The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Rekt on January 27, 2017, 04:44:01 PM
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
Read it. Cited sources, well written.
A common theory that I have heard is that the Lunar Lander is too flimsy. This is not the case. So for the forces it had to endure, it had to hold in 1 atmosphere of pressure difference. A commercial helium balloon has ~2 atmospheres of pressure inside of it, and when acted upon by the outside atmosphere, this means that it has ~1 atmosphere pressure difference. Also, the gravity on the moon is 1/8th of that on earth. So same pressure at 1/8th gravity.
-
Oh by golly. A wikipedia article. Case closed everyone, nothing to see here!
FYI: You would be able to see the obvious bias in the article if you weren't so obviously biased yourself
-
Oh by golly. A wikipedia article. Case closed everyone, nothing to see here!
FYI: You would be able to see the obvious bias in the article if you weren't so obviously biased yourself
I don't get why you discount it due to being a Wikipedia article. It has cited sources, is well written, and inline citations, something that YOUR arguments lack. You also fail to acknowledge my own argument.
-
It is not well written. The entirety of the entry is written with a smug, condescending tone, with cherry picked rebuttals.
The reason I bring up the fact it was a Wikipedia article is to bring up how ridiculous it is to assume people familiar with the conspiracy haven't seen it already... like it's some kind of new smoking gun revelation.
-
It is not well written. The entirety of the entry is written with a smug, condescending tone, with cherry picked rebuttals.
The reason I bring up the fact it was a Wikipedia article is to bring up how ridiculous it is to assume people familiar with the conspiracy haven't seen it already... like it's some kind of new smoking gun revelation.
Again, you fail to acknowledge my point about the lander.
-
the Lunar Lander is too flimsy.
where are the tanks storing enough air for 33 hours ?
where are the batteries storing electricity for 33 hours ?
where is the tank with the rocket fuel to launch and accelerate the module to 4,500 miles per hour ?
how did they shit and piss in that module (and space suit), and where did they put it ?
-
It is not well written. The entirety of the entry is written with a smug, condescending tone, with cherry picked rebuttals.
The reason I bring up the fact it was a Wikipedia article is to bring up how ridiculous it is to assume people familiar with the conspiracy haven't seen it already... like it's some kind of new smoking gun revelation.
Again, you fail to acknowledge my point about the lander.
There is no wide shot video of the lander ever actually LANDING. I'm talking about on just Earth. Without bursting into a ball of fire.
-
the Lunar Lander is too flimsy.
where are the tanks storing enough air for 33 hours ?
where are the batteries storing electricity for 33 hours ?
where is the tank with the rocket fuel to launch and accelerate the module to 4,500 miles per hour ?
how did they shit and piss in that module (and space suit), and where did they put it ?
Lunar Module Vehicle Familiarization Manual (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Fam-Manual.pdf)
Apollo Lunar Module Documentation (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html)
Have fun
There is no wide shot video of the lander ever actually LANDING. I'm talking about on just Earth. Without bursting into a ball of fire.
It wasn't designed to land on earth. It can't land on earth. It was designed to land on the moon. Hence the name Lunar Lander.
-
It is not well written. The entirety of the entry is written with a smug, condescending tone, with cherry picked rebuttals.
The reason I bring up the fact it was a Wikipedia article is to bring up how ridiculous it is to assume people familiar with the conspiracy haven't seen it already... like it's some kind of new smoking gun revelation.
Again, you fail to acknowledge my point about the lander.
There is no wide shot video of the lander ever actually LANDING. I'm talking about on just Earth. Without bursting into a ball of fire.
The Lunar Lander never went to earth, only from it. The Command Module, which stayed in orbit around the moon, along with the Service Module, which was fuel and life support for the Command module, was what was used to return to earth from the moon, and the Command Module was what re-entered
-
The Lunar Lander was indeed of rigorous enough construction to withstand the vacuum of space and the radiation emitted by the Sun [/sarcasm].
"Fire photon torpedoes, Mr. Sulu! Raise shields!"
LOL!!!
-
The Lunar Lander was indeed of rigorous enough construction to withstand the vacuum of space and the radiation emitted by the Sun [/sarcasm].
"Fire photon torpedoes, Mr. Sulu! Raise shields!"
LOL!!!
Thanks for clearing up that your denial of the cold war in my other post was complete satire.
-
The Lunar Lander was indeed of rigorous enough construction to withstand the vacuum of space and the radiation emitted by the Sun [/sarcasm].
"Fire photon torpedoes, Mr. Sulu! Raise shields!"
LOL!!!
Thanks for clearing up that your denial of the cold war in my other post was complete satire.
And thank you for cementing the fact your inability to render written material and accurately elucidate tenor/tone/meaning.
Dude, if you believe the LM went to the moon, I can't help you.
-
The Lunar Lander was indeed of rigorous enough construction to withstand the vacuum of space and the radiation emitted by the Sun [/sarcasm].
