else is just bickering or you havent read the entire thread

kennez
09-23-2005, 09:24 AM
Why don't you email Grumman and ask them for the specs? They designed and built the LM. If you think it's possible to prove that the landing was a hoax, you'd be more than willing to do that.

spec24
09-23-2005, 09:34 AM
and... the example of this is....?

here's a few examples:

http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

not to mention the metal alloys that have come out of the space program.

But see - this is the problem. All this stuff is available for you to look up and do some research before posting and looking ignorant.

..and: http://www.nap.edu/openbook/NI000881/html/40.html

mattclary
09-23-2005, 09:37 AM
There is no point to posting beyond here without complete LM thruster specs, because anything else is just bickering or you havent read the entire thread


http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/lm.htm

Short of this, go to Gruman or whoever made the thing. Your "debate" here is solving nothing. You will never be convinced and those of us who are not paranoid will never be convinced, so why not just drop it.

This is the ascent module. 50% of it's mass was fuel.
Total mass: 4,780 kg
Propellant mass: 2,375 kg

spec24
09-23-2005, 09:41 AM
There is no point to posting beyond here without complete LM thruster specs, because anything else is just bickering or you havent read the entire thread

Specifications: (Baseline LM)
Ascent Stage:
Crew: 2
Crew cabin volume: 6.65 m≥ (235 ft≥)
Height: 3.76 m (12.34 ft)
Diameter: 4.2 m (13.78 ft)
Mass including fuel: 4,670 kg (10,300 lb)
Atmosphere: 100% oxygen at 250 mmHg (33 kPa)
Water: two 19.27 kg (42.48 lb) storage tanks
Coolant: 11.3 kg (25 lb) of ethylene glycol/water solution
RCS (Reaction Control System) Propellant mass: 287 kg (633 lb)
APS Propellant mass: 2,353 kg (5,187 lb)
RCS thrusters: 16 x 445 N; four quads
RCS propellants: N2O4/UDMH
RCS specific impulse: 2.84 kN∑s/kg
APS thrust: 15.6 kN (3,500 lbf)
APS propellants: N2O4/Aerozine_50 (UDMH/N2H4)
APS pressurant: 2 x 2.9 kg helium tanks at 21 MPa
Engine specific impulse: 3.05 kN∑s/kg
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 0.34 lbf/lb (3.3 N/kg)
Ascent stage delta V: 2,220 m/s (7,280 ft/s)
Batteries: 4 x 400 A∑h silver-zinc batteries
Power: 26-32 V DC buses
Thus the thrust was less than the weight on Earth, but enough on the Moon.


Descent Stage:
Height: 3.2 m (10.5 ft)
Diameter: 4.2 m (13.8 ft)
Landing gear diameter: 9.4 m (30.8 ft)
Mass including fuel: 10,334 kg (22,783 lb)
Water: 1 x 151 kg storage tank
Power: 2 x 296 A∑h silver-zinc batteries (secondary system)
Propellants mass: 8,165 kg (18,000 lb)
DPS thrust: 45.04 kN (10,125 lbf), throttleable to 4.56 kN (1025 lbf)
DPS propellants: N2O4/Aerozine50 (UDMH/N2H4)
DPS pressurant: 1 x 22 kg supercritical helium tank at 10.72 kPa.
Engine specific impulse: 3050 N∑s/kg
Descent stage delta V: 2,470 m/s (8,100 ft/s)
Batteries: 2 x 296 A∑h silver-zinc batteries

kennez
09-23-2005, 09:52 AM
Yes, that is correct, the LM did have throttle control. Unfortunately my entire notion continues to be diverted from, as if my incorrect use of terms would give the LM enough fuel to get off the moon.

**EDIT**
I see that the specs have already been posted. I still suggest that you contact Grumman if you don't believe them.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that it is not possible for the LM to carry enough fuel to leave the moon and get into a low orbit?

If this is what you are saying, then the use of the throttle makes it extremely possible. As I have said, the position of the throttle controls the amount of fuel used.
A purely MADE UP EXAMPLE would be this:

If the fuel tank contained 100lbs of fuel, and, at full throttle, burns 10lbs a minute, it would take 10 minutes to use all the fuel - correct?
The same engine at 10% throttle would burn 1lb a minute, taking 100 minutes to use all the fuel - follow me so far?

Now, in THIS EXAMPLE, I assume the LM would lift off on full throttle, consuming 10lbs a minute. Full throttle would be used for the first couple of minutes of flight, in order to overcome the drag, and the higher G-force of liftoff (yes, I am aware that lunar gravity is lower than ours). After the period of high drag and forces is gone, the throttle would be reduced because full power would no longer be required - what would happen if the orbit achieved was wrong? The crew would have had to perform a carefully calculated burn in order to achieve the correct orbit.

You could apply EXACTLY the same logic to an aircraft here on Earth. Speaking from the point of view of a pilot (training for a license, anyway), you
reduce power after take off. The timeline of events is as follows:
Takeoff - Full power (just below, actually, but this is carefully calculated)
Landing gear up - same throttle setting as above
After landing gear retraction - power reduced to climb power - helps to protect the engine, and also cuts down on the fuel consumption.

The same theory applies to rocket engines.

The amount of fuel to be used is carefully calculated based on the fuel consumption at a given throttle setting. To cut down the amount of fuel used, you reduce power. There would also be a reserve held back for emergencies.

Now, as I have pointed out, with the consumption cut to a fraction of the full power consumption, that same 5200 lbs (or whatever it was said to be earlier), would go a lot further than it would at full throttle.
Remember that the LM is also only going to a low orbit of 60 miles. It does not need to go any further than that.
Also, I believe, going from memory, I seem to remember that the ascent engine of the LM was more powerful than the descent stage. It also had it's own fuel supply, which, I believe, was a hypergolic mixture (two fuels that produce an explosive reaction when combined)..

Now, if I have misunderstood your point, please explain it to me clearly and in a detailed manner, so that I don't have to read the entire thread.

Also, if you contact either Northrop-Grumman or NASA themselves, I'm sure they could help you with the engine data (not thrusters as you said before, as they are for attitude control, and are a fraction as powerful as the main engines. They also had their own fuel)

I actually know of somebody who may be able to help in this debate. Sy Liebergot was the Apollo 13 EECOM, and is a member over at Space.com forums, I believe. Maybe somebody should send him a PM and ask if he can help.

starbase1
09-23-2005, 10:03 AM
I enjoyed the ride, but the ending was a total cop out. Howver I really enjoyed his latest a LOT, and I'm hoping that part 2 will have a proper ending!



PS. Going a bit further into the future, I can also thoroughly recommend Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy. It's somewhat horrific in places, but the ideas he has for the further development of a human race at home in the cosmos are superb.

starbase1
09-23-2005, 10:14 AM
Yes, a truly superlative example of how to make a film without compromising accuracy or excitement. I have the nagging feeling that they spread the incidents a bit more evenly thorough the flight than the book did, but I think thats OK.

Remember that awesome shot of the CM barrelling in towards the Earth near the end? Beats Star Wars for sense of scale speed and danger! I'd love to buy the guy who did that a beer or three...

Incidentally, you are probably all familiar with it, but Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" was also a very accurate and impressive film, (With cameo by Chuck Yaeger too). Rated as accurate by astronauts apparently, including Shepard's launchpad incident, and the singing sample collection...)

It basically covers the Mercury program. (And interestinly enough Ed Harris who played Gene Krantz played John Glenn in this one...)

Worth reading the book as well, it has a very different emphasis , and is supremely readable. Much more on what it was like to be the wife of a military test pilot for example...

[QUOTE=kennez]In addition to this, and to prove that the LM engine had a throttle, look at the Apollo 13 mission. After the oxygen tank exploded, Mission Control did not trust the SPS engine. This left them with the LM descent stage engine. One of the mid-course correction burns was completed using, I think, 10% throttle. Watch the movie. Before anybody says that Hollywood has improvised anything, I have been in contact with Gene Kranz, and I asked him about this. He says that it was true. It also mentions it in his book.
QUOTE]

starbase1
09-23-2005, 10:21 AM
Plus they demand respect and civility towards their crackpot views, while calling the heroes of that age liars and frauds. Hardly respectful of all those who risked thier lives, and in three cases gave them in horrific circumstances.


this may be the most pointless argument going. Even with all the experts, who I'm sure have a little bit more knowledge on the subject than somnambulance, and all the websites with essays written by the experts that refute all the things the skeptics say, giving detailed explanations for absurd claims, somnambulance won't believe it. The argument will go no where. The conspiracy theorist's arguments have no merit, are contradicting, and don't stand up to any of the facts. You want to believe we didn't go there in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary you go ahead.

hunter
09-23-2005, 10:28 AM
... ROTFL again... you mean to tell me that people go to the the gym and add "weights" to a "weight bar" so they can increase the air resistance?

Are you suggesting that you can lift weights at thousands of miles per hour? THAT I would like to see. Why don't you lift your weights underwater. Once on edge so they can slice through the water and once flat, and tell us there's no difference. Or stick your arm out the window while your driving and turn your hand and feel the difference. I don't quite understand your arguments and you have yet to show any real evidence for your position.
Sorry

spec24
09-23-2005, 10:56 AM
Are you suggesting that you can lift weights at thousands of miles per hour? THAT I would like to see. Why don't you lift your weights underwater. Once on edge so they can slice through the water and once flat, and tell us there's no difference. Or stick your arm out the window while your driving and turn your hand and feel the difference. I don't quite understand your arguments and you have yet to show any real evidence for your position.
Sorry

don't worry - he can't

MiniFireDragon
09-23-2005, 11:54 AM
Not to stir things up, but I must interject some things into this conversation on figuring out required fuel to leave the moon. And sorry if I am bringing stuff back up that was already covered, I only read like 100 of the posts and jumped to the end.

1st off, back early in the thread (and I didn't read it, got boring reading bicekring back and forth) someone had said why don't we launch off a plateu! That's closer to the atmosphere. Rocket launches don't work like that. If you look, most launches are held as close to the equator as possible, and there is a reason for it. Here is the explanation.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite2.htm

ooh another nice site:
http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/ruimtereizen.html

Page 2 has some nice things on it.

Now onto weight of the lunar module. It's 10,300 lbs with fuel, so fully loaded (before humans and rocks) it would be 10330 lbs. Lets say they take 2000lbs of gear and 850lbs of rocks, giving us a grand total of.... 13,180lbs. Wow! Heavy! Wait wait wait... don't forget that is Earth pounds, lets see lunar pounds....

If I am not mistaken (and I maybe) the actual weight is 2196.67 lbs (assuming an object weighs 1/6 the weight on the moon then it does on earth).

Ok, lets look at the thrust of the engine....

why it's 3500lbf! Keep in mind that thrust is how much weight an object can move per second, no matter what atmosphere u are in. So just firing the engines gives instant lift off.

Now what I don't have is how far did this beast of a machine have to travel back to the dock? We know it doesn't have to break the moons gravitational pull, just needs enough force to send it up and enough speed to keep it moving to it's docking point before the moon drags it back.

So when we have the distance the module traveled, we can figure out how much fuel is needed to get it there.

Meaty
09-23-2005, 12:32 PM
Okay, I am convinced somnambulance is at home, in his chair, laughing his ***** of as he pulls our collective chain.

Let me recap for everyone how most of this conversation went.

somnambulance: The moon landing was faked!
other_poster: You're paranoid, it was real!
somnamulance: Then tell me how lunar lander was able to perform a triple-lutz loopidy-loop with only 50 dinglehoppers of fuel!
other_poster: I don't know, I am an artist. Common sense tells me though, that if it was faked and provable by simple physics, that 2,398,587,239,847,239 of the brilliant physicists on this planet would have proven it by now!

He is just doing this to solicit a reaction from you!

But in case he isn't, somnambulance, check this out and consider re-evaluate you thought process...
Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor)

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 12:48 PM
If you are just joining us, dont bother, you would have to be out of your wits to join in on this thread.

spec24
09-23-2005, 01:28 PM
Try and think this one through. (http://www.mormon.org/)

what does that have to do with anything?

DogBoy
09-23-2005, 03:03 PM
Look, somnambulance is a purveyor of clock-work contrivances- ignore him.

As for the earlier posts about Space-Elevators, thanks to carbon-nano tubes they hope to have one with in 15 years. The FAA have granted these folks (http://www.liftport.com/) clearance for 1 mile altitude tests.
SlashDot report there is even an X-prize-like contest involving them.

The idea of riding a ribbon *supposedly* thinner than paper to space boggles the mind.

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 03:22 PM
what does that have to do with anything?

If you read and understood the entire thread you would understand why I posted that link.

IgnusFast
09-23-2005, 04:54 PM
Secondly, even though launching on top of a mountain would mean less air resistance and I guess less distance to travel, the atmosphere wouldn't be as thick for the rockets to push on and accelerate the craft.

Not to start more trouble in an already painful thread, but I don't think that's how rockets work-- they use the principles of action/reaction (the act of the engine exerting force to the rear pushes the engine forward). That's the only reason spaceships can move in a vaccuum, with no atmosphere at all. They also use gyros and reactive thrusters to rotate and adjust course in space, with the latter being equivalent to firing off a fire extinguisher or an aerosol can. Just propellant being pushed through a small apature, creating the force for movement; no engine at all.

I'm discounting atmospheric friction, which increases the amount of thrust required to gain the same speed. Also mass and aerodynamic design.

But only air-breathing engines (turbines, jets, etc) need atmosphere, and that's only to provide the oxygen to mix with the fuel to provide for combustion.

Sorry if I'm "teaching my grandmother to suck eggs", so to speak.

somnambulance
09-23-2005, 07:50 PM
here's a few examples:

http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml


None of that crap came about because of research in 0 g's


You will never be convinced and those of us who are not paranoid will never be convinced, so why not just drop it.

Youíre wrong, I am convinced.


Öcalling the heroes of that ageÖ

Hold on here, you are calling someone who was LUCKY enough to be selected to into space a hero?!?


Are you suggesting that you Ö

I don't quite understand your arguments and you have yet to show any real evidence for your position.

Te-he I think I will post on this thread

Read before you post! You arenít even on track there.


Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor)

So are you suggesting that since it is easier to not go to the moon that it was faked?

IgnusFast
09-23-2005, 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattclary
You will never be convinced and those of us who are not paranoid will never be convinced, so why not just drop it.


Youíre wrong, I am convinced.

Now you're just being difficult for the fun of being difficult. You know well that he means you won't be convinced of anything outside of your current beliefs regardless of any information presented to the contrary, not that you don't have a firm opinion on the matter.

Verlon
09-23-2005, 09:11 PM
As much as I would like to stay out of this debate, I can't.

Where to begin? Yes, we went to the moon. I actually met Gene Cernan once (he one of the guys, the last one in fact, to actually WALK on the moon).

The so-called evidence brought up by conspiracy theorists is easily debunked by people with adequate knowledge of 8th grade science and somewhat better math. You can watch the lunar rover video and calculate the fall time of the lunar dust if you are so inclined. Notice the lack of turbulance. That would mean they were in 1/6th gravity and no air.

Please note that the weight of the rocket leaving earth has to account for an escape velocity of 6.99 miles per second, air resistance, and the fuel to lift all that fuel that will get you there AND back. The return rocket has much less fuel, no air resistance, and an escape velocity of only 1.49 miles per second.

What this means is that once you achieve escape velocity from the earth, you barely have any window at all to get caught in the moons gravity (versus flying off into space and getting caught by the sun instead). However, in spaceflight terms, you barely have to get off the surface of the moon to get caught in earth gravity. It takes a LOT LOT less fuel to get home than it does to get there.

You think it only takes LUCK to be an astronaut? You might want to read up on the qualifications to become one. **** skippy they are heroes, every one. Head off to a NASA exhibit and look at the size of those capsules men spent days in. Look at the obstacles they overcame. No one leaving this planet got into space without outstanding qualifications. I do not know what the Russians and Chinese have put their guys through, but you better believe it was a lot more than a class III flight physical.

The Soviets and the Chinese would have screamed bloody murder if they couldn't track our rockets heading to the moon. The space race was a big deal back in the the 60s.

Now, lets have a look a the big debunker of the moon landings: Bill Kaysing

Bill Kaysing

The Faked Apollo Landings

The author of the site is Bill Kaysing, the man many will claim is the father of the moon hoax theory. Kaysing, now 81 (2003) wrote the book "We Never Went to the Moon" in 1974. He worked at Rocketdyne, a major aerospace contractor, from 1957 until 1963. He worked for Rocketdyne as a cataloger of their technical publications, and that was as close as he ever got to NASA. Rocketdyne manufactured the main engines for the Saturn spacecraft. Kaysing left Rocketdyne in 1963, before they started work on the Apollo project. Kaysing received his Bachelor of Arts in English in 1949 from the University of Southern California. Kaysing has, for the most part, made his living from perpetuating the fraud theory.

Kaysing's credentials to support his hoax claim are that he was a cataloger for Rocketdyne 40 years ago and has a degree in English.

In his book Kaysing introduces some of the classic conspiracy arguments such as the absent stars in lunar surface photographs. I think that tells us all we need to know about Kaysing's level of expertise.

He also claims the Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger accident were staged to silence the participants who were about to spill the beans. Do you really need to know anything else about Kaysing? Doesn't that say it all?

Kaysing attempted to sue astronaut Jim Lovell for slander in 1997 when Lovell called Kaysing's theories "wacky." The case was thrown out of court in 1999. To be fair to Kaysing, it has to be said that he was unable to challenge the decision because he had run out of money and was being evicted from his trailer at the time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To give you an idea of the type of person Bill Kaysing is have a look at this:

An interview with Bill Kaysing by Nardwuar Feb 16th 1996. The following are extracts, the full transcript can be viewed at Nardwuar interviews Kaysing

Nardwuar: How much space stuff since 1959 has been real? What space stuff is real today? Did the Challenger blow up? Did NASA know it would blow up? Yeah, and you know why it blew up? Because Christa McAuliffe, the only civilian and only woman aboard, refused to go along with the lie that you couldn't see stars in space. So they blew her up, along with six other people, to keep that lie under wraps. I claim that Christa McAuliffe was murdered.

So when the Challenger blew up, it wasn't because of O-ring problems, it was because NASA murdered the people because they didn't want to go along with the gags? Well, Christa McAuliffe was a woman of great integrity, and she would not agree to say that you couldn't see stars in space.

So, Bill Kaysing, are you saying that Roberta Bondar, Canada's first women astronaut, never actually made it in space, 'cause she was on the Shuttle. Well, I'll tell you what - the Shuttle is a possibility. After all, it's low altitude. I haven't done a great deal of research on the Shuttle, but several people have said that the Shuttle is actually faked, also.

Did people see Apollo 11 take off? Well, yes, certainly.

So what happened, then, if they saw it take off? The rocket took off - if we didn't go to the moon, what actually happened when Apollo 11 took off? The Apollo 11 vehicle, or Saturn 5, was sent out of people's sight, and then it was jettisoned into the South Atlantic, where all of the six that were launched now reside. There were no astronauts, of course, on board. They were hidden away carefully, to be returned, allegedly in their command capsule, by being dumped out of a C5A transport plane. It was easy to do all of this, because they had total control of everything.

So they were not on the rocket when it took off, then? No, they were not.

How 'bout any actual atmosphere, like John Glenn in space, Yuri Gargarin - were they actually in space? I doubt it.

What I'm still curious about, Bill Kaysing, is that - did NASA kill those astronauts in 1967, (Apollo 1 fire) did they kill them on purpose because they knew too much? Or was it actually an accident that happened? No, it was no accident. They murdered them because, you see, I found out just recently that whenever NASA was in trouble they would call on the CIA No we all know that the CIA has and can kill anybody they want without any feeling of conscience whatsoever. So it's my feeling that the CIA was hired by NASA to very adroitly kill Grissom, Chaffee and White.


So this is the guy you choose to believe over more than 90% of the world, leading scientists, MILES of film, actual soil samples, eyewitness accounts, and credible science?

This is a guy who accuses people of murdering 10 people, but sues for slander when he is called whacky, and whose major contention with space exploration is that Canada isn't the one leading the way. He can't even keep his story of the space shuttle straight when confronted with the fact that a Canadian actually went up on it.

Take a visit to www.badastronomy.com and find fact after fact that supports the moon landings.

And yes, the earth is round. Those civilians who went into space, many high altitude pilots, even that Canadian who went up on the space shuttle, all saw a ROUND earth.

We can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist, but the most famous film of him was faked. The guy who did it admitted it when it was shown how it was done.

