Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2017, 02:12:01 PM »
Quote from: rabinoz
And now Tom Bishop is an expert on the design on lunar landers,.  All from what he can see from a photo!

Its a bit like all these armchair experts saying that nothing can get through that terrible thermosphere! How do these smsrty-pants think all this data on the thermosphere was gsthered?
And we have others saying that, after casting their Mark I eyeballs over a poor quality photo this or that is a fake.

Give us a break!  Do some research before showing your ignorance.

I am sure that if NASA was trying to fool anybody, they would have spent a little of their budget on convincing props.

Anyoneone claiming that their cursory glance can pick up all these weaknesses just proves that they have a grossly over inflated opinion of their own abilities.

Please explain for us, in clear terms, what engineering or scientific purpose NASA would have for not properly sealing the exterior hull.

Does a loosely held together hull provide some kind of great benefit that we just cant see with our uncultured eyes?

Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.

The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 02:14:35 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2017, 02:13:29 PM »
Quote from: rabinoz
And now Tom Bishop is an expert on the design on lunar landers,.  All from what he can see from a photo!

Its a bit like all these armchair experts saying that nothing can get through that terrible thermosphere! How do these smsrty-pants think all this data on the thermosphere was gsthered?
And we have others saying that, after casting their Mark I eyeballs over a poor quality photo this or that is a fake.

Give us a break!  Do some research before showing your ignorance.

I am sure that if NASA was trying to fool anybody, they would have spent a little of their budget on convincing props.

Anyoneone claiming that their cursory glance can pick up all these weaknesses just proves that they have a grossly over inflated opinion of their own abilities.

Please explain for us, in clear terms, what engineering or scientific purpose NASA would have for not properly sealing the exterior hull.

Does a loosely held together hull provide some kind of great benefit that we just cant see with our uncultured eyes?
Please provide for us, in clear terms, what background in engineering and/or in the field of astronomy that allows you to deem the LM design unfit for landing on a celestial body without an atmosphere.

See, the problem here is that you base your opinions on assumptions stemming from your experience with house hold articles. All of that based on still images. It's even clear that you did not read about how it was designed and what material is used. You just chose to believe it's faked, based on nothing but ignorance.

As an adult, you should know better.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2017, 03:28:04 PM »
Some questions from earlier that I missed...

Agreed. Please show us the calculations that reveal that it isn't properly "embedded". This should include failure stress, desired safety margin, and predicted maximum stress experienced.

So now your argument that each piece of tape was placed and calculated to withstand any and all stresses the craft could possibly encounter from landing and launching from the lunar surface? Give me a break.

No, that isn't my argument. I have no idea what stress calculations they did, though I can take a guess. My question is what calculations have YOU done to convince yourself that the tape isn't strong enough. Have you done any at all? Or is this all just a wild guess?

(Yes, I know that you have done zero calculations, and that it is in fact just a wild guess.)

Quote
Quote
What makes you think they used scotch tape?

NASA contracts with Scotch for its tape, and did so in the 60's. Here is some old NASA Scotch tape for sale on Ebay.

I couldn't find any reference to NASA using Scotch tape for the Lunar Module. I did find this: Section II, page 7 of the Lunar Module Vehicle Familiarization Manual specifies "mylar tape". It doesn't specify what adhesive it uses, or what brand. In the absence of any evidence, I'll take your word for it that it was manufactured by Scotch. However, this isn't exactly your everyday gift-wrapping Scotch tape.

If you are actually curious about why the Lunar Module looks the way it does, feel free to peruse that manual.

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2017, 03:34:42 PM »
Heat shielding is pretty important. The heat shielding should be properly embedded. The thought of haphazardly using scotch tape to affix the heat shielding onto a lunar space craft that did all of the things NASA claimed it did is ridiculous, and anyone can see that.

If you zoom into the image we also see that the exterior white walls of the craft are not even air tight or firmly sealed. There are gaps everywhere. The whole thing appears to be incredibly amateur.

