The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 20, 2019, 06:46:37 PM

Title: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 20, 2019, 06:46:37 PM
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander (https://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander)

Quote
Upon close inspection one might notice that the Lunar Lander, a supposed six billion dollar hallmark of American engineering, is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface.
Let's run through the list.

Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: spherical on May 20, 2019, 07:19:31 PM
As an extra information, the LEM was not made to stand life support, it was just some kind of extra light vehicle to take astronauts from the orbiter to the lunar surface and back.  As a matter of fact it was very fragile, you could rupture its walls with a rock trow.  It doesn't needed to be solid or resistant, other than the structure to hold the fuel tanks and the rockets.  It has no sits or chairs, the astronauts stay standing while landing or launching.  Everything was done thinking in light weight, less fuel overall.  Each extra gram on LEM would need more fuel, would need more fuel on Saturn V, the weight multiplication was huge.  Every time one of the engineering groups could reduce few grams without compromising everything, it was commemorated. The clothes, boots, tools, cameras, films, food, should be lighter, smaller.  The astronaut gloves were made several times, each time lighter and more functional.  The boots dole was special made polymer, lighter and stronger.  Lots of things were left behind on launch back to the orbiter, just to have less weight possible for the rockets and fuel.  Everything was meticulously calculated and planned. Thousands of engineers and technicians worked very hard, thousands of hours, to reach that final possible solution.  Some people can't even understand how their fridge works.   
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tumeni on May 20, 2019, 08:47:40 PM
"Hostile conditions on the Moon", my a*se.

It's a vacuum with one-sixth of Earth gravity. Sure, it would kill a human without life support double quick, but for machinery, it's a walk in the park.

No wind, no weather, no atmospherics. Less gravity.

Sure, the crew compartment needed to be pressurised, but that had to hold less than one earth atmosphere.

Pretty much everything that can be seen on the outside was not part of the crew compartment, and much of it was non-structural. It was just there for thermal shielding of tanks, electrical panels and such. So it could be flimsy without affecting function.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 20, 2019, 09:38:45 PM
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 20, 2019, 09:49:30 PM
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.
What made you think that my OP was guesswork? (https://space.stackexchange.com/a/5900/31575)
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tumeni on May 20, 2019, 10:05:39 PM
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.

The Wiki provides zero evidence, only claims and speculation.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tumeni on May 20, 2019, 10:07:04 PM
Try to come up with actual content to consider.

OK. For a CLOSER LOOK at the LM;

Here's the pressure vessel viewed toward the top of the vehicle, showing the docking hatch which connected to the Command Module, and the rectangular window for viewing the docking aid. The windows and hatch used for entry and exit on the Moon are hidden, and are to the top of the assembly.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-05.jpg

Here's the view from the rear once most/all of the ancillary 'stuff' has been bolted onto the side of the pressure vessel. This includes various tanks, and the electrical/system panel (to the left in this photo). The CM hatch is to the top, and lunar hatch hidden to the right.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg

As you can see, we have pictures noID-05 and noID-16 here - change the URL manually in your browser bar, and you can see a host of others, from 02 to nn.

02 shows the intermediate stage of foil wrap
03 shows a tech working on the rear section, with CM hatch to the top
04 shows the descent stage
05 is referenced above
06 shows the descent stage from below
07 shows the ascent and descent stages together
08 shows both stages from the side, lunar hatch to the right
09 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to front right
10 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front, and some ancillaries attached
11 shows ascent stage from below with lunar hatch front left
12 shows ascent and descent stage with some ancillaries
13 shows 'naked' ascent and descent stages
14 shows descent stage
15 shows descent stage
16 is referenced above
17 shows transport of LM
18 shows rear of ascent stage with ancillaries, especially the electrical panel
19 shows the ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front
20 shows ascent stage from rear left with ancillaries
21 shows descent stage
22 shows transport of LM
23 shows ascent stage with ancillaries, lunar hatch front right
24 shows the fairing to go around the LM on the Saturn V
25 shows an almost-complete ascent stage, lunar hatch to the left
26 shows the pressure vessel atop the descent stage skeleton
27 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the rear
28 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the side, lunar hatch to the left

etc
etc
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 21, 2019, 09:19:40 AM
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.

The Wiki provides zero evidence, only claims and speculation.
I was about to say the same thing.
Tom, that entire Wiki page is you and others saying "this is what I think it looks like".
You provide no evidence for any of your assertions.
I can recommend "A Man On The Moon" by Andrew Chaikin if you're interested in a well researched book which gives a lot of detail about the Apollo programme and a bit of background about the Gemini and Mercury programmes which preceded it.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: spherical on May 21, 2019, 01:27:15 PM
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.

I live in Central Florida, went to NASA dozens of times.  There you can see, read, understand.  Coming from mils bground, that is exactly how things are done, brute, simple, easy, it needs to work, sometimes to work just once, it is not made for beauty. Other than that there is plenty of evidence at the Net, people who actually build such machines, engineers, diagrams, datasheets, astronauts, photos, movies, and much more.   

"Evidence" ?  Interesting word coming from a person who provides NONE EVIDENCE about his own preaching.   And yes, all over the world people wipe their *** with a flimsy very fragile and thin paper, not because people love to live dangerously close to have their fingers dirty, but because 999 in a 1000 it works nicely. Even you do it, but you never requested evidence from your mother about it.  That is how science works.  You try hundreds of times, if it works repeatedly, then it is evidence enough.

