PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-03-29, 06:51:48
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: Did we go to the Moon  (Read 41220 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
I believe it was very possible in 1969 to send men into orbit around the moon and back to earth safely and with a high probability of success.

From a risk assessment perspective, the most difficult part of the mission would be a successful landing on the moon and successful take off from the moons surface.

The splash down pictures are most likely real considering the above. It may have only been necessary to stage the actual landing and moonwalks etc. So I'm not saying those splashdown pictures are faked, so where did you pose that strawman? TK, as it is not something I ever implied.

You don't have to throw out the whole mission, just parts of it, which in my opinion are the most risky parts.

IMHO, the part in red of my question #7 is the one that needs the most thoughtful consideration.

Sorry, I just don't have the time to debate this topic anymore, so to each his opinions.

By the way TK, I don't smoke, that was just meant to create an image, unlike your ad hominem.

I will be posting far more infrequently if at all on this forum.

Regards


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4499


Buy me some coffee
I believe it was very possible in 1969 to send men in orbit around the moon and back to earth safely.

From a risk assessment perspective, the most difficult part of the mission would be a successful landing on the moon and successful take off from the moons surface.

The splash down pictures are most likely real considering the above. It may have only been necessary to stage the actual landing and moonwalks etc.

You don't have to throw out the whole mission, just parts of it, which in my opinion are the most risky parts.

IMHO, the part in red of my question #7 is the one that needs the most thoughtful consideration.

Sorry, I just don't have the time to debate this topic anymore, so to each his opinions.

By the way TK, I don't smoke, that was just meant to create an image, unlike your ad hominem.

I will be posting far more infrequently if at all on this forum.

Regards

First and foremost-why will you be posting less or maybe not at all, on !this!forum ION?.



---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
First and foremost-why will you be posting less or maybe not at all, on !this!forum ION?.

Hi Brad

1) Mostly because I hate typing and believe the typed word (for me) lacks the bandwidth to adequately convey  the nuances of emotion and intellectual thought necessary to convey complex ideas.....not without spending an enormous amount of time crafting the text. I would rather speak directly on the phone or face to face. This is just my hangup and preference.

2) In the past I have spent a lot of time analyzing and commenting on circuits that were posted or crafting schematics and explanations of the schematics, which often are just passed over.

3) I have a large home and property to maintain, which has been neglected by me because I spent so much time in front of this screen commenting or trying to convey thoughts and ideas. I want to attend to repairing the home and property etc. I'm sure you can appreciate this as you also have a limited amount of time on your hands, considering that you have a job, a family and home etc.

That's the short list, there are a few other things to add, but maybe later.

Regards, and best of luck in your work.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
I believe it was very possible in 1969 to send men into orbit around the moon and back to earth safely and with a high probability of success.

From a risk assessment perspective, the most difficult part of the mission would be a successful landing on the moon and successful take off from the moons surface.

The splash down pictures are most likely real considering the above. It may have only been necessary to stage the actual landing and moonwalks etc. So I'm not saying those splashdown pictures are faked, so where did you pose that strawman? TK, as it is not something I ever implied.

You don't have to throw out the whole mission, just parts of it, which in my opinion are the most risky parts.

IMHO, the part in red of my question #7 is the one that needs the most thoughtful consideration.

Sorry, I just don't have the time to debate this topic anymore, so to each his opinions.

By the way TK, I don't smoke, that was just meant to create an image, unlike your ad hominem.

I will be posting far more infrequently if at all on this forum.

Regards

You mean this?
Quote
Consider for a moment what a huge embarrassment it would have been for the US if there was a failure that stranded the astronauts on the moon. They would have died a slow horrible death, cooked by the extreme moon temperature. Future people looking at the moon would no longer think of it as an object to inspire love and love songs, but rather a constant reminder of the horrible death of the astronauts. Would the US have taken this chance considering the calculated odds of reaching the moon and returning safely were something like 0.017%. It is one thing to lose astronauts into the void of space as with some of the space shuttle missions, but to have their deaths forever associated with the moon would be a huge black eye to the US.,