Now stop all this conspiracy theory crap, or we will be forced to have the black helicopters 'disappear' you to area 51 where we will forcibly re-educate you using a formula from atlantis and enzymes from the loch ness monster.

robewil
09-23-2005, 10:25 PM
Hold on here, you are calling someone who was LUCKY enough to be selected to into space a hero?!?Now, you are being really disrespectful. They weren't "lucky". They were some of the most courageous men in our nation's history. They trained in extreme conditions to do something extraordinarily dangerous. They didn't even get paid all that well.

MiniFireDragon
09-23-2005, 11:26 PM
You also left out that every person that went into space had a family. And if they didn't they were never going to because when you come back, you will be sterile from the radiation.

DragonFist
09-24-2005, 12:00 AM
Laugh out loud. Tell you what. I don't need math or physics calculations to figure it out. Apparently, 840 some pounds of Moon Rock was brought down. Someone show this man the rocks and check them out as being NOT from earth and let's have done with it.

By the way, what is this about not seeing stars on the moon? Never heard this point before and have no data on it either way.

For what it's worth, I think the moon landing was NOT faked. Just can't figure it being worth it. Never mind the technical side of it. If I was President and really, really wanted to win the space race and could pull it off, I wouldn't go through all the trouble of a mass hoax. I'll just have someone mess up Russia's efforts, or sell them some O-rings. Buy me some time to do it right.

Anyhow, is there some reason stars can't be seen in space or is there is some point like camera angle on the Moon?

Korvar
09-24-2005, 01:46 AM
Anyhow, is there some reason stars can't be seen in space or is there is some point like camera angle on the Moon?

Stars can be seen from space, but often can't be photographed, if there's anything else in the foreground. Basically, the foreground object, if illuminated by the sun, is so bright that if you expose for it, the stars are too faint.

Dunno if anyone's put this link up already, but Phil Platt's Bad Astronomy Pages (http://www.badastronomy.com/) have several pages on the Apollo Moon Landings (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html), based mostly on the claims of a particular TV program. It's actually a good read, even if you're entirely convinced the landing are 100% hoax-free.

And if the link's been put up before... well, now it's up again :) The Bad Astronomy site's a pretty good read for anyone planning to do space-based FX (obLightwave), as an idea of the research you'd need to do.

DragonFist
09-24-2005, 02:03 AM
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the answer.

Maybe NASA can mail him a moon rock. ;)

kennez
09-24-2005, 06:48 AM
I asked this question about getting off the moon on a space maths and physics forum, and got the following answer:


The rocket equation

dv = v(e) * ln[m(f) / m(i)] where v(e) equals exhause velocity, m(f) equals final mass, and m(i) equals initial mass

tells us that fuel consumption scales exponentially with delta-v. Specifically, the fuel mass required for an acceleration of n times the fuel's specific exhaust velocity requires that the amount of fuel consumed equal e^n times as much fuel mass as vehicle dry mass for a single-stage rocket (e being approximately equal to 2.7).

Given that an object in low lunar orbit moves at approximately 1700 m/s, which is to say about one-fourth of the velocity necessary for low Earth orbit, we can assume that we only need one-fourth of the delta-v to launch into lunar orbit as opposed to launching into Earth orbit. This means that we need only 1 / e^4, or about one-fiftieth as much fuel to launch the same payload mass.

Since we are only landing/launching the LEM instead of the LEM and CSM together, the necessary fuel mass becomes lower still.

There's your formula and the data is in a post a little further up, so it is easy to work out.

Big Jay
09-24-2005, 07:17 AM
I think the whole christorpher columbus trip was a hoax...


there is no way 3 sailing ships made it thousands of miles across an ocean and survived. there wasn't enough room on teh ship to carry that much food little less the fact that it would all spoil before they got a few weeks out.

It's all a conspiracy by Europe to fool us all into thinking all that high tech gear is coming in from some magical place called america when in fact it is aliens living just off the edge of the earth. it wasn't the cold war, USSR was fighting off aliens. yeah thats it!

:stumped:



As for a trip back to the moon. I am for it, but have no hope it will happen. The next administration will probably just chop Nasa's budget again and tell them to do it in budget but no extra money will go into a trip anywhere.

Big Jay
09-24-2005, 08:09 AM
On a more serious note

Numbers and other stuff.

The blue prints and layouts of all that nasa gear
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=40899&page=5

Page from a book. Engines had a life of 900 seconds so it could reach the command module based on all the figures that people have been posting.
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1992/PV1992_3125.pdf

the book
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=73549

huge report on all the propulsion bits
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740005391_1974005391.pdf

go here to find all the information you'll need for this continued exercises
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/


I have a suggestion. why not build a model of the lander and ascent stage and really figure out where all the fiddly bits like fuel and rocks went.

With the blueprints it shouldn't be too hard.

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 10:43 AM
Now, you are being really disrespectful. They weren't "lucky". They were some of the most courageous men in our nation's history. They trained in extreme conditions to do something extraordinarily dangerous. They didn't even get paid all that well.

Yeah, I hear they have a hard time finding people brave enough to go into space.

cresshead
09-24-2005, 11:11 AM
QUOTE:>
I have a suggestion. why not build a model of the lander and ascent stage and really figure out where all the fiddly bits like fuel and rocks went. end QUOTE:

a model like this ?

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 11:28 AM
LOL... I was going to, LOL.

Did you make that one?

mattclary
09-24-2005, 11:37 AM
Hold on here, you are calling someone who was LUCKY enough to be selected to into space a hero?!?

HA!!! :stop: So you admit they went to space!!

cresshead
09-24-2005, 11:37 AM
it's from my 9 cdrom, 5000 model collection i bought from here

http://www.deespona.com/index.html

which also has the saturn V rocket in sectionsa stowed lander in it's stage and of course the command module plus the shuttle and a few more rockets in there too!

plus of course there's a rather nice command module scene that comes with max 3.0 as well.

very useful if you have a production in the works that needs such detailed models [we do..right now!] :thumbsup:

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 11:45 AM
HA!!! :stop: So you admit they went to space!!

Hold your toung Matt. I never said man has never been in space.


On another note, I take EVERYTHING back about nothing being developed in 0 g's, check this. (http://www.comcast.net/news/strange/index.jsp?cat=STRANGE&fn=/2005/09/21/226346.html)

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 11:47 AM
...well, i guess that still isnt being developed IN 0 g's...

T-Light
09-24-2005, 01:45 PM
DragonFist


Laugh out loud. Tell you what. I don't need math or physics calculations to figure it out. Apparently, 840 some pounds of Moon Rock was brought down. Someone show this man the rocks and check them out as being NOT from earth and let's have done with it.

That's not going to work old man, If they can find rocks from mars on this planet (where the worm like electon microsope pictures came from) they must be able to find tons of moon rock.

I'm not helping am I :devil:

Verlon
09-24-2005, 01:48 PM
there's no such thing as 0gs.

Its called microgravity. Every object in the universe is attracted to every other object directly proportional to its mass and indirectly proprtional to the square of the distance between the objects. We've known this since Isaac Newton in the 1600s. You DO believe in Isaac Newton and that the 1600's happened don't you?