I have a long list of FE evidence requests here, several of them posted without a single answer, but I will not use this post to stir the pot.

Cheers,
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Bastian Baasch on May 21, 2019, 11:46:11 PM
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.

How ironic coming from you. Evidence has been provided, to the contrary, it's the wiki article lacking evidence. In fact, the only evidence provided is a photograph of the lunar module, and we all know what the FAQ says about photographs. Here's a quick refresher.
Quote
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.
How hypocritical of the wiki then to include an article that wholly relies on a photograph.

Even better is the "expert testimony" at the bottom. That drivel is nothing more than opinions from people on the internet, since when does opinion equal evidence? Are all those people master photo analyzers, can they magically see what things are made out of or what they are in that lunar lander photo?

Or is, "Looks like it, so it must be it," good enough evidence to conclude the lunar lander is nothing but a prop?
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: stack on May 22, 2019, 01:03:05 AM
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.

How ironic coming from you. Evidence has been provided, to the contrary, it's the wiki article lacking evidence. In fact, the only evidence provided is a photograph of the lunar module, and we all know what the FAQ says about photographs. Here's a quick refresher.
Quote
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.
How hypocritical of the wiki then to include an article that wholly relies on a photograph.

Even better is the "expert testimony" at the bottom. That drivel is nothing more than opinions from people on the internet, since when does opinion equal evidence? Are all those people master photo analyzers, can they magically see what things are made out of or what they are in that lunar lander photo?

Or is, "Looks like it, so it must be it," good enough evidence to conclude the lunar lander is nothing but a prop?

Wow, I've never looked at the lunar lander wiki page until now. Hilarious that the expert testimony is from theflatearthsociety.org members:

Tom (we all know Tom)
Mizzle - Last post 2012
Dutchy - Still kicking around over there
Cheryl Wiesbaden - Personal favorite. Almost seems legit with a name and such. Last post 2009

This whole wiki page is a sham. Why even bother having it? It's a picture. With an opinion: "... is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface."

No evidence. Not even remotely informative.

Then followed by quotes from society members? Seriously?

Add some actual evidence, ditch the lame opinion or retire it. It laughably makes the wiki look laughable.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2019, 02:03:07 AM
What do you mean that there is no evidence? A trashy looking space ship is the evidence.

You have provided zero compelling evidence that this space ship is actually made of state-of-the-art space-age tin foil, tape, and cardboard paper, or whatever you guys are mumbling about.

You guys are literally arguing "it only looks that way...", which is a failing argument that admits that it does look trashy.

"It only looks and seems that way" is your entire Round Earth Theory.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: stack on May 22, 2019, 05:41:29 AM
What do you mean that there is no evidence? A trashy looking space ship is the evidence.

You have provided zero compelling evidence that this space ship is actually made of state-of-the-art space-age tin foil, tape, and cardboard paper, or whatever you guys are mumbling about.

You guys are literally arguing "it only looks that way...", which is a failing argument that admits that it does look trashy.

"It only looks and seems that way" is your entire Round Earth Theory.

A trashy looking space ship is your evidence? Are you the arbiter of trashiness and space worthiness thereof? What credentials do you have to make such determinations without evidence? And conversely, if it were sleek and to your aesthetic pleasings, would it then be considered evidence of actually being used to land on the moon?

The wiki states:

"Upon close inspection one might notice that the Lunar Lander, a supposed six billion dollar hallmark of American engineering, is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface."

The burden of proof is on FE that the lander is, in truth, made out of things you mentioned:
- cardboard paper
- a few old curtain rods
- a roll of roofing paper
- some floodlight holders
- gold foil
- scotch tape

And it's laughable that you use quotes from users of the old forum as some sort of testimonial evidence to support the baseless claims. C'mon, get real. Would you accept this type of a wiki entry, just straight up assertions with no evidence, if it was anti your belief system? I think not. TFES can do better. Here it is not. You should really clean up things like this if you want to be taken seriously. It's embarrassing.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tumeni on May 22, 2019, 08:00:11 AM
What do you mean that there is no evidence? A trashy looking space ship is the evidence.

You have provided zero compelling evidence that this space ship is actually made of state-of-the-art space-age tin foil, tape, and cardboard paper, or whatever you guys are mumbling about.

You guys are literally arguing "it only looks that way...", which is a failing argument that admits that it does look trashy.

"It only looks and seems that way" is your entire Round Earth Theory.

No, the Wiki is the first person or entity to make a claim. All else is rebuttal of the Wiki's claim.

The Wiki claims "it looks like cardboard etc." without evidence. You say "it looks trashy". That's an opinion, not a fact.

"You have provided zero compelling evidence ...."

Disagree, disagree, disagree.

I provided a series of photographs showing it in varying states of construction, and showing that the central pressure vessel, along with other parts, is/are constructed of metal over a ribbed metal frame. I can easily find other citations of the construction described in words by those who designed and/or built it, if you REALLY want to know.

Do you?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730010174.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730010174.pdf)

"Aluminum alloys are used primarily in the construction of the ascent stage. The major alloys are 2219 and 7075-T6."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2219_aluminium_alloy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2219_aluminium_alloy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7075_aluminium_alloy#7075-T6 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7075_aluminium_alloy#7075-T6)

"CONCLUDING REMