*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2018, 06:29:51 AM »
REPORTER   I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN   The first part of your question, the surface did vary .... one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough surface.

ARMSTRONG   We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

COLLINS   I don't remember seeing any. (from the surface, in the solar corona. He's joking, because he wasn't on the surface.)


Frankly, Armstrong's reaction proves nothing, apart from that maybe he was tiring of Collins' company or humour by this time. They'd been together in a confined space for 8 days, and on their return had been in quarantine together for a further 21 days.

I think if we confined you to spend a month with the same two people, you might show some signs of friction, too....
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #41 on: July 21, 2018, 04:03:22 AM »
NASA...yes this is NASA...this is the accomplishment of the human race or was it?

Collins was chewing on fruity bars and not looking at the universe of stars. Duh....made in a studio in Hollywierd.



Cherry-picking to the max!

They asked if they could see stars when photographing the solar corona, not in general.

Collins was joking because he was in orbit at the time.
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2018, 09:27:33 PM »
Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.

A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.

And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.

No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land).  What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?
The hallmark of true science is repeatability to the point of accurate prediction.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2018, 06:01:26 AM »
Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.

A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.

And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.

No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land).  What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?

Do I/we need to point out that the Falcons are not, at present, manned craft, and don't constitute a lunar mission?

Here's an apple. Please compare it to an orange, why don't you?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

BillO

Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2018, 05:59:26 PM »
You really don't expect this lunar hoax to be believed when NASA itself admits it's impossible. I;m not sure what you hope to gain from idiots who have been indoctrinated to a spinning globe? Aren't they all broke now anyway?



It doesn't surprise me you’d drag something like this up.  NASA admit no such thing.  The twit that created the video takes a lot out of context and is not telling you all the facts.  Lying by omission – over and over again.

Here are some pertinent facts he left out.

The trajectory of the moon missions avoided the inner belt completely and just barely skimmed the outer layers of the outer belts.  The radiation in the outer belts is mostly only high energy electrons which would be mostly shielded for by the outer hull (thin aluminum is all that is required).  All that said, they were through the outer belts in about an hour.
Total radiation dose experienced by the astronauts on the lunar flights, most of it experienced in the space between earth and the moon, was under 1.2 rads.  Less than half one quarter of the dose deemed to be the onset of harm.

For many of the planned and potential Orion missions, they do not have the luxury of a voiding the Van Allen belts due to the required flight profiles.  So they do need to beef up the shielding.

The remaining Saturn 5 launch vehicle components were destroyed.  So, yeah, until the Orion equipment is built we no longer have the ability to launch humans beyond a few hundreds of miles.

While the temperature does rise on average in the atmosphere as you ascend through the thermosphere the air is so rarefied that there is practically no heat energy there.  The density of molecules is so low in the thermosphere that the mean free path of a molecule (the average distance it must travel before colliding with another molecule) is about 1 km. Will aluminum melt there?  Not a chance in hell.  Since there is so little energy to be transferred to the metal, it will be radiated away before it has a chance to even warm up.

Watching, and believing, the utter nonsense in videos like this is going to damage your brain.  Like you FE’ers always say, do your own research and avoid getting your knowledge from the sewer that is YouTube.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 06:01:48 PM by BillO »

BillO

Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2018, 06:18:28 PM »
No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land).  What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?
Probably wasted it.  They are a government organization after all.  Do you seriously expected them to be efficient?

Also, you seem to be ignoring the mission capabilities they are designing the SLS for.  They go well beyond the interesting but much more limited SpaceX  Falcon 9.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2018, 02:34:14 AM »
It is not what 'I' would have done, it's basic common sense.
Why do you think that common sense is relevant to the design of such a specialized space craft like the lunar module?  Common sense refers to sound judgement in everyday matters.  Designing a spacecraft to land on the moon is hardly an everyday matter.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2018, 03:51:26 PM »
Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.

A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.

And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.

No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land).  What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?

Do I/we need to point out that the Falcons are not, at present, manned craft, and don't constitute a lunar mission?

Here's an apple. Please compare it to an orange, why don't you?

1) I show you a 1 pound apple next to a 30 pound orange and all you have to say about it is we shouldn't compare apples to oranges?  I call foul on that answer.

2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle.  The Falcon Heavy is supposed to support lunar missions.  Are you sure they're not both oranges? What about BFR?  Is that an apple or an orange?

My point, that NASA makes absurd amounts of money disappear, is still uncontested.  I can understand the argument that it took 120 billion to do something for the first time.  But how can anyone say, "Ok, that sounds fine" when NASA says it will cost $133 billion to do it again?

The hallmark of true science is repeatability to the point of accurate prediction.

Rama Set

Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #48 on: July 25, 2018, 04:08:59 PM »
You’ve done nothing to show NASA wastes money other than balling at budget sizes.

Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #49 on: July 25, 2018, 04:53:33 PM »

Do you seriously expected them to be efficient?

Inefficient isn't a good enough descriptor for NASA. Inefficient works for Boeing who will use $4.2 billion to do a job that really takes $2.6 billion to do. If you told me that this comparison is a description of not efficient I would agree.
 

Also, you seem to be ignoring the mission capabilities they are designing the SLS for. They go well beyond the interesting but much more limited SpaceX Falcon 9.

Fine. Apples and oranges. I get it. How about this then... We are being told that it takes $2.6 billion to build a system to deliver people to low earth orbit. All the Space shuttle ever claimed to do was deliveries to low earth orbit. How much did that cost to develop? If they were inefficient, it would have cost $5 billion. Maybe they were REALLY inefficient at $10 billion. Nope. NASA's original cost projection for the Shuttle was $43 billion to develop and $54 million per flight (inflation adjusted to 2011 dollars). These are all projections for space systems that can carry 7 people to low earth orbit.
 
We don't know the actual development cost of the Shuttle program. But we have been told that the actual per flight number didn't end up being $54 million. It's was $450 million. "Not efficient" cannot be an acceptable descriptor of NASA. I'd have to go with "conspiratorial" instead.
The hallmark of true science is repeatability to the point of accurate prediction.

Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2018, 04:56:02 PM »
You’ve done nothing to show NASA wastes money other than balling at budget sizes.
Comparing budget sizes is a valid method of inspecting claims of wasted money.

The hallmark of true science is repeatability to the point of accurate prediction.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2018, 05:28:24 PM »
Projects go over budget all the time.

Add in the fact that NASA had two VERY public fatality incidents with two separate missions, with all the inspection, revision and such that followed, with all the health and safety considerations thereafter, and I'm not surprised at all that they were well over budget.

I know of at least one public transport project in the UK that went three times over its original budget, and that didn't have any loss of life considerations at all ....

Anyone following on from this (SpaceX, etc.) has the benefit of hindsight with respect to what NASA did, and how that affects what they do, so any direct comparison between the pioneering project being more expensive than the project which followed it (both chronologically and logistically) would appear to be moot.   
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2018, 05:53:46 PM »
Projects go over budget all the time.

Add in the fact that NASA had two VERY public fatality incidents with two separate missions, with all the inspection, revision and such that followed, with all the health and safety considerations thereafter, and I'm not surprised at all that they were well over budget.

I know of at least one public transport project in the UK that went three times over its original budget, and that didn't have any loss of life considerations at all ....

Anyone following on from this (SpaceX, etc.) has the benefit of hindsight with respect to what NASA did, and how that affects what they do, so any direct comparison between the pioneering project being more expensive than the project which followed it (both chronologically and logistically) would appear to be moot.   
All well stated.  Your points work very well when a project goes three times over budget.
Don't you join me is questioning when the project goes 8 times over budget?  Or is thirty times more expensive than it needs to be?

Shouldn't NASA be included in organizations that "benefit of hindsight".  I have put effort into not comparing pioneering projects with follower projects.  The SLS booster is comparable to Falcon Heavy.  Orion is comparable to Dragon.  SLS will be comparable to BFR (when they exist).  It's not like I'm comparing Saturn V to Falcon 1.

Yes government costs more, yes human rated costs more.  Twice as much... fine.  Three times over budget... that happens.  I am agreeing with you guys about this.  But what are limits of your ability to just say space is hard and things go over budget?  At some point someone needs to ask what's really going on here.  If 20 times over actual costs is not enough for you what is?
The hallmark of true science is repeatability to the point of accurate prediction.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2018, 07:42:45 PM »
For some reason I didn't get notifications for this. Ok, so going back to my last posts, there seems to be some misunderstanding so I'll just go through it from scratch.

The rocket, composed of one airtight chamber with an attached airlock. That's two airtight doors, and it's inherently sturdier than a docking port made to break apart. All the living space the astronauts need; most of the room would be the artight chamber adjacent to the airlock.
The airlock contains a non-airtight lunar lander, a frame with a few rockets on as gone into before, the only important parts, strapped to the side of the airlock chamber. Maybe pockets to store samples, and for later missions other air tanks; when used up, they can be left behind. The astronauts wear their spacesuits for the duration of the moonwalk only.

This is just what I came up with in a few minutes, but it is preferred by every metric to the lie we're told.
A lunar module where they rely on such a fragile layer and the desperate prayer that there's no mistake in order to survive, constantly pressurizing and depressurizing unnecessarily complex mechanisms. A docking port and the inherent structural weakness it provides. It's not pretty or elegant though, which is where all the attention went.
Instead you want us to believe that for this huge, high profile, high risk operation they instead opted to multiply the number of risks instead of reduce.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2018, 07:46:18 PM »
2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle.
Not yet, it isn't.  It needs to have 7 successful unmanned flights in its final crew configuration before becoming man rated.  To the best of my knowledge, the required updated helium tanks were not included in any of the block 5 launches yet (the third launch was early this morning), so the F9 block 5 still needs at least 7 more launches before it can be man rated.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2018, 07:57:36 PM »
A lunar module where they rely on such a fragile layer and the desperate prayer that there's no mistake in order to survive, constantly pressurizing and depressurizing unnecessarily complex mechanisms.
Where are you getting the impression that the lunar module was "constantly pressurizing and depressurizing"?  To the best of my knowledge, the only times that it was depressurized and pressurized was for the EVAs.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2018, 08:29:07 PM »
This is just what I came up with in a few minutes, but it is preferred by every metric to the lie we're told.

Well, that's the problem. You expect everyone to accept that your few minutes of thought is preferable and more plausible than the  man-years of work that NASA, Grumman et al put into it ...
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2018, 08:57:56 PM »
2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle.
Not yet, it isn't.  It needs to have 7 successful unmanned flights in its final crew configuration before becoming man rated.  To the best of my knowledge, the required updated helium tanks were not included in any of the block 5 launches yet (the third launch was early this morning), so the F9 block 5 still needs at least 7 more launches before it can be man rated.

From spaceflightnow.com
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/05/11/spacex-debuts-an-improved-human-rated-model-of-the-falcon-9-rocket/

The successful launch propelled SpaceX closer to launching astronauts for NASA, which will fly on the same “Block 5” model of the Falcon 9 rocket that flew Friday
SpaceX engineers also added a permanent fix on the Block 5 upgrade to resolve a concern with turbine wheel cracks inside the Merlin engine’s turbopump, and new helium tanks that are not susceptible to pooling frozen liquid oxygen and friction that led to the explosion of a Falcon 9 rocket on the launch pad in 2016.
Both changes were meant to make the Falcon 9 compliant with NASA human-rating safety standards.

I guess if the Block 5 falcon has launched 3 times, they need 4 more.  The SpaceFlightNow launch schedule says that could be done by the end of August.  So unless SpaceX is planning to spend $42 billion in the next month, they should just come in under the NASA standard for low earth taxi service.
The hallmark of true science is repeatability to the point of accurate prediction.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2018, 09:31:37 PM »
A lunar module where they rely on such a fragile layer and the desperate prayer that there's no mistake in order to survive, constantly pressurizing and depressurizing unnecessarily complex mechanisms.
Where are you getting the impression that the lunar module was "constantly pressurizing and depressurizing"?  To the best of my knowledge, the only times that it was depressurized and pressurized was for the EVAs.
Which entails pressurizing and depressurizing, especially on later missions:
For the later Apollo missions the LM stayed on the surface for several days, so bring able to take off spacesuits is a requirement.
The lunar module didn't have an airlock. They had to vent all the air within it every time they wanted to go outside, and then it all rushed back in when they got back to the ship, or when they spent days down there and had to take their suits off.

This is just what I came up with in a few minutes, but it is preferred by every metric to the lie we're told.

Well, that's the problem. You expect everyone to accept that your few minutes of thought is preferable and more plausible than the  man-years of work that NASA, Grumman et al put into it ...
And that's the problem with you. As ever you just spam "You're wrong because I say so!" and have a religious objection to ever bothering to address a single point.
If a few minutes exposes multiple holes in the official story, that should tell you something if you weren't so blinkered as to believe in something you cannot defend.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2018, 10:10:42 PM »
A lunar module where they rely on such a fragile layer and the desperate prayer that there's no mistake in order to survive, constantly pressurizing and depressurizing unnecessarily complex mechanisms.
Where are you getting the impression that the lunar module was "constantly pressurizing and depressurizing"?  To the best of my knowledge, the only times that it was depressurized and pressurized was for the EVAs.
Which entails pressurizing and depressurizing, especially on later missions:
For the later Apollo missions the LM stayed on the surface for several days, so bring able to take off spacesuits is a requirement.
The lunar module didn't have an airlock. They had to vent all the air within it every time they wanted to go outside, and then it all rushed back in when they got back to the ship, or when they spent days down there and had to take their suits off.
You really should consider choosing your words more carefully because 1-2 depressurize/pressurize cycles per day can hardly be considered "constantly".  I would also think that the pressurization could be controlled well enough where the air could hardly be considered rushing back in.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 10:12:33 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.