While you may be correct about the "black eye" part, I seriously doubt the "0.017 percent" odds that you cite. Can you provide some solid reference for that figure? Are you sure it's not 0.018 percent, or maybe 0.015 percent? Please show how that number was arrived at, with references. Furthermore, the losses of the two shuttle crews (one on takeoff and one on re-entry, not exactly "the void of space" since both were in the Earth's atmosphere) and some Russian astronauts, did not stop people from continuing to go into space, even if only to low Earth orbit. The prospect of losing a crew on the moon itself, or in transit, is certainly part of the risk the astronauts and the entire program undertook. Just like the huge number of ocean explorers who have been lost at sea... yet the sea still retains its allure and romance. Maybe "tricky Dick" Nixon, in his paranoia, did have some photos made in a studio set. And maybe some of those have made it out to public view and have fueled the "hoax" stories. But the evidence for the _real_ landings and returns is overwhelming.

Certainly the endeavor was tremendously risky. That is why it is incredibly insulting for you and others to promulgate your hoax accusations, when the incredibly brave men, and the hundreds of thousands of hard working men and women who supported them, have undertaken this mission and mostly succeeded. Recall the Apollo 1 launch pad fire that claimed the lives of Grissom, White and Chaffee. Hoax? Yet the program continued. Recall the amazing Apollo 13 story. Hoax? Yet the program continued. Oh... or did it? You think the _hoax_ continued, and you don't see that as being tremendously insulting?

What did all the amateur radio operators who also picked up comms from the missions actually hear? Hoaxed communications? What about the 800 pounds of moon rocks and dust returned to Earth and examined by countless scientists from all over the world? Hoax? What about the LROC images of the stuff left on the moon? Let's see.... you will acknowledge that, what, sixteen Apollo missions did achieve Earth orbit and resulted in successful manned and unmanned splashdowns. Will you also acknowledge that _something_ actually did land on the moon, left the tracks and discarded objects like landing stages and rovers behind, and returned to Earth with samples? So perhaps it is just the manned landings that you don't believe. Even though we have the comms received by amateurs (since you don't believe NASA) and all the photos and videos from the moon, as well as the testimony of the men who actually went there and the immediate ground support personnel who helped them get there and back in the NASA launch control facilities in Houston and tracking stations around the world. Hoaxes and liars all? And you don't see your calling all those people liars and hoaxers as "ad hominem" attacks against all those thousands of people, in addition to being unsupportable by actual evidence?





Let me reiterate something here. Every single bit of "evidence" for a hoaxed Apollo program has been refuted over and over by actual _evidence_. But the people who will not give up their "hoax" conjectures simply deny the truth of the actual evidence. It's a religion, because there is _no_ evidence that the "hoax believers", apparently including you ION, would accept to change their minds. You will simply say that the evidence is faked. Even the LROC photos are faked or don't show evidence of _manned_ landings, even the testimony of the people who actually went there, the people who supported them from the ground... all liars, according to you. There is nothing that could convince you! You are not scientists, you are religious zealots.
« Last Edit: 2017-08-03, 08:42:34 by TinselKoala »
   
Group: Guest
I was referring to the statement that the starts cant be seen from space-the space station and shuttle and the likes .


Brad

What statements are those? Of course the stars _can_ be seen from space or the surface of the moon, by properly dark-adapted eyes and properly adjusted cameras. There are countless photos and videos showing this.

Apollo mission star photos:
http://lightsinthedark.com/2017/04/04/these-photos-taken-from-the-moon-show-lots-and-lots-of-stars/
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/ap17bstars.html

ISS videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiGeqsGjhoY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYZ2gHE4fjs


But nothing will convince you, since you will just say that any and all evidence that disproves your "hoax" conjecture is made up, false, a bunch of lies!

Let me ask you this: What kind of evidence _would_ be able to convince you that we did actually successfully land and return manned missions to the moon? Is there anything that would convince you?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4499


Buy me some coffee
 author=ION link=topic=3232.msg63941#msg63941 date=1501727514]



Quote
1) Mostly because I hate typing and believe the typed word (for me) lacks the bandwidth to adequately convey  the nuances of emotion and intellectual thought necessary to convey complex ideas.....not without spending an enormous amount of time crafting the text. I would rather speak directly on the phone or face to face. This is just my hangup and preference.

I know what you mean.
I too have trouble placing the right words in the right place,so as they make sense to others from other parts of the world--we just term things differently in different countries.
It's clear to me what im trying to convey,but pretty much mud to others at times.

