The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Rekt on February 10, 2017, 05:25:51 PM
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander (https://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander)
Read the article. The top quote from a so called "Expert" is from Tom Bishop, first sign that it's bullshit
The other quotes belie a complete misunderstanding of the environment of the moon
The black stuff is thermal insulation
The gold foil protects it from micrometeoroids
The lunar lander didn't have to be solid, the gravity of the moon is 1/8 that of earth
Just one of the many flaws in FES's NASA denials
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander (https://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander)
Read the article. The top quote from a so called "Expert" is from Tom Bishop, first sign that it's bullshit
The other quotes belie a complete misunderstanding of the environment of the moon
The black stuff is thermal insulation
The gold foil protects it from micrometeoroids
The lunar lander didn't have to be solid, the gravity of the moon is 1/8 that of earth
Just one of the many flaws in FES's NASA denials
Lol @ small minds unable to adjust their expectations of a vehicle designed for a radically different environment.
Here is a good writeup that someone did explaining the odd look of the lander. (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap)
Quick clarification about the "gold foil": (https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/apollo-to-the-moon/online/apollo-11/about-the-spacecraft.cfm)
"Not metal foil, these plastic films are thinly coated with aluminum, which reflects the sun's heat and insulates the spacecraft. The thin, gold-colored films are used in "blankets" of up to 25 layers. All of the plastic films protect the spacecraft from micrometeoroids."
-
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
-
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
Why wouldn't it?
-
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
Why wouldn't it?
Because there are better materials to hold together a six billion dollar space ship which goes to the hostile environment of the moon.
Seriously, tape?
-
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
Why wouldn't it?
Because there are better materials to hold together a six billion dollar space ship which goes to the hostile environment of the moon.
Like... ?
(Keep in mind, the tape is for the outer layer of insulation. It isn't structural.)
-
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
Why wouldn't it?
Because there are better materials to hold together a six billion dollar space ship which goes to the hostile environment of the moon.
Seriously, tape?
Because tape was strong enough for holding the insulation in place in an environment with no atmosphere, where solid brackets on a fairly thin layer of insulation would add to the weight and increase the fuel budget.
-
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
Why wouldn't it?
Because there are better materials to hold together a six billion dollar space ship which goes to the hostile environment of the moon.
Seriously, tape?
Because tape was strong enough for holding the insulation in place in an environment with no atmosphere, where solid brackets on a fairly thin layer of insulation would add to the weight and increase the fuel budget.
Also, tape is less likely to tear the insulation.
-
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
Why wouldn't it?
Because there are better materials to hold together a six billion dollar space ship which goes to the hostile environment of the moon.
Seriously, tape?
Because tape was strong enough for holding the insulation in place in an environment with no atmosphere, where solid brackets on a fairly thin layer of insulation would add to the weight and increase the fuel budget.
Also, tape is less likely to tear the insulation.
Right.
I really don't get why it's so hard to accept. Sure space is a scary place, but there's some general misunderstandings, like shielding from radiation is impossible and relative velocity will kill all living things. In a vacuum. It puzzles me.
And yet it's totally accepted that weather stations in the middle of the ocean with sensitive sensory equipment can survive harsh conditions like hurricanes, high salinity, constant temperature changes, and general atmospheric wear and tear for years and years. It's as uninformed as it gets.
-
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 (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/85/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg) 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?
-
Heat shielding is pretty important. The heat shielding should be properly embedded.
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.
The thought of haphazardly using scotch tape to affix the heat shielding on a six billion dollar space craft that did all of the things NASA claimed it did is ridiculous, and anyone can see that.
What makes you think they used scotch tape?
If you zoom into the image (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/85/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg) 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.
At least look at some schematics before criticizing it. Many parts aren't air tight because they don't need to be. Are you sure that the wall you are referring to needs to be air tight?
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?
Just read this (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap) already. It explains why it looks the way it does. I'm sorry it isn't pretty enough for you, but "looking pretty" wasn't part of the design goals.
-
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 (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/85/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg) 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?
This is an argument from ridicule and incredulity, nothing more.