Are we really expected to believe that a real lunar lander built by the best engineers in the world would look like something some teenagers threw together in a weekend after a trip to the stationary store and the junk yard?
You're so horribly incorrect. Those 'Holes' are in the insulation. That craft never re-entered earth, there was a separate module for that.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2117
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2017, 05:39:49 PM »
Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.

The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.

You are aware that when the craft landed it allegedly made large clouds of lunar dust that went everywhere. Are you telling me that NASA didn't really care about the then unknown properties of the lunar dust getting into the many gaps in the exterior hull, and onto all of the electronics?

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2017, 05:59:06 PM »
Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.

The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.

You are aware that when the craft landed it allegedly made large clouds of lunar dust that went everywhere. Are you telling me that NASA didn't really care about the then unknown properties of the lunar dust getting into the many gaps in the exterior hull, and onto all of the electronics?
You are aware, that in an environment with no atmosphere, dust doesn't behave like you think it does, right?

The dust would leave the surface in the direction it's being pushed, which is, below a rocket exhaust, outwards. Dust doesn't swirl around in a vacuum like it does here on earth.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2117
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2017, 06:09:22 PM »
Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.

The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.

You are aware that when the craft landed it allegedly made large clouds of lunar dust that went everywhere. Are you telling me that NASA didn't really care about the then unknown properties of the lunar dust getting into the many gaps in the exterior hull, and onto all of the electronics?
You are aware, that in an environment with no atmosphere, dust doesn't behave like you think it does, right?

The dust would leave the surface in the direction it's being pushed, which is, below a rocket exhaust, outwards. Dust doesn't swirl around in a vacuum like it does here on earth.

The dust would go in many directions. If you stick your face up to fine soot and give it a puff with your mouth, you will get bounceback directly into your nose -- and the fact that it gets into your nose has little to do with the atmosphere.

A real space agency and real engineers would have properly sealed the hull. Your denial and excuses are pathetic.

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2017, 06:14:54 PM »
A real space agency and real engineers would have properly sealed the hull. Your denial and excuses are pathetic.

this has been explained to you many times before.  the paper is not the hull.  the paper covers parts of the exterior of the craft.  that's it.  its function is to keep some components from getting hot from sunlight exposure.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2117
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2017, 06:24:57 PM »
A real space agency and real engineers would have properly sealed the hull. Your denial and excuses are pathetic.

this has been explained to you many times before.  the paper is not the hull.  the paper covers parts of the exterior of the craft.  that's it.  its function is to keep some components from getting hot from sunlight exposure.

I'm talking about the many gaps in the exterior white hull. The pieces of the hull are not properly fitted or sealed together and there are gaps everywhere.

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2017, 06:53:44 PM »
I'm talking about the many gaps in the exterior white hull. The pieces of the hull are not properly fitted or sealed together and there are gaps everywhere.

that's not the hull.  that's paper taped to the hull.
shitposting leftists are never alone

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2017, 07:02:53 PM »
Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.

The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.

You are aware that when the craft landed it allegedly made large clouds of lunar dust that went everywhere. Are you telling me that NASA didn't really care about the then unknown properties of the lunar dust getting into the many gaps in the exterior hull, and onto all of the electronics?
You are aware, that in an environment with no atmosphere, dust doesn't behave like you think it does, right?

The dust would leave the surface in the direction it's being pushed, which is, below a rocket exhaust, outwards. Dust doesn't swirl around in a vacuum like it does here on earth.

The dust would go in many directions. If you stick your face up to fine soot and give it a puff with your mouth, you will get bounceback directly into your nose -- and the fact that it gets into your nose has little to do with the atmosphere.

A real space agency and real engineers would have properly sealed the hull. Your denial and excuses are pathetic.

Pathetic? I'm not making up excuses or denying anything. Making up stuff is on your account, Tom. Be as offensive as you see fit, you're quite clearly the dumber of the two of us no matter how hard you try. Browsing this thread for replies is all it takes to confirm.