So, if the only two objects in the entire universe were a rock here and another rock REALLY far away, the formula would be (Rock1 mass + Rock 2 Mass) / (distance between the two rocks) * (distance between the two rocks). As you can see, there is NO non-zero number you can plug into that equation to get zero.

Every proton, neutron, and electron out there in space and down here on earth is exerting some pull on you. There is no magicall place where all those forces add up to zero.

Microgravity. That's what people who have actually been into space like to call it.

And there is a LOT of worth to the space program, if for no other reason than to deal with things like our ever increasing population, and to find resources that might be quite useful. Besides, who wants to wait around to get smacked by a large rock a la Deep Impact. If you do not believe this is GOING to happen someday, you might want to do a little research into how close we have come in the last 50 years (that we KNOW of). Or read Shiva Descending, and then read the afterward by the author who works in such a field.

Finally, I think as a species, we are happy to explore new frontiers. We are curious by nature, and this is one of the aveneues for that curiosity. When we can't explore, its like forcing left handed people to be right handed or something. It makes certain people unhappy. Given the history of the United States (and Canada forthat matter), I think its pretty fair to say that there are large numbers of those kinds of people in our gene pools.

cresshead
09-24-2005, 02:34 PM
eagle lander :)

http://www.deespona.com/3denciclopedia/models/eagle.html

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 04:17 PM
there's no suich thing as 0gs.

You spelled 'such' wrong.

cresshead
09-24-2005, 05:27 PM
:foreheads :offtopic: :confused: :tsktsk: :argue: :cat:

stee+cats

TheDevil
09-24-2005, 05:52 PM
Hold your toung Matt. I never said man has never been in space. [/url]

It is not spelt 'toung'. The correct spelling is 'tongue'.

Maybe English is not your native language. In which case, maybe you should wait until you have a better grasp of English before correcting the spelling of others. If you are a native English speaker then maybe you should return back to school since you are so keen to correct others English spelling.

Either way. You have bad manners.

stevecullum
09-24-2005, 06:10 PM
OK I'm going to tread very dangerously here...

If the US are going to spend a crazy amounts of cash going to the moon and mars etc.. I thing they should consider bringing in some English, Chinese and Russian scientists. All these countries have a history of technological achievements on shoe-string budgets.

I often wonder where the world would be today if the Chinese had shared there technology all those years ago when they invented rockets and gun powder.

Ultimately going into space should be for the benefit of everone on earth, so forget politics and get together the most talented scientist from all over the world and invent something NEW to get us to the moon and mars and beyond, preferbly before I die!!

Alternativley, give all the money to Newtek to create Lightwave Ultimate edition!

DragonFist
09-24-2005, 06:17 PM
DragonFist



That's not going to work old man, If they can find rocks from mars on this planet (where the worm like electon microsope pictures came from) they must be able to find tons of moon rock.

I'm not helping am I :devil:


Okay, take the entire 840 pounds of grey lunar mass and drop it on him to ponder the hoax of it all from the bottom of the pile.

Okay, I know I am being somewhat mean here. However, given the level of maturity of his "debating" has been asking for it.

I have no problem with someone logically looking at the possibilities of a hoax, most of his posts have been on more of a name calling level. For example "You mispelled 'such'." instead of debating any of the points the poster brought up with some level of logical response. So 840 pounds of rock gotten on the trip to the moon dropped on his head is about the right level of response here.

Edit: I suggest that everyone (Heh, including myself) stop feeding the Troll.

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 07:20 PM
:foreheads :offtopic: :confused: :tsktsk: :argue: :cat:

stee+cats

Yes, even worse:


It is not spelt 'toung'. The correct spelling is 'tongue'.

Either way. You have bad manners.

Ima laugin so hrd now, som fool didnt get the pun, ths thread is snobal of dumness.

I have to give that guy credit (where ever he came from?), he managed to be the biggest HIPOCRIT so far. :tongue:

digital verve
09-24-2005, 07:42 PM
Ima laugin so hrd now, som fool didnt get the pun, ths thread is snobal of dumness.

I have to give that guy credit (where ever he came from?), he managed to be the biggest HIPOCRIT so far. :tongue:

Thank you :)

I take that as a compliment coming from you.

Love you :heart: in a :devil: way

your fellow hypocrite
:devil:

digital verve
09-24-2005, 07:49 PM
Why don't you have debate without name calling or putting others down?

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 07:49 PM
I have no problem with someone logically looking at the possibilities of a hoax, most of his posts have been on more of a name calling level. For example "You mispelled 'such'." instead of debating any of the points the poster brought up with some level of logical response. So 840 pounds of rock gotten on the trip to the moon dropped on his head is about the right level of response here.

Once again we have someone who feels like chiming in before they read the thread. Why donít you take note that your home boy was correcting my use of "0 g's", he is correct, but off topic. His Argument was a technicality, which was no more than to say my argument wasnít valid because I didnít use the term "micro gravity", so in a brief way I returned the favor.

& your mispelled is ready.

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 08:00 PM
your fellow hypocrite
:devil:

:cursin: :beerchug: :cursin: :beerchug:

digital verve
09-24-2005, 08:06 PM
:cursin: :beerchug: :cursin: :beerchug:

Since you are interested in all this moon landing stuff. You may find this interesting, but maybe not as fun as the NASA moon landings . :thumbsup:

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theghoax.htm

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 08:59 PM
Okay, take the entire 840 pounds of grey lunar mass and drop it on him to ponder the hoax of it all from the bottom of the pile.

You want to crush me under 840lbs of rock because YOU are not capable of explaining to me something YOU believe. :thumbsup:

somnambulance
09-24-2005, 09:05 PM
Since you are interested in all this moon landing stuff.

That makes me want to watch all of all the rockets that failed. The thought went through my head: how funny would it be to be that far away form the world approaching orbit of the moon and right out of your side window you see somebody else from earth, LOL. I could only imagine!

hunter
09-25-2005, 12:05 AM
You want to crush me under 840lbs of rock because YOU are not capable of explaining to me something YOU believe. :thumbsup:

Well, so far, you've failed in the same manner. And, don't get me started on your grammar...

wrap that chain around 50 ton boulder... Your car aint go'in no where...

And you still havnt done the math

Nobody (excpet for karmacop) seems to be willing to investigation.

Right now you guys have the oppertunity to prove me wrong.


I suppose I could find more but, do I need to? :thumbsup:

kennez
09-25-2005, 03:21 AM
Now, let's see. He's been given all the technical specs of the LM, and he's been given the rocket equation, and he has ignored both of them. He just seems interested in name calling. He asked for the specs to prove a hoax. I think it's his turn now to contribute something constructive to this debate.

starbase1
09-25-2005, 03:37 AM
Pushing through less air is a help from greater altitude, not the distance. The biggest benefit is from launching near the equator with the direction of the Earths rotation.

This is one reason some people like the idea of floating launchpads, you can plong them right on the equator.


Not to start more trouble in an already painful thread, but I don't think that's how rockets work-- they use the principles of action/reaction (the act of the engine exerting force to the rear pushes the engine forward). That's the only reason spaceships can move in a vaccuum, with no atmosphere at all. They also use gyros and reactive thrusters to rotate and adjust course in space, with the latter being equivalent to firing off a fire extinguisher or an aerosol can. Just propellant being pushed through a small apature, creating the force for movement; no engine at all.

I'm discounting atmospheric friction, which increases the amount of thrust required to gain the same speed. Also mass and aerodynamic design.

But only air-breathing engines (turbines, jets, etc) need atmosphere, and that's only to provide the oxygen to mix with the fuel to provide for combustion.

Sorry if I'm "teaching my grandmother to suck eggs", so to speak.

starbase1
09-25-2005, 03:42 AM
You think they held a lottery to pick the astronauts?

You maybe think it was easy for the families to watch them get into an Apollo capsule where three had died in an oxygen fire? Or after Apollo 13?



Hold on here, you are calling someone who was LUCKY enough to be selected to into space a hero?!?

starbase1
09-25-2005, 03:54 AM
Yes, blew me away when I first met a guy who was analysing those, before the possible microfossils... Very witty chap, but the best bit was when he showed the analysis of one particulqar wierd meteorite, they disolved away pretty much everything then put the nanochunks left through a mass spectrometer. The isotope abundances of everything in the solar system are very very similar, but not this...

Best explanation? They have a chunk from outside the solar system!



DragonFist

That's not going to work old man, If they can find rocks from mars on this planet (where the worm like electon microsope pictures came from) they must be able to find tons of moon rock.

I'm not helping am I :devil:

starbase1
09-25-2005, 04:00 AM
You want to crush me under 840lbs of rock because YOU are not capable of explaining to me something YOU believe. :thumbsup:

Your inability to understand is no ones responsibility but your own.

Fortunately reality is not constrained by your intellect.

starbase1
09-25-2005, 04:06 AM
Hey, if the Apollo stuff is faked what about Voyager? If we can't really go to the moon, stands to reason we can't go to Neptune!

I think it would be really funny to see him try and talk his way through a gravitional slingshot!

:jester:

Against Stupidity The Gods Themselves Strive in Vain.

CB_3D
09-25-2005, 04:38 AM
Hey, if the Apollo stuff is faked what about Voyager? If we can't really go to the moon, stands to reason we can't go to Neptune!

I think it would be really funny to see him try and talk his way through a gravitional slingshot!

:jester:

Against Stupidity The Gods Themselves Strive in Vain.

You mean Voyager never defeated the Borg?!

Oh man...

cresshead
09-25-2005, 05:00 AM
hi

regarding the 840 pounds of moon rock...just where did you invent that figure from?

go here and read the FACT pages...
http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS17/a17facts.htm

the MOST ever brounght back was 230pounds.... or 110kg if you prefer metric! :)

also with any calcs that your making about getting back onto low moon orbit to meet up with the command module..... please remember to subract the weight of these....as they left them behind on the moon!

the bottom half of the lander
the flag
all the experiments they placed on the moon inc aslep.
tools.......
the rover!.... :bowdown:

starbase1
09-25-2005, 05:07 AM
Nope! It was all and elaborate scam by Werner von Borg, (Known to the illuminati as "Saturn of Five").

starbase1
09-25-2005, 05:11 AM
At the risk of talking about graphics here, Cresshead, how did you cope with the textures in that Espona collection? I bought 2 disks in book form (500 per book, by Taschen, found in a cheapy London bookshop!)

The models were great but the textures frequently looked nothing like the illustrations... Did you load them directly into LW, or use a more sophisticated method?

Nick

cresshead
09-25-2005, 05:19 AM
as for why can't we see the landing sites from earth?


If men really landed on the Moon, why are there no telescopic pictures of the landing site taken from Earth?

The best telescope built by humanity to date is the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) currently in orbit around Earth. This telescope has a maximum resolution of 0.014 arc seconds. If the HST were aimed at the Moon, it would be able to resolve objects no smaller than 27 meters (88.5 feet) across. Each of the Apollo landers is only about 5 meters (16.5 feet) across and much too small to be seen by Hubble. An example of the resolution that the HST can provide is shown in the following image taken of the crater Copernicus.

Earth-based telescopes have similar difficulty trying to resolve manmade objects on the Moon. The best telescopic technology available today is interferometry that allows the images of multiple telescopes around the world to be combined together. In so doing, the multiple telescopes can produce higher-resolution imagery than a single telescope on its own. Unfortunately, even this capability is not yet sufficiently advanced to resolve objects as small as the Apollo landers. In order to see landers and other objects left on the Moon using present technology, it would be necessary to send a satellite to orbit the Moon that was equipped with high-resolution cameras. The cameras required would have to be comparable to those carried by military spy satellites or the civilian Ikonos satellite in Earth orbit.

A European spacecraft is currently doing just that. The probe SMART-1 is now conducting a detailed photographic survey of the Moon with high-resolution cameras capable of clearly seeing the Apollo landing sites. European scientists intend to use these and other sites of lunar landings by unmanned probes to help calibrate the instruments aboard SMART-1.

SMART-1 was launched in September 2003 and took about a year to enter orbit around the Moon. The reason the craft took so long to travel this distance is due to its propulsion system. Previous lunar missions have used conventional rocket engines that generate a short, powerful force to accelerate a vehicle to the Moon. SMART-1 instead uses an ion engine that continuously produces a long, steady force over an extended period of time. This thrust force is much less than a normal rocket engine but far more efficient. The vehicle may take more time to reach its final destination but uses less fuel in the process.

As a result of its unique form of propulsion, SMART-1 took a long period of time and completed many orbits as it spiraled its way further and further from Earth until it was captured by the gravitational attraction of the Moon. The probe made its first close pass of the Moon in early 2005, but continues a series of lunar orbits as it spirals closer and closer to the surface. SMART-1 is imaging the Apollo landing sites and other notable locations during these tighter and tighter orbits, but it will likely take several months before the photos are resolved enough to show sufficient detail. Photos of these sites may start being released later this year and may end the infamous conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were a hoax once and for all.

cresshead
09-25-2005, 05:28 AM
smart 1

http://smart.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31054&farchive_objecttypeid=18,19,22&farchive_objectid=30912

cresshead
09-25-2005, 05:35 AM
re the deesponsa 9 cdrom model collection....the textures and models you have in the book are medium res and yeah some of the textures in the book arn't great [i have a student that bought the book you have] overall the models and textures are brilliant throughout the 5000 model collection, remember that this collection was created with/for 3dsmax 2.5 and ususally modeled with their plugins as well! [surf reyes and meta reyes] as i have max they just load in no problem at all!

re the luna lander i posted a pik of that is medium res lw model in comparison to the hi res one [there's 5 version on the disc]

the model i posted was from turbosquid and actually was not a de esponsa model just checked it and whilst i put it in my 3d moon folder that particular one was from a lightwaver!

just search turbosquid for it...

Verlon
09-25-2005, 07:08 AM
looks right to me :P

swpspce
09-25-2005, 07:24 AM
If we can't really go to the moon, stands to reason we can't go to Neptune!


Not so - there is one fundamental differnece between the Apollo mission and the Voyager mission, one was manned and the other was not. Hence, the outcome of the Voyager mission is not reliant on the success/ failure of the Apollo mission - with respect to it being a manned mission or not.

And further more, even is the Apollo mission failed technologically that does not mean that future technological attempts would fail too - unless of course these are the unmanned missions to mars which failed due to human error in the conversion process between Metric and Imperial measurements and not technological failures.

Not(Moon) Not(Neptune) Not(Moon) -> Not(Neptune)
F F T (Neither event happened)
F T T (Did not go to the moon but Voyager reached Neptune)
T F F (Went to the moon but not Neptune)
T T T (Both events occured)

somnambulance
09-25-2005, 08:19 AM
hi

regarding the 840 pounds of moon rock...just where did you invent that figure from?

I did not invent it, I dont think, I got it from wikpedia, cant find it now after looking forever. Different quantities were reported for each mission. 840 seemed high to me from the start, I imagine 840 was the combined effort of all the missions.

somnambulance
09-25-2005, 08:19 AM
looks right to me :P

That is about the best response I have heard yet. :beerchug:

cresshead
09-25-2005, 09:55 AM
at least we're getting some clarity on some of the issues which some of you had regarding the moon missions of the late 60's early 70's regarding why we can't see the rover and such which were left there and on some of the things people were in error of such as the amount of rock carried back on each mission....


also you need to make calculations for each mission back as the lem was redesigned for each mission so that by apollo 15 they could take a rover along and land plus return with more rocks 110kg rather than the 37 pounds of the first mission.....

steve g

somnambulance
09-25-2005, 02:11 PM
Once again we have someone who feels like chiming in before they read the thread.


I suppose I could find more but, do I need to? :thumbsup:

... seriously?

somnambulance
09-25-2005, 02:49 PM
You think they held a lottery to pick the astronauts?

You maybe think it was easy for the families to watch them get into an Apollo capsule where three had died in an oxygen fire? Or after Apollo 13?

You make a lot of assumptions.

I know the ones who are chosen are lucky, I am sure they would admit that themselves. Death is never easy.


Your inability to understand is no ones responsibility but your own.

Fortunately reality is not constrained by your intellect.

Peopleís inability to communicate their thoughts is not my responsibility. Honestly, you seem like you could be somewhat intelligent, unfortunately you donít know how to communicate, and you open up the door for someone like me to push your buttons.


Now, let's see. He's been given all the technical specs..

I had already taken care of the numbers; I have had the solution as well. So yes, you are correct, and people continue to fuel the fire.


I think it would be really funny to see him try and talk his way through a gravitional slingshot!

Once again you made an assumption, and your causing another diversion, which is another example of you inability to communicate.

cresshead
09-25-2005, 03:36 PM
calm down everyone!....

we're all entitled to our opinions...and we're also entitled to use some manners on both sides please! :thumbsup:

this is getting somewhat religous...you can't 'convert' people by shouting louder or putting them down.....

both serve no purpose :agree:

have a nice day EVERYONE! [yes everyone!]

steve g

hunter
09-25-2005, 05:02 PM
You spelled 'such' wrong.

Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black.

mkiii
09-25-2005, 07:29 PM
Photos of these sites may start being released later this year and may end the infamous conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were a hoax once and for all.

If you can't convince people with photos, TV, Actual returned command modules, (I have touched one - it is real), moon rock, and scientific data from the landings, as well as personal testimony from the people who went there, the scientists & engineers who worked on the project, and those in other countries that took part in observations from ground radar stations & listening posts, then I doubt that a new photo of a descent module & a slightly dusty american flag in a crater is going to convince them either.

All hail the great North American conspiracy theorists for all the amusement they've provided over the years. Half of them seem to believe Roswell was an alien spaceship crash, but refuse to believe a relatively simple concept such as the Apollo landings. :foreheads

Personally, my favourite theory is that trolls are alive & well, and populate this forum. Fe, fi fo, fum. No names, no pack drill.

PS.... note the lack of stars in these images from smart1 Even with the earth dimly lit. http://smart.esa.int/science-e-media/img/a5/smart-1_waning-Earth.JPG

somnambulance
09-25-2005, 08:14 PM
Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black.

Select what you want eh?

hunter
09-25-2005, 09:42 PM
Select what you want eh?
Ah, right. Sorry. I forgot you have the monopoly on that. :beerchug:

somnambulance
09-25-2005, 10:06 PM
All hail the great North American conspiracy theorists for all the amusement they've provided over the years. Half of them seem to believe Roswell was an alien spaceship crash, but refuse to believe a relatively simple concept such as the Apollo landings. :foreheads

You just dont know because your not informed (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/).

cresshead
09-26-2005, 02:24 PM
i saw this on a dvd the other day..

sort of sums up a few people's attitudes around here........


..........if you never try, you'll never fail...........



:question:

T-Light
09-26-2005, 03:17 PM
Starbase1-

he showed the analysis of one particulqar wierd meteorite, they disolved away pretty much everything then put the nanochunks left through a mass spectrometer. The isotope abundances of everything in the solar system are very very similar, but not this...

Best explanation? They have a chunk from outside the solar system!

Amazing stuff :) , do you know where they found the rock? Closest I've been to anything offworld is a NASA tektite :(

ps Do you camp out in a laboratory or something :D

mkiii
09-27-2005, 02:24 AM
You just dont know because your not informed (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/).

LOL - Now I know that you are just trolling.

starbase1
09-27-2005, 05:41 AM
I don't know exactly - but they generally look in Antarctica or deserts. In antarctica pretty much anything dark lying on the ice is a meterorite. (In the desert it's sometimes provided by a camel,)

I heard the talk at the UK Society for Popular Astronomy, who used to get some VERY good and entertaining speakers in. (The BAA are always a bit po faced in my experience. Note to USA readers, a 'po' is another name for gezunder).

I studied astronomy at university, and have kept my hand in... Used to have a monthly comuln for a while until they decided to halve the pitance they paid, and wanted all articles serveral months in advance... Also ran an astronomy BBS in the days before the internet. Try getting your NASA material at 1200 baud dialup and transatlantic call rates!

Cheers, Nick


Starbase1-
Amazing stuff :) , do you know where they found the rock? Closest I've been to anything offworld is a NASA tektite :(
ps Do you camp out in a laboratory or something :D

lardbros
09-27-2005, 06:37 AM
I watched an interview with Lionel Richie and he was talking about one of his great friends, Buzz Aldrin. They asked Lionel if he believed in the Moon Landing. Lionel didn't say much, but it was clear by his look that he did and he said (something similar to), "believe me, i have spoken to Buzz about this many times. Even asking him things while we are at a bar drinking and getting drunk. Buzz said when he was up there they all saw things that you just wouldn't even believe." Buzz also won't even tell Lionel, and is taking the info to his grave.