But I wonder, if it is a fake, why such an obvious one? They surely had the budget to figure out what a real lunar lander should look like? Wait, maybe they did...
-
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.
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 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/NASA-SURPLUS-GOLD-CONDUCTIVE-TAPE-SHELDAHL-metal-element-sample-scotch-/152057259278).
At least look at some schematics before criticizing it. Many parts aren't air tight because they don't need to be. Are you sure that the wall you are referring to needs to be air tight?
The exterior walls appear to be barely hanging on. They would be firmer if everything was properly sealed. And we are to believe that it was sent into space like that?
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?
Just read this (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap) already. It explains why it looks the way it does. I'm sorry it isn't pretty enough for you, but "looking pretty" wasn't part of the design goals.
The argument there is that it only looks like a hastily thrown together big pile of rubbish, but is actually a state-of-the-art space ship. There is no explanation for WHY everything is so crudly thrown together. Are the exterior walls of the ship not properly sealed for some calculated and scientific purpose?
-
This is an argument from ridicule and incredulity, nothing more.
But I wonder, if it is a fake, why such an obvious one? They surely had the budget to figure out what a real lunar lander should look like? Wait, maybe they did...
There are a lot of things about the Apollo program which show that the missions were an obvious fake. The people at NASA weren't expert film and prop masters. They were really bad at it.
-
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.
you don't have to test each piece of tape. you can just shake the whole thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_Dynamic_Test_Vehicle).
you can also put a suite of sensors in the test vehicle when you shake it and use that data to quantify the forces on any arbitrary component.
i'm still not sure why you think it matters that they use paper and tape. the only forces the paper would experience are caused by the craft to which it is attached. there isn't anything else in a vacuum to move it around. it's not like all the package labels in a fedex truck go flying off anytime the truck hits a pothole. basically the same thing.
-
you don't have to test each piece of tape. you can just shake the whole thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_Dynamic_Test_Vehicle).
you can also put a suite of sensors in the test vehicle when you shake it and use that data to quantify the forces on any arbitrary component.
i'm still not sure why you think it matters that they use paper and tape. the only forces the paper would experience are caused by the craft to which it is attached. there isn't anything else in a vacuum to move it around. it's not like all the package labels in a fedex truck go flying off anytime the truck hits a pothole. basically the same thing.
And you really think that piece of taped up junkyard trash could survive a good shaking?
Even the Amazon boxes in FexEx trucks are better held together than the Lunar Lander appears to be. Have you ever tried to open one of those things with your bare hands? Not easy.
If something is well put together and structurally sound, then it will appear to be well put together and structurally sound. Its really that simple. Those are qualities airplanes, submarines, and Amazon boxes have and the Lunar Lander does not.
-
Even the Amazon boxes in FexEx trucks are better held together than the Lunar Lander appears to be. Have you ever tried to open one of those things with your bare hands? Not easy.
i was thinking of shipping labels that are sometimes taped to the exterior of the box. they don't go flying off their boxes just because the truck shakes.
If something is well put together and structurally sound, then it will appear to be well put together and structurally sound. Its really that simple. Those are qualities airplanes, submarines, and Amazon boxes have and the Lunar Lander does not.
lol if you insist, i guess. that's not an engineering principle i've ever heard of. btw submarines and airplanes travel through a medium. apples and oranges.
you could probably just test this yourself. it wouldn't be that hard to tape some paper to a paint can and put it in a paint shaker. it also wouldn't be hard to tape some paper to different surfaces and measure the force necessary to dislodge the paper.
-
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 (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/85/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg) 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?
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.
-
This is a downright embarrassing read.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
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 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/NASA-SURPLUS-GOLD-CONDUCTIVE-TAPE-SHELDAHL-metal-element-sample-scotch-/152057259278).
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 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Fam-Manual.pdf) 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.
-
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 (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/85/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg) 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. (http://i.imgur.com/5QDLEGx.jpg)
-
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.
-
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. (http://i.imgur.com/5QDLEGx.jpg)
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. (http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/191/8-191-footpad-close.jpg)
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! ::)
-
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. (http://i.imgur.com/5QDLEGx.jpg)
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. (http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/191/8-191-footpad-close.jpg)
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.