Quote
2) In the past I have spent a lot of time analyzing and commenting on circuits that were posted or crafting schematics and explanations of the schematics, which often are just passed over.

With electronics,i have what i call the !!20+ to hard!!
This means that if the circuit has more than 20 components,i place it in the to hard basket-unless of course it is a kit,with a printed circuit board with all the parts listed on the board.

I am the opposite when it comes to mechanical stuff,where the more parts it has,the more i enjoy working on it.

Quote
3) I have a large home and property to maintain, which has been neglected by me because I spent so much time in front of this screen commenting or trying to convey thoughts and ideas. I want to attend to repairing the home and property etc. I'm sure you can appreciate this as you also have a limited amount of time on your hands, considering that you have a job, a family and home etc.

Now this i fully understand,as it near cost me my marriage some time back.
This is when i had my own forum,and was the reason i passed it on to another member.
I got lost in all the hype at the time,with the SSG and other type pulse motors.
Every spare moment i had,i was in the workshop,building a new motor,and it got to the point where my wife had to put the brakes on.
The worst thing was,she was right,and i had just not seen how much time i was spending in the workshop,and how little i was spending with the family.

Now,i pretty much only do this sort of stuff while my wife is at work,as she sometimes works late night's,and weekends.

Quote
and best of luck in your work.

Thank you.
I think this current project holds some promise-the carbon/hydrogen gas project  O0


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
So grab an old photo,put it in a ziplock bag,and place in the oven set at 100*C for say just 10 minute's-lets see how that go's.

Yes,i know all about light pollution here on earth,where there is an atmosphere for light to reflect off.
But where talking about space,where there is nothing for light to reflect of,until such time as that light strikes a reflective surface.

A simple test is this.
Shoot a laser beam across a room on a dry night,with the lights off.
You can see the light spot at the source,and also where it impacts the wall on the other side of the room--but you can see any light from that laser in between those two point's
Now turn on the smoke machine-and there you go-you can now see the beam between the two point's,because the light has a surface to impact on.

Light pollution dose not exist in space,because there is nothing for the light to impact on(reflect off).
And so,the bullshit about not being able to see stars in space because of the suns light pollution,is utter garbage.
Only when looking directly at the sun,or at say 10 oclock to 2 oclock from it,would you not see stars-and even that is debatable.

You telescope theory is describing light pollution,which dose not exist in space.


Brad

No, Brad. The "telescope theory" where I described that the light from nearby tennis courts and streetlamps interferes with my backyard observing, is only partly due to light pollution. Mostly it has to do with the fact that my eyes cannot become dark adapted, since there is no real dark. I step out of my back porch and see the naked porch light bulb of my neighbor. Just a brief glance in that direction means I need to spend another half-hour in real darkness in order for my eyes to adapt so I can see stars. This is the same thing that prevents or interferes with people seeing stars when they are "in space". Their eyes are not dark-adapted! But cameras set for proper exposures certainly can see stars, and so can astronauts _if_ they haven't been exposed to normal lighting for half an hour or so. And the sensitive cameras that I use also are washed out by the lack of real darkness in my backyard. This isn't the same thing as "light pollution" from light reflected from dust in the air, it's caused by the lack of real darkness because of the lights shining right into my back yard!
Again, this is an experiment you can do for yourself. Sit in your brilliantly lit kitchen for a while, looking at something that is lit up. Then go outside and look up at the night sky. Do you see stars? Maybe a few of the brightest ones.  Now stay in a really dark place for half an hour to let your night vision start working. Look up at the night sky. You see a lot more stars now, don't you.  Same thing with photography. If your camera is set for proper exposure of a brightly lit object at night, you will not photograph any stars. If your camera is set for proper exposure of stars and you point it at a bright foreground object, the object will be badly overexposed. Of course your cellphone camera automatically adjusts to give a proper exposure of the main subject... and even modern digital DSLR cameras are usually operated in "full auto" exposure mode unless some special purpose is needed. But the Apollo astronauts didn't have automatic exposure-adjusting cameras.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4499


Buy me some coffee
 author=TinselKoala link=topic=3232.msg63944#msg63944 date=1501745003]

Quote
Let me ask you this: What kind of evidence _would_ be able to convince you that we did actually successfully land and return manned missions to the moon? Is there anything that would convince you?

OK,that we can do,and i would hope that your answers can be backed with !proof!,and common sense physics.

1- For what reason dose the lunar rover appear to be driving around in slow motion.
Now we know that the moon has 1/6th gravity to that of earth,and so the rover should come back down slower,but why would it rise up slower when it hits a big hole or mound. Being that the gravity is much less on the moon,then a given force acting upon the rover should see it rise/jump up much quicker than it would here on earth.
Even the dirt being spat out by the spinning wheels is in slow motion
the motions of the lunar rover are so unrealistic,its just a joke.
Watch it in full screen,and have a good laugh-because that is what it is--a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAU

And in the same sense,why would the astronauts also be in slow motion?
Acceleration back to the moons surface after a jump-ok,due to a lower acceleration of gravity.
But why slow motion when they jump upward's?-no common sense there.
Even mythbusters them self(self acclaimed moon walker believers),inadvertently proved how the slow motion,and lower gravity could have easily been done,and the video below(puppets on a string) show this is how it was done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M

Jarrah Whites video covers two of the points i have made.
See the bail out by mithbusters Adam Savage.

2- Why dose the flag wave?
And in this case,we are not talking about the waving flags that the astronauts are holding.
In this one,we are talking about the flag waving due to the draft created by the astronaut as he jumps on past it.
From 2:35 if you want to skip the rest .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1YxNx1cTWI



Then there is the astronauts defying the laws of physics.
There is simply no way some of these actions could be performed--unless your name is Michael Jackson.
The one at 2:05 is the best-both feet off the ground,just hovering there lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI

And the biggest one

Can you provide any proof that an almost vertical landing/descent was possible in a rocket powered craft on the moon,when it couldnt be done in the controlled conditions of earth,where the rocket engines would also have added thrust,due to the atmosphere,making the thrusters respond much more directly that they would in the vacuum of space.

Are we to believe that 6 successful vertical descent landings,using  rocket powered crafts,in the vacuum of space,were achieved one after the other,by different astronauts,when no such thing was ever achieved here on earth,and where no training at all could have taken place prior to the astronauts performing these wondrous feats.

When we look at the history of VTVL vehicles,only the apollo lunar lander is listed in the 1960's as being a VTVL rocket powered vehicle.
The next VTVL vehicle attempt was from the Soviet Union in the late 1980's,but never flew.

It wasn't until some 30 years later that McDonnell Douglas successfully flew a rocket powered VTVL vehicle--> the  DC-X ,and this was an unmanned craft.

These will do for starters,but many more questions to come.


Brad









---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2809


Buy me a beer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ghw_1YRXJA

Some pretty strong evidence

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4499


Buy me some coffee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ghw_1YRXJA

Some pretty strong evidence

Regards

Mike 8)

Jarrah white has done a lot of research on the moon landing's.

Here is another of his findings regarding the camera used to broadcast back to earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCM76SV_dNg


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4499


Buy me some coffee
A strong point for the moon walker believers,is the fact that there are reflectors on the moon,and the proof is that laser beams of light can be sent from earth,and reflected back from the moon,via these reflectors.

First i would say--how dose this prove that man was on the moon,when these reflectors could have been place with a rover-such as those on mars ATM.

Second-NASA !once again! shoots them self in the foot(as Jarrah puts it),and uses lasers to map the moons surface,without the need for reflectors.
Bouncing lasers off the moon,was done well before any reflectors were !apparently! placed on the moon.
Listen carefully from 7:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz09H_qwQ-U


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4499


Buy me some coffee
Goodbye to not being able to hide the wires back in 1969.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s5KC-b8734


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
All of those hoax claims in those videos have been refuted many times over.

You still haven't answered the question: What evidence would it take for you to be convinced that we DID land men on the moon and return them successfully to Earth?

Let's say, for example, that you and ION say that you have clear memories of going through the astronaut training program yourselves, and you remember blasting off, making the trip, landing on the moon and jumping around, gathering samples and returning to Earth to a safe splashdown, and playing cards in the quarantine trailer aboard the USS Hornet, with him owing you ten dollars winnings.

I'll just say "Well, it's clear that you have been hypnotized, bribed to keep silent, or you are just liars. Nobody went to the moon, and your claims are just further proof of the coverup and hoax!"  See what I mean? This is the attitude of the people who believe in the "hoax". There is no data that they will accept that could convince them.