It was an interesting interview, but looks like the only people who really know what happened were the ones working on it.

NanoGator
09-27-2005, 10:36 AM
Wow...

I dunno what to say, but I'm amazed.

-NG-
09-27-2005, 06:16 PM
I believe the landing whas real. Only thing i dont get is that ever since the 60's there haven't been much technologocal advances like the space race back in that time.

I wonder what the goverments hold back.

Riplakish
09-27-2005, 06:30 PM
I believe the landing whas real. Only thing i dont get is that ever since the 60's there haven't been much technologocal advances like the space race back in that time.

I wonder what the goverments hold back.


There hasn't been nearly as much public funding, either.

Go listen to the entirety of Kennedy's speech. He asks for what was [at the time] a small fortune in irregular appropriations. His justifications? "Cause it'd be cool."

And remember, particularly in aerospace, what you see in the field is what they were banging on 30 years ago. I'm now starting to see the results of one of my first "real" jobs now (15+ years ago).

I even have a new co-worker that interviewed for another job before we hired him, and when he discussed what they were talking about having him do, and what their planned application was, our response was "Yeah, thats what they want you to work on, but thats NOT _why_ they want you to work on it. Woulda been a cool job, but you wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it for 20 years."

Right now, you're going to find your biggest advances in places where the money is... Today, that'd be genetics (including cloning), secure communications and content protection, advanced materials, and anything labeled "anti-terrorism".

Networking, microprocessors, the web, and anything from the 90s is a near-dead sector as far as R&D goes.

-NG-
09-27-2005, 06:46 PM
Well do believe the goverments are holding back technologie that could benefit the world. Like hydro engines and stuff. Think for the most parts that is all controlled by megacorps like shell. I think the world is runned by them and they give the orders.

starbase1
09-28-2005, 12:25 AM
There have been huge advances in navigation - consider the precision with which Cassinni and Galileo operate. And the angular precirsion regquired for a soon-to-launch Pluto flyby mission is awesome.

Worth remembering that the early unmanned moon missions sometims missed completely!

Also there are some materials advances, and much better understanding of how the human body reacts to extended periods in space - mainly from Mir. Flight to low Earth orbit is routine enough that tourism has started. (A friend at work likes to point out that all he needs is a lottery rollover to get to go!).

But it remains true that the way up to orbit is brute force and big dumb boosters. And thats a serious constraint, particularly if you need to lug food and air around for people.

Nick

art
09-28-2005, 07:10 AM
During cold war there was probably more pressure from goverment(s) to send manned mission to moon. It was probably more about showing who's in power than scientific research.
There are some talks about sending man to mars, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.
One of many references:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3381531.stm

I think that sending and landing that probe on mars (or was is a hoax? :devil: ) was already a big advance. We also sent hubble into space. We keep sending people to space (crashing some shuttles while at it). There are plans to send and land unmanned probes on some of the moons of Jupiter in search of life etc. Perhaps those advances do not directly affect most people on earth, are not as cool as sending man out to space and might be considered by some people a waste of taxpayer's money, but as far as understanding the universe we've come a long way since the 60'
Sending man "out there" is not always necessary. In many cases scientific probes are good enough, cheaper and safer. Interstellar travel is not likely to happen during our lives, but that does not mean that scientists/government do not work on alternatives to "big boosters"

..and as some already mentioned, all of this is not exactly chap.

Riplakish
09-28-2005, 12:04 PM
There have been huge advances in navigation

Three letters - GPS.

coremi
09-28-2005, 12:50 PM
i quit a long time ago to question myself things like this, i eventualy found out that the only way for my life not to be a huge lie is do things i like the most, otherwise i will lose it trying find the impossible. Actually there is no truth out there, so it would be a huge waiste of time looking forward to it. Everyone has it's own truth, and for sure your truth is way more true than my truth, so exactly what is the point of this debate. Does it really matter if it is true or fals the lunar landing ? Is done and maybe this event push a lot of things forward, things that otherwise would not be even interesting. I stopped wathing TV for news, and read newspapers, there is no truth, i work in one TV station and the truth is exactly what u need it to hear, not what really happen. We know NOTHING, and execpt a few of us, will die with the same knowledge about the truth :).

coremi
09-28-2005, 01:00 PM
if there is anything i'd like to know, are the things hidden in Vatican, it is said they have writings about the the start and the end of human kind ! i'd like to know if there is god, or religion is just a very smart form of control ? will religion end as we know it if Masonic groups will have their way with the New World Order ? If religion is just a form of mass control, what is misticism ? i can't see misticism without religion.

In the end let's push some poly's, have some fun with our friends, enjoy tehnology, make our life better, have children and someday die with the feeling we did something good :)

DeathsHead
09-28-2005, 02:03 PM
:jester: It seems kinda funny that you (somnambulance) even started this thread and that you even went as far as to bring up using your calculator, be it from Mickeysoft or otherwise... Because its completely apparent that you really don't know how to use it to begin with, or I believe that it would have been a safe bet that you would have come up with the same results that all the organizations out there that have attempted to debunk the moon landings have come up with over the years. You know, the results that have proved that all of Nasa's caculations were legitamite.

Hey heres an idea for ya... why don't you send a letter, or better yet go down to Florida and talk to some Nasa officials and tell them that "You want Proof, Dam'it!" And have them use the Hubble to take some photo's of the lander, and maybe even the flag... Who knows, maybe they'll even get a couple of photo's of some golf balls up there for your amusement. :D





Death' is com'n at'cha...

"Here's a hint for ya... 8/ "

Tiger
09-28-2005, 02:53 PM
As far as I heard about the Vatican, they have huge librarys (tombs) of scriptures which are very old. Only some monks are allowed to study them.
There is many things hidden from the public...this is just one example.

Another example is archeology. There has been many findings of things
(which is to shocking to mention here) which has been filtred by the so called
"knowledge filter". In short, any findings which supports Darwin`s theo.
is published for you and me to read, but if it`s not...Delete...Boom...it didnt
exsist! Of course, all this cases are reported and written
down and could only be read by selected few, but many, many things leaked out by persons who worked with it.

OK...back to modeler. I`m making some dices :)

art
09-28-2005, 03:19 PM
Actually not that long ago I've seen one or two tv programs showing some findings that do not agree with Darwin's theory, mainly why we do not find too many remains of creatures at transitional stages in evolution. It ran on discovery or national geographic channel, I don't remember which. They also covered the topic in scientific american. Of course these findings do not neccesarily mean that vatican's view on evolution is right either.. but.. lets go back to lightwave or at least to the lunar debate :)

somnambulance
09-29-2005, 05:24 PM
More popular than 8.5, bitches!


Death' is com'n at'cha...

I thanks for the suggestions, I took them. That is why it took me so long to respond, I just got back. I dont understand why you wrote "Death' is com'n at'cha..." what is that supposed to mean...? You used that gaper smilly, you a big fan of ICP or something?