[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

Their way was completely untested

No, it wasn't.

Mercury and Gemini programmes were used to work on the basics of orbital motion, docking, etc.

The actual Apollo Command and Service Modules and Lunar Module were tested in Earth orbit as part of Apollo missions 4 thru 10.

Apollo 10 did everything that Apollo 11 would do except land. The LM went to within a few miles of the lunar surface.

Untested? No, no, no......

[JRowe]

Their way was completely untested.

But their way was tested.  It was tested in vacuum chambers on earth.  It was tested with an unmanned flight in earth orbit.  It was tested with a manned flight in earth orbit.  It was tested with a manned flight that came to within 10 miles of landing on the moon.  It was tested with 6 manned landings on the moon.  It was pushed beyond its design limits with the aborted Apollo 13 mission where lives were on the line.

How much testing have you done on your unpressurized LM idea?

If you are just trying to drive me insane, let me know, there have got to be more efficient ways than your constant run-around.

Their way was completely untested

No, it wasn't.

Mercury and Gemini programmes were used to work on the basics of orbital motion, docking, etc.

The actual Apollo Command and Service Modules and Lunar Module were tested in Earth orbit as part of Apollo missions 4 thru 10.

Apollo 10 did everything that Apollo 11 would do except land. The LM went to within a few miles of the lunar surface.

Untested? No, no, no......

Ditto for you, it's like talking to a brick wall.

But that isn't how science and engineering work.  Science and engineering have very specific meaning for words so that there is as little confusion as possible.

Jesus christ will you stop whinging over nothing and focus on the science at some point?!

You seriously don't have any idea of what those experiments were or what it took to set them up, do you?  Also, what's wrong with getting more samples from a wider area?

Are you ever going to say anything of substance?

Are you ever going to provide any evidence that 4.8 psi is too much strain for the LM to handle?

I have literally never said that it was, just that the constant pressurization and depressurization imparts unnecessary strain. Now will you stopp blatantly lying and answer a straight question already?!

By arguing that your LM would be better than NASA's LM implies that you accept the moon landings were real, otherwise we might just as well be arguing whether Superman could beat the Hulk in an arm wrestling match.

What are you on about?! I have and have always been demonstrating that the NASA claims of the moon landing were a propaganda piece, designed to play up the cool factor, fun trivia, the tin foil holding out vacuum, the bright and shining gold... It's impractical precisely because it's not real, any sensible engineer would have pointed out that the much better solution would be both safer and uglier, but uglier's just unacceptable when you're not leaving Earth and want a propaganda victory.
And the fact that you are unable to defend your model, and indeed outright refuse to actually respond to straight questions, should tell you all you need to know about how much sense your party line really makes.

[markjo]

Are you ever going to provide any evidence that 4.8 psi is too much strain for the LM to handle?

I have literally never said that it was, just that the constant pressurization and depressurization imparts unnecessary strain. Now will you stopp blatantly lying and answer a straight question already?!

Sure, just as soon as you show some evidence that the strain of "constant pressurization and depressurization" should be of any concern to a properly designed LM.  Remember, just screaming "OMG, tinfoil, lives on the line" is not evidence.  Believe it or not, common sense isn't evidence when talking about such an uncommon project either.

By arguing that your LM would be better than NASA's LM implies that you accept the moon landings were real, otherwise we might just as well be arguing whether Superman could beat the Hulk in an arm wrestling match.

What are you on about?! I have and have always been demonstrating that the NASA claims of the moon landing were a propaganda piece, designed to play up the cool factor, fun trivia, the tin foil holding out vacuum, the bright and shining gold... It's impractical precisely because it's not real, any sensible engineer would have pointed out that the much better solution would be both safer and uglier, but uglier's just unacceptable when you're not leaving Earth and want a propaganda victory.

Are you an engineer?  Do you have an engineering background?  BTW, common sense says that the "tin foil" is supposed to keep the air in, not the vacuum out.  A sensible engineer would agree that the "shining gold" is quite good for thermal management.

And the fact that you are unable to defend your model, and indeed outright refuse to actually respond to straight questions, should tell you all you need to know about how much sense your party line really makes.

My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.

[Tom Bishop]

My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.

That's a rather poor argument, Markjo. If Apollo was phony, then those people don't actually exist as you assume to exist.

The fact is that you need to defend Apollo, and can't expect to appeal to NASA's authority.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

That's a rather poor argument, Markjo. If Apollo was phony, then those people don't actually exist as you assume to exist.

>>> Prove that it was phony, then, without any 'appeal to authority'....

The fact is that you need to defend Apollo, and can't expect to appeal to NASA's authority.

OK, here goes;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (a summary - looking at all the individual instances should take more than a few minutes)

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/ (there's 60 pages of references to the work done by scientists based on Apollo and other mission data, experiments and samples. Again, this should take more than a few minutes to digest)

https://csiropedia.csiro.au/parkes-radio-telescope-and-the-apollo-11-moon-landing/  (There were six other tracking stations around the world)

https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-convince-my-dad-that-Apollo-11-went-to-the-moon (,,, and, once you've digested all of the above.....)

[Tumeni]

It's pressure that ought to be completely unnecessary for the lunar module, hence my whole point, we get fed a story about a ridiculous and thoroughly impractical construction because it looks good and has a cool factor

This looks cool;



as does;



and;





But this.....



This is just plain fu-ugly.

The Lunar Module was light years away from "cool" ....

[AATW]

I have literally never said that it was, just that the constant pressurization and depressurization imparts unnecessary strain.