Now you appear to acknowledge that the laser reflector was left on the moon. By something. This clearly requires a soft landing and some kind of robot to make the emplacement and to take photos of it and the landing craft. And you haven't bothered to try to refute the Chinese lander videos and data. So you acknowledge that a soft landing can be made using a craft very similar to the LEM, without leaving a blast crater, and all the rest such as illumination in the shadows, etc. So it seems that all we are left with, that you don't believe, is that actual live astronauts were in the Apollo landing crafts.
   
Group: Guest
Let's see.... the NASA hoax involved tens of thousands of people all sworn to secrecy and never leaking, dozens of lying astronauts and ground controllers, actual orbital flights of astronauts, actual builds of all kinds of hardware, soft landings of robot crafts on the moon, sample returns, Stanley Kubrick directing hoax videos... but they weren't smart enough to keep a flag from waving in the breeze. And of course waving in the breeze is the _only_ thing that could have caused the motion of the flag. Right.

This is just silly. The real Hoaxers are people like Jarrah White and the rest of them. _EVERY_ point made in all those "proof" videos above has been addressed and refuted by actual data and actual people who really do know what they are talking about.

But just like belief in a God, there is nothing, no data whatsoever, that will convince you that your _religion_ of "hoax" is wrong.  There is a Huge preponderance of evidence that the moon landings were real. But there is no data that will convince you. You will come up with all kinds of silly excuses to dismiss the actual data and testimony. You can't even be consistent in your denials when they are examined closely.

« Last Edit: 2017-08-03, 17:05:17 by TinselKoala »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1567
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Ramon Bisque, Professor emeritus at school of mines was the geologist who did the engineering to place that reflector at that place on the moon in the Pentagon in his early twenties. He was a savant of sorts. I have known the man and his family for 40 some years. He past away some years ago. He was a grizzled, tough man to deal with. He didn't  take to the ignorant at all. I also used him as a character in the book I wrote in 2016(shameful plug).


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
author=TinselKoala link=topic=3232.msg63944#msg63944 date=1501745003]

OK,that we can do,and i would hope that your answers can be backed with !proof!,and common sense physics.

1- For what reason dose the lunar rover appear to be driving around in slow motion.
Now we know that the moon has 1/6th gravity to that of earth,and so the rover should come back down slower,but why would it rise up slower when it hits a big hole or mound. Being that the gravity is much less on the moon,then a given force acting upon the rover should see it rise/jump up much quicker than it would here on earth.
Even the dirt being spat out by the spinning wheels is in slow motion
the motions of the lunar rover are so unrealistic,its just a joke.
Watch it in full screen,and have a good laugh-because that is what it is--a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAU

And in the same sense,why would the astronauts also be in slow motion?
Acceleration back to the moons surface after a jump-ok,due to a lower acceleration of gravity.
But why slow motion when they jump upward's?-no common sense there.
Even mythbusters them self(self acclaimed moon walker believers),inadvertently proved how the slow motion,and lower gravity could have easily been done,and the video below(puppets on a string) show this is how it was done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M

Jarrah Whites video covers two of the points i have made.
See the bail out by mithbusters Adam Savage.

2- Why dose the flag wave?
And in this case,we are not talking about the waving flags that the astronauts are holding.
In this one,we are talking about the flag waving due to the draft created by the astronaut as he jumps on past it.
From 2:35 if you want to skip the rest .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1YxNx1cTWI



Then there is the astronauts defying the laws of physics.
There is simply no way some of these actions could be performed--unless your name is Michael Jackson.
The one at 2:05 is the best-both feet off the ground,just hovering there lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI

And the biggest one

Can you provide any proof that an almost vertical landing/descent was possible in a rocket powered craft on the moon,when it couldnt be done in the controlled conditions of earth,where the rocket engines would also have added thrust,due to the atmosphere,making the thrusters respond much more directly that they would in the vacuum of space.

Are we to believe that 6 successful vertical descent landings,using  rocket powered crafts,in the vacuum of space,were achieved one after the other,by different astronauts,when no such thing was ever achieved here on earth,and where no training at all could have taken place prior to the astronauts performing these wondrous feats.

When we look at the history of VTVL vehicles,only the apollo lunar lander is listed in the 1960's as being a VTVL rocket powered vehicle.
The next VTVL vehicle attempt was from the Soviet Union in the late 1980's,but never flew.