-
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. :-\
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
"The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/2Icj4.jpg)"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Besides, it doesn't state the heat shielding was the external hull, only that the photo is before it was added. Are you not reading it, Tom?
-
Sure, sure, the real space ship is underneath the poorly crafted space ship.
no, the real hull of the lunar lander is underneath some insulation to keep it from getting direct sunlight. as has been explained to you many times before, no one except for you is claiming that nasa built a lunar lander entirely out of paper.
(http://i.imgur.com/474Fry1.png)
-
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
Just as an FYI, NASA did not design or build the Lunar Module. Grumman Aircraft did.
-
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
Just as an FYI, NASA did not design or build the Lunar Module. Grumman Aircraft did.
But, however, they don't understand the contractor system of NASA's operations. For example, their "Muh scotch tape use" argument is completely invalid, as Scotch was chosen as a CONTRACTOR to create SPECIFIC TYPES of tape for use in the Lunar Module, due to their industry prevalence and experience. Why would an aircraft company build a spacecraft? Because NASA contracts are a lot of fucking money.
-
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.
-
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.
Any proof of this?
-
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.
Any proof of this?
Any proof it is? Besides the fake moon rocks (http://"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html") that we gave people after we came back?
-
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.
Any proof of this?
Any proof it is? Besides the fake moon rocks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html) that we gave people after we came back?
You realize that there are many that aren't fake, right?
FYI, your link is broken.
-
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.
Any proof of this?
Any proof it is? Besides the fake moon rocks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html) that we gave people after we came back?
You realize that there are many that aren't fake, right?
FYI, your link is broken.
Where are they housed and have they been independently verified as being authentic?
I appreciate your attention to detail in fixing my broken link in your quote by the way
-
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.
Any proof of this?
Any proof it is? Besides the fake moon rocks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html) that we gave people after we came back?
You realize that there are many that aren't fake, right?
FYI, your link is broken.
Where are they housed and have they been independently verified as being authentic?
I appreciate your attention to detail in fixing my broken link in your quote by the way
I don't know. But there are many scattered all over the world, many of which end up in national museums. I would think that people would start to notice if they were all fake. The discovery of a single fake 40 years later isn't very compelling evidence that the entire program was faked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks)
-
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.
Any proof of this?
Any proof it is? Besides the fake moon rocks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html) that we gave people after we came back?
You realize that there are many that aren't fake, right?
FYI, your link is broken.
Where are they housed and have they been independently verified as being authentic?
I appreciate your attention to detail in fixing my broken link in your quote by the way
I don't know. But there are many scattered all over the world, many of which end up in national museums. I would think that people would start to notice if they were all fake. The discovery of a single fake 40 years later isn't very compelling evidence that the entire program was faked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks)
What other tangible, physical proof do we have that human's actually set foot on the moon?
-
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.
Any proof of this?
Any proof it is? Besides the fake moon rocks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html) that we gave people after we came back?
You realize that there are many that aren't fake, right?
FYI, your link is broken.
Where are they housed and have they been independently verified as being authentic?
I appreciate your attention to detail in fixing my broken link in your quote by the way
I don't know. But there are many scattered all over the world, many of which end up in national museums. I would think that people would start to notice if they were all fake. The discovery of a single fake 40 years later isn't very compelling evidence that the entire program was faked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks)
What other tangible, physical proof do we have that human's actually set foot on the moon?
Here is a good place to start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)
I haven't combed through the evidence personally, since I've never seen a compelling reason to doubt the moon landings in the first place. I've certainly seen a lot of claims of evidence that the moon landings are fake, but every time I look closer, it always ends up being people like Tom Bishop making arguments based on personal incredulity regarding topics that they know next to nothing about.
-
http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/
i find baysinger's recordings extremely compelling
-
http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/
i find baysinger's recordings extremely compelling
Simply amazing. I love it when someone determined does something this cool. Great evidence, I'll be adding this to my collection.
-
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?
We had sent several landers to the moon before this, the Surveyor series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program
Gave us a pretty good idea of the properties of the moon.