OK. And as I said to you some time ago when you said that, in any engineering projects design decisions have to be made. There are often multiple ways of solving a problem and all will have some pros and some cons. There is rarely a perfect solution and any solution will involve some compromise.
The downside of this decision was pressurising and re-pressurising the LM. But the pressure was relatively low, well within the tolerance of the strength of the material and the benefit was it meant the astronauts didn't have to spend days at a time in their space suits. Fun fact, one of the first things on the schedule after the descent of Apollo 11 was a rest time. They didn't just land, get out, plant a flag, walk around a bit, pick up some rocks and take off again. The later missions were there for several days. So I can see why the decision was made.
And once again I'd ask you what your qualifications and experience are which allow you to proclaim that a load of NASA engineers are dullards who designed it all wrong and you'd have done a much better job. I can recommened "A Man On The Moon" by Andrew Chaikin if you want to learn more about the Apollo missions, loads of interesting detail in there.

[markjo]

My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.

That's a rather poor argument, Markjo. If Apollo was phony, then those people don't actually exist as you assume to exist.

The fact is that you need to defend Apollo, and can't expect to appeal to NASA's authority.

Who's authority should I appeal to when talking about manned moon missions?  Remember that appealing to a legitimate authority in a relevant field is not a fallacy.

[JRowe]

Sure, just as soon as you show some evidence that the strain of "constant pressurization and depressurization" should be of any concern to a properly designed LM.

At any point are you going to explain why unnecessray strain would be the chosen path, or are you just going to keep evading that and keep claiming I haven't shown repeatedly that it is unnecessary?
Lives are on the line. Don't dismiss that as some minor quirk. If you have a choice between something with unnecessary strain and more things that can go wrong, and something significantly safer where mistakes only ever affect one person rather than everyone, which would you pick?

My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.

ie: appeal to authority, pure fallacy.
It was designed and built by people that ought to have logical reasons for doing so. Instead you're just going to blindly believe what you're told. What is even the point in talking with you?

I have literally never said that it was, just that the constant pressurization and depressurization imparts unnecessary strain.

OK. And as I said to you some time ago when you said that, in any engineering projects design decisions have to be made. There are often multiple ways of solving a problem and all will have some pros and some cons. There is rarely a perfect solution and any solution will involve some compromise.
The downside of this decision was pressurising and re-pressurising the LM. But the pressure was relatively low, well within the tolerance of the strength of the material and the benefit was it meant the astronauts didn't have to spend days at a time in their space suits. Fun fact, one of the first things on the schedule after the descent of Apollo 11 was a rest time. They didn't just land, get out, plant a flag, walk around a bit, pick up some rocks and take off again. The later missions were there for several days. So I can see why the decision was made.

Instead of butting in the middle of a thread without reading it, how about going back and seeing that that has already been brought up and refuted?
There was no benefit to spending days there. There just wasn't. You get a lot of handwaving, claims, but all of it is easy for a semi-competent team to get done in a few hours. I confronted Markjo about that, and as with the rest he just evades the question.

[markjo]

Sure, just as soon as you show some evidence that the strain of "constant pressurization and depressurization" should be of any concern to a properly designed LM.

At any point are you going to explain why unnecessray strain would be the chosen path, or are you just going to keep evading that and keep claiming I haven't shown repeatedly that it is unnecessary?

You say that the strain is unnecessary.  I say that the strain is well within the material's ability to handle safely and is therefore of little concern. 

Lives are on the line. Don't dismiss that as some minor quirk. If you have a choice between something with unnecessary strain and more things that can go wrong, and something significantly safer where mistakes only ever affect one person rather than everyone, which would you pick?

I'm not dismissing the fact that lives are on the line, and neither did the astronauts who flew in the LMs.  However, when you weigh the risks vs benefits of a pressurized vs unpressurized LM, everyone involved seemed to agree that the benefits out weighed the additional risks.

My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.

ie: appeal to authority, pure fallacy.

Nope, not when appealing to a recognized authority in the relevant field.

It was designed and built by people that ought to have logical reasons for doing so.

They did.  The fact that you don't have the background to recognize those reasons is not their problem.

Instead you're just going to blindly believe what you're told. What is even the point in talking with you?

I'm no rocket scientist, but I do have enough of a scientific and technical background to find the explanations at least plausible.

There was no benefit to spending days there. There just wasn't. You get a lot of handwaving, claims, but all of it is easy for a semi-competent team to get done in a few hours. I confronted Markjo about that, and as with the rest he just evades the question.

One of the main benefits of a longer stay is that you don't have to rush your mission.  Your own estimate was that astronauts could work effectively for about 8 hours in their space suits.  That isn't a whole lot of time to prep your lander for descent, land on the moon, do your science mission, collect samples, prep the ascent stage and return to the command module.  Armstrong and Aldrin spent about 2.5 hours on their moon walks, but spent over 22 hours from lunar landing to take off.

Another benefit that I keep pointing out is that more time =  more science.  You're already spending billions of dollars for the program.  Why shouldn't you get as much science out of it as possible?

[AATW]

Instead of butting in the middle of a thread without reading it, how about going back and seeing that that has already been brought up and refuted?

I have read it and I saw that.
You saying "they wouldn't have needed that long" is not refuting it.
Refute means: "prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove."
You saying "didn't", isn't refuting anything. It is just your opinion and I'll ask again what qualifications and experience you have in this field, what is your opinion based on?
I mean, I don't have a heap of experience either, but I'm not the one pontificating about what they should have done.
It's like me saying "metal is really heavy and they decide to make ships out of it? What kind of stupid decision is that? Polystyrene is much lighter and it floats on water anyway, they should make ships out of that!". Have I just refuted the idea that ships are made of metal? No, I've just spoken from a position of ignorance about ship building. It neither proves nor demonstrates anything.

Once again I'd recommend "A Man On The Moon" by Andew Chaikin. Load of information in here about the Apollo missions and Mercury and Gemini which proceeded them.