It wasn't until some 30 years later that McDonnell Douglas successfully flew a rocket powered VTVL vehicle--> the  DC-X ,and this was an unmanned craft.

These will do for starters,but many more questions to come.


Brad

Brad there is so much wrong with what you are saying above that it isn't even worth while to try to refute you. Just the "no training at all" phrase reveals you haven't done actual research in the matter. Nor, it seems, have you bothered to look at the many references I have posted.

Read this whole article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle
Quote
The final LLRV flight at FRC took place on November 30, 1966. In December 1966 vehicle #1 was shipped to Houston, followed by #2 in January 1967. During the preceding two years, a total of 198 flights of LLRV#1 and six flights of LLRV#2 were flown without a serious accident.

The first LLRV flight by Neil Armstrong was made in vehicle #1 on March 27, 1967 from its base at a corner of Ellington Air Force Base, the headquarters for Johnson Space Center’s aircraft operations. Joe Algranti, chief of JSC’s Aircraft Operations Division and test pilot H.E. Ream also made flights that month. Both observed, as did Armstrong and the other astronauts, that if a serious control problem developed, the pilot had little choice but to eject since the vehicle only operated to a maximum altitude of 500 feet (200 m).

On May 6, 1968 Armstrong was forced to use LLRV #1’s ejection seat from about 200 feet (60 m) altitude after a control problem, and had about four seconds on his full parachute before landing on the ground unhurt. The accident investigation board found that the fuel for the vehicle’s attitude control thrusters had run out, and that high winds were a major factor. As a result, the decision was made by JSC management to terminate further LLRV flights as the first LLTV was about to be shipped from Bell to Ellington to begin ground and flight testing.
----
 A high level LLTV Flight Readiness Review Board was appointed on March 5, 1969 by JSC Director Dr. Robert Gilruth. It consisted of himself as chairman with board members Chris Kraft, head of Mission Operations; George Low, head of JSC’s Apollo Program; Max Faget, JSC’s Director of Engineering and astronaut Deke Slayton, Director of Flight Crew Operations. The board reviewed the wind tunnel results, and on March 30 gave approval for the resumption of test flights in LLTV#2. The test program of 18 flights, all flown by H.E. Ream, was successfully completed on June 2, and the board finally gave approval on June 30, 1969 for Armstrong to resume LLTV flights. In the 16 days remaining before the Apollo 11 launch Armstrong was able to complete his LLTV flight training. He commented after his return:

“Eagle (the Lunar Module) flew very much like the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle which I had flown more than 30 times at Ellington Air Force Base near the Space Center. I had made from 50 to 60 landings in the trainer, and the final trajectory I flew to the landing was very much like those flown in practice. That of course gave me a good deal of confidence – a comfortable familiarity.”


Of course you will now say that all of this was just a bunch of lies.


Quote
Acceleration back to the moons surface after a jump-ok,due to a lower acceleration of gravity.
But why slow motion when they jump upward's?-no common sense there.

It's clear that you apparently have no understanding of the physics of moving objects in a gravity field. Your "common sense" has failed you once again.

But you are really good at putting up straw men, and distorting and even misrepresenting the facts:
Quote
no training at all could have taken place prior to the astronauts performing these wondrous feats.

You are utterly and completely wrong. Sorry, but there it is.



 
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Brad there is so much wrong with what you are saying above that it isn't even worth while to try to refute you.

This is where you were inevitably going to end up, I tried to divert the inevitable, more fool me.

I think we would be better off pursuing a direction that asks 'How can we go the Moon' rather than 'Did we go the Moon'.

I like Brad his outback inventing is enthusiastic and rewarding for himself and the community, same can be said for you TK.

Are we not better off working together on significant reality changing future goals than arguing subjective or objective positions about what happened in the past ?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4002
Well
I was plunking a comment out as EvolvingApe posted ...
-----------------------

two men enter one man leaves were the old rules....

since Peter doesn't have room for the Steel cage over here...[not in the budget!!

and since the outcome of this particular thread holds little weight on the topics which we explore in Peter's house [unless someone is planning a
"space mission"]

perhaps the sharp knives can go back in the drawer ,we can always do that , but a formal notice [challenge] would be nice ., so we can sell tickets .
these things always draw a crowd ...

but honestly...we really need all the help we can get around here...



   
Group: Guest
Well, I agree, but what am I to do when I see claims like this:
Quote
no training at all could have taken place prior to the astronauts performing these wondrous feats.
when the Truth is this:
Quote
“Eagle (the Lunar Module) flew very much like the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle which I had flown more than 30 times at Ellington Air Force Base near the Space Center. I had made from 50 to 60 landings in the trainer, and the final trajectory I flew to the landing was very much like those flown in practice. That of course gave me a good deal of confidence – a comfortable familiarity.”
-- training that was witnessed by many people there at Ellington AFB at the time.

I'm not in some kind of battle with Brad, I just think it is very unfortunate that he has allowed himself to be so misled by dishonest and ignorant "hoax" claimants. It's clear that he has a lot to learn about photography, for example, and that subject, at least, I can teach.
   
Group: Guest
This is where you were inevitably going to end up, I tried to divert the inevitable, more fool me.

I think we would be better off pursuing a direction that asks 'How can we go the Moon' rather than 'Did we go the Moon'.

I like Brad his outback inventing is enthusiastic and rewarding for himself and the community, same can be said for you TK.

Are we not better off working together on significant reality changing future goals than arguing subjective or objective positions about what happened in the past ?

How can we go to the moon? By stopping spending money by the ton on useless warfare and spending a trillion dollars on another Apollo-like space program, that's how. And we had better do it before the Chinese do.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2809


Buy me a beer
Maybe SpaceX will do it as a trial for Mars ;) now that they have perfected powered rocket return from space

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4499


Buy me some coffee
Well i guess the answers to the questions are-thats just silly.
Thats the scientific method i guess.


Brad
« Last Edit: 2017-08-04, 04:15:55 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1567
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
How about we clean up the plastic islands in the ocean?
Oops. that might put everybody on the same accord, no?

My theory(ok i Am not an acknowledged scientist) is the swirling ocean centers are returns for carbon dioxide, like a flushing mechanism that hurricanes and tornadoes use. The main orifices to the planetary ecology are suffocated. And we have nuked them also. What a grand party this is...


---------------------------
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4499


Buy me some coffee
Ok,perhaps one thing at a time TK.

What i presented in the mythbusters blunder,is a clear case of deception-that not even you can dispute-if you are going to be honest with your self.

We are referring to the apparent slow motion/weightlessness appearance of the astronauts movements on the apparent moon.

So first they show a video slowed down,and declare that its not the same as the astronauts movements.
Then they show a video where they are suspended by a wire,so as it resembles the 1/6th gravity of the moon to that of earth.
Once again they claim that it is not the same motion that the astronauts have on the moon.
They then make the big claim on national television that the myth is busted.

They go on to claim that this is what the skeptics are claiming,and they have busted it.

What a joke these clowns are.
The claim is that the astronautes are suspended by a wire,and then the video is played in slow motion.

As i have clearly shown,when the the video of the suspended clown from mythbusters is played back in slow motion,the result is identical (yes-identical) to that of the astronauts motion on the moon.

So,could the astronauts motions be replicated exactly here on earth?.
They very clear answer is a huge yes-and even i could show that very easily.

So lets deal with this one first.

Added-the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M


Brad
« Last Edit: 2017-08-04, 08:32:26 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
How can we go to the moon? By stopping spending money by the ton on useless warfare and spending a trillion dollars on another Apollo-like space program, that's how. And we had better do it before the Chinese do.

But TK, the Apollo program was just a red herring.

By the end of the Second World War the Germans had anti gravity engines (flying saucers)

By 1947 this technology had been transferred (stolen?) to the States. Apollo was just smoke and mirrors to hide the real tech.
It is even rumoured the the US has a space fleet (Solar Warden)

Quote
When Gary McKinnon hacked into U.S. Space Command computers several years ago and learned of the existence of “non-terrestrial officers” and “fleet-to-fleet transfers” and a secret program called “Solar Warden”, he was charged by the Bush Justice Department with having committed “the biggest military computer hack of all time”, and stood to face prison time of up to 70 years after extradition from UK. But trying earnest McKinnon in open court would involve his testifying to the above classified facts, and his attorney would be able to subpoena government officers to testify under oath about the Navy’s Space Fleet. To date the extradition of McKinnon to the U.S. has gone nowhere.

Ron
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-03-29, 06:51:48