For instance, you just compared sticking your face in the sand and giving it a puff on earth with rocket engines delivering several thousand pounds of thrust against the regolith on the Moon. Heh, really?

Thank you for confirming that you're taking the bury your head in the sand approach. Even though it's not that surprising to me.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2117
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2017, 07:44:24 PM »
I'm talking about the many gaps in the exterior white hull. The pieces of the hull are not properly fitted or sealed together and there are gaps everywhere.

that's not the hull.  that's paper taped to the hull.

Sure, sure, the real space ship is underneath the poorly crafted space ship.

Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.

The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.

You are aware that when the craft landed it allegedly made large clouds of lunar dust that went everywhere. Are you telling me that NASA didn't really care about the then unknown properties of the lunar dust getting into the many gaps in the exterior hull, and onto all of the electronics?
You are aware, that in an environment with no atmosphere, dust doesn't behave like you think it does, right?

The dust would leave the surface in the direction it's being pushed, which is, below a rocket exhaust, outwards. Dust doesn't swirl around in a vacuum like it does here on earth.

The dust would go in many directions. If you stick your face up to fine soot and give it a puff with your mouth, you will get bounceback directly into your nose -- and the fact that it gets into your nose has little to do with the atmosphere.

A real space agency and real engineers would have properly sealed the hull. Your denial and excuses are pathetic.

Pathetic? I'm not making up excuses or denying anything. Making up stuff is on your account, Tom. Be as offensive as you see fit, you're quite clearly the dumber of the two of us no matter how hard you try. Browsing this thread for replies is all it takes to confirm.

For instance, you just compared sticking your face in the sand and giving it a puff on earth with rocket engines delivering several thousand pounds of thrust against the regolith on the Moon. Heh, really?

Thank you for confirming that you're taking the bury your head in the sand approach. Even though it's not that surprising to me.


When the Lunar Lander lands, the exhaust is gradually lowered for the landing as it travels along the surface. You knew that, right? The engine is not always on many thousands of pounds high. The engineers should be prepared for the lunar dust to go everywhere.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/

    "On Apollo 11, a significant dust cloud was visible when the lunar module was still 30 meters above the surface."

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4214/ch9-5.html

    "While Armstrong was maneuvering to avoid a boulder field, alarms sounded in the lunar module indicating that the computer was overloaded. Mission Control quickly told the crew to proceed. Then, as fuel was running low, a dust cloud obscured the surface and Armstrong had to touch down without a good view of his landing spot."

Very dusty!

However, the prop masters and film makers did such a terrible job that they did not bother to put any lunar dust on the post-landing Lunar Lander at all to account for this dust cloud story. The astronauts are remarked saying that a lot of dust was kicked up, yet the pictures of the craft and of the footpads of the craft lack the presence of any dust at all.

And then to top it off we are expected to believe that Neil Armstrong hops out of the craft and famously plants a first deep footprint into the Lunar soil!  ::)
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 08:01:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2017, 07:59:06 PM »
I'm talking about the many gaps in the exterior white hull. The pieces of the hull are not properly fitted or sealed together and there are gaps everywhere.

that's not the hull.  that's paper taped to the hull.

Sure, sure, the real space ship is underneath the poorly crafted space ship.

Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.

The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.

You are aware that when the craft landed it allegedly made large clouds of lunar dust that went everywhere. Are you telling me that NASA didn't really care about the then unknown properties of the lunar dust getting into the many gaps in the exterior hull, and onto all of the electronics?
You are aware, that in an environment with no atmosphere, dust doesn't behave like you think it does, right?

The dust would leave the surface in the direction it's being pushed, which is, below a rocket exhaust, outwards. Dust doesn't swirl around in a vacuum like it does here on earth.

The dust would go in many directions. If you stick your face up to fine soot and give it a puff with your mouth, you will get bounceback directly into your nose -- and the fact that it gets into your nose has little to do with the atmosphere.

A real space agency and real engineers would have properly sealed the hull. Your denial and excuses are pathetic.