"Fire photon torpedoes, Mr. Sulu! Raise shields!"
LOL!!!
Thanks for clearing up that your denial of the cold war in my other post was complete satire.
And thank you for cementing the fact your inability to render written material and accurately elucidate tenor/tone/meaning.
Dude, if you believe the LM went to the moon, I can't help you.
Again, in my original post, I explain that the forces of space aren't actually that bad. Around 1 atmosphere of pressure difference, a balloon can handle that. The acceleration experienced is minimal. The common vision of spaceships as streamlined and solid are just that, visions. The Space Shuttle only looked so solid as it had to enter the atmosphere. Anything that doesn't go into the atmosphere doesn't need much.
-
Again, in my original post, I explain that the forces of space aren't actually that bad. Around 1 atmosphere of pressure difference, a balloon can handle that. The acceleration experienced is minimal. The common vision of spaceships as streamlined and solid are just that, visions. The Space Shuttle only looked so solid as it had to enter the atmosphere. Anything that doesn't go into the atmosphere doesn't need much.
Why are you trying to use a balloon as a comparison?
What happens to a balloon in a vacuum?
The common vision of spaceships remains ever locked as a dream in some yokel's mind, eager to foist that crap on any ole bloke who will accept...
-
Have fun
The links you provided would not co-operate with me
Other question: if, in 1972, we had small batteries that powered a Moon Jeep for 33 hours, 40 years later why are we giving Elon tons of money to invent a battery that would power a car-radio over the week-end ?
-
Have fun
The links you provided would not co-operate with me
Other question: if, in 1972, we had small batteries that powered a Moon Jeep for 33 hours, 40 years later why are we giving Elon tons of money to invent a battery that would power a car-radio over the week-end ?
Did you bother to check on the details before ridiculing from a position of total ignorance? Lunar Rover, What was its power source on the moon?
The Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle was an electric vehicle designed to operate in the low-gravity vacuum of the Moon and to be capable of traversing the lunar surface, allowing the Apollo astronauts to extend the range of their surface extravehicular activities. … Each wheel had its own electric drive, a DC series wound 0.25 hp (200 W) motor capable of 10,000 rpm, attached to the wheel via an 80:1 harmonic drive, and a mechanical brake unit. Maneuvering capability was provided through the use of front and rear steering motors. Each series wound DC steering motor was capable of 0.1 hp (100 W). Both sets of wheels would turn in opposite directions, giving a steering radius of 10 feet (3 m), or could be decoupled so only one set would be used for steering. They could also free-wheel in case of drive failure. Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 A·h. These were used to power the drive and steering motors.
. . . . . . Developed in just 17 months, the 3.1-metre vehicle was powered by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide batteries, enabling a top speed of 8mph.
From: True Strange Library, Lunar Rover What was its power source on the moon? (https://truestrange.com/2008/03/24/how-was-the-lunar-rover-assembled-and-what-was-its-power-source-on-the-moon/)
You did notice that the lunar rover put out a TOTAL of ONE HP, while the Tesla Model S P100D can put out 760 HP.
Just remember that the lower "gravity" on the moon will reduce the energy needed considerebly.
You claim that "small batteries that powered a Moon Jeep for 33 hours". Where did you get the idea that "powered a Lunar Rover for 33 hours"?
Again I'm afraid your ignorance is showing. Even now the Tesla
"P100D model has a 100 kWh battery, a 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) time of 2.54 seconds, and has an option of 2.389 seconds, via a software update, and over 300 miles (485 km) of EPA rated range."
From: Wikipedia, Tesla Model S (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S)
And ask why "40 years later why are we giving Elon tons of money to invent a battery that would power a car-radio over the week-end?"
The 1 kWh battery in my car will "power a car-radio over the week-end", with charge left over! Tesla already has a 100 kWh battery in the model-S.
But, I imagine that the government is more interested in the Tesla Powerwall units, see Wikipedia, Tesla Powerwall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall).
But, please, oh please never stop believing in your flat earth, the Globe just could not stand your level of ignorance and lack of desire to learn anything.
You are just like so many other flat earthers, ridicule what you cannot understand. Why not put some effort into understanding it, so as to appear less ignorant.
Then if there really are technical issues, you might be able to argue from a position of strength!
-
and how did it get there without track marks ?
-
Again, in my original post, I explain that the forces of space aren't actually that bad. Around 1 atmosphere of pressure difference, a balloon can handle that. The acceleration experienced is minimal. The common vision of spaceships as streamlined and solid are just that, visions. The Space Shuttle only looked so solid as it had to enter the atmosphere. Anything that doesn't go into the atmosphere doesn't need much.
Why are you trying to use a balloon as a comparison?
What happens to a balloon in a vacuum?
The common vision of spaceships remains ever locked as a dream in some yokel's mind, eager to foist that crap on any ole bloke who will accept...
It's a bad one, but the LM is much more solid than a baloon.