Pathetic? I'm not making up excuses or denying anything. Making up stuff is on your account, Tom. Be as offensive as you see fit, you're quite clearly the dumber of the two of us no matter how hard you try. Browsing this thread for replies is all it takes to confirm.

For instance, you just compared sticking your face in the sand and giving it a puff on earth with rocket engines delivering several thousand pounds of thrust against the regolith on the Moon. Heh, really?

Thank you for confirming that you're taking the bury your head in the sand approach. Even though it's not that surprising to me.


When the Lunar Lander lands, the exhaust is gradually lowered for the landing as it travels along the surface. You knew that, right? The engine is not always on many thousands of pounds high. The engineers should be prepared for the lunar dust to go everywhere.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/

"On Apollo 11, a significant dust cloud was visible when the lunar module was still 30 meters above the surface."

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4214/ch9-5.html

"While Armstrong was maneuvering to avoid a boulder field, alarms sounded in the lunar module indicating that the computer was overloaded. Mission Control quickly told the crew to proceed. Then, as fuel was running low, a dust cloud obscured the surface and Armstrong had to touch down without a good view of his landing spot."

Very dusty!

However, the prop masters and film makers did such a terrible job that they did not bother to put any lunar dust on the post-landing Lunar Lander at all to account for this dust cloud story. The astronauts are remarked saying that a lot of dust was kicked up, yet the pictures of the footpads of the craft don't any dust at all.

And then to top it off we are expected to believe that Neil Armstrong hops out of the craft and famously plants a first deep footprint into the Lunar soil.   ::)
Oh my, you bought into the whole neo-sceptic movement and pulled the no dust on the landing legs angle. That's amazing, Tom.

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1691/why-didnt-the-apollo-11-lander-blow-the-dust-away-or-why-does-it-look-like-it

I could supply the first 10 sources debunking the moon hoax conspiracies. The funny thing is, Tom, that common to all debunking are facts about space and the environment on the Moon people like you didn't take into account simply because you didnt know and didn't care to study anything about space outside the realm of conspiracies.

Talking back and forth is a waste of time. At the end of the day the fact is, Tom, that despite all your effort, vigor and eloquence, you're lacking intellect. I don't even blame you, I'm asking you to move on. Don't let that divorce bring you down.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2117
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2017, 08:18:57 PM »
You are the one with the position that NASA really did not care whether lunar dust, with then-unknown properties, gets into the exterior hull and onto all of the electronics, and that a flimsily held together external hull with lots of gaps is just great for a space ship which goes to the the lunar surface. I'm not really sure how much sadder the denial can get.  :-\

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2017, 08:24:27 PM »


You are the one claiming that NASA really did not care whether lunar dust, with then-unknown properties, gets into the exterior hull and onto all of the electronics, and that a flimsily held together external hull with lots of gaps is just great for going to the the lunar surface. I'm not really sure how much dumber the denial can get.  :-\

I never said that, ever. Tom, stop making up things, including your so-called understanding of the structural integrity of the LM. To repeat, you clearly didn't read or study anything about it.

No where have you seen me claim NASA didn't care. This thread is plastered with you claiming that the exterior hull isn't properly sealed, and that the "external hull" which again and again is the insulation blankets you're referring to, resemble the quality of a child's design cunning.

Now you're also making ignorant assumptions about how the electronics were exposed. Can you see where I'm going with this, Tom? As mentioned earlier, do you not see the irony in the fact that we have electronics with sensitive sensors surviving conditions of high salinity, hurricanes and atmospheric wear and tear on buoy weather stations, while dismissing the possibility of the LMs construction surviving a mere 16% of earth's gravity in an environment with no salinity, no atmosphere, no winds?

You are questioning the wrong events, Tom, and you're doing in the most ignorant possible manner.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2117
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2017, 08:35:17 PM »
If you are claiming that they are insulation materials, then you seem to be claiming that NASA took great care with constructing the real space ship underneath and just slaps on the important heat shielding loosely and haphazardly, in an apparently sloppy manner.

The narrative that NASA was sending sloppy Lunar Landers to the moon with the externals seemingly built by teenagers just doesn't fit with the story that this was a professionally built marvel of engineering that was sent to the moon.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2117
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2017, 08:41:44 PM »
According to one of your stack exchange experts the heat shielding WAS the external hull.

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap

Quote
"The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it:

"




« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 08:49:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2017, 08:45:07 PM »


If you are claiming that they are insulation materials, then you seem to be claiming that NASA took great care with constructing the real space ship underneath and just slaps on the important heat shielding loosely and haphazardly, in an apparently sloppy manner.

The narrative that NASA was sending sloppy Lunar Landers to the moon with the externals seemingly built by teenagers just doesn't fit with the story that this was a professionally built marvel of engineering that was sent to the moon.
Again, I never said that, Tom. Are you smoking and hallucinating?

I'm stating that both the exterior hull and the insulation blankets were carefully crafted and revised a number of times. I'm stating that what you call tape was deemed enough for the blankets to stay in place and not tearing. I'm stating that given that it takes circa 1.6 newton's of thrust to lift 1kg from the moon and the LM weighed more than 16,000 kg, the lightest possible solution was key to the design. Installing heavy metal brackets to keep insulation in place (and being a too rigid solution to not tear the insulation apart) would seriously impact the fuel budget, and as you might know, you have to bring both propellant and an oxidizer.

Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2117
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2017, 08:48:31 PM »


If you are claiming that they are insulation materials, then you seem to be claiming that NASA took great care with constructing the real space ship underneath and just slaps on the important heat shielding loosely and haphazardly, in an apparently sloppy manner.

The narrative that NASA was sending sloppy Lunar Landers to the moon with the externals seemingly built by teenagers just doesn't fit with the story that this was a professionally built marvel of engineering that was sent to the moon.
Again, I never said that, Tom. Are you smoking and hallucinating?

I'm stating that both the exterior hull and the insulation blankets were carefully crafted and revised a number of times. I'm stating that what you call tape was deemed enough for the blankets to stay in place and not tearing. I'm stating that given that it takes circa 1.6 newton's of thrust to lift 1kg from the moon and the LM weighed more than 16,000 kg, the lightest possible solution was key to the design. Installing heavy metal brackets to keep insulation in place (and being a too rigid solution to not tear the insulation apart) would seriously impact the fuel budget, and as you might know, you have to bring both propellant and an oxidizer.

Nope, scroll up to my next post. One of your Stack Exchange experts says that the electronics were right under the heat shielding. There is no real external hull.

Re: This wiki entry though......
« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2017, 08:50:48 PM »


If you are claiming that they are insulation materials, then you seem to be claiming that NASA took great care with constructing the real space ship underneath and just slaps on the important heat shielding loosely and haphazardly, in an apparently sloppy manner.

The narrative that NASA was sending sloppy Lunar Landers to the moon with the externals seemingly built by teenagers just doesn't fit with the story that this was a professionally built marvel of engineering that was sent to the moon.
Again, I never said that, Tom. Are you smoking and hallucinating?

I'm stating that both the exterior hull and the insulation blankets were carefully crafted and revised a number of times. I'm stating that what you call tape was deemed enough for the blankets to stay in place and not tearing. I'm stating that given that it takes circa 1.6 newton's of thrust to lift 1kg from the moon and the LM weighed more than 16,000 kg, the lightest possible solution was key to the design. Installing heavy metal brackets to keep insulation in place (and being a too rigid solution to not tear the insulation apart) would seriously impact the fuel budget, and as you might know, you have to bring both propellant and an oxidizer.

Nope, scroll up to my next post. One of your Stack Exchange experts says that the electronics were right under the heat shielding. There is no real external hull.
First of all, I never said that the electronics needed to be 100% enclosed. I insinuated that radioactive shielding was enough. Furthermore, I see no exposed electronics, they're fully enclosed. Which includes, obviously, everything placed inside with the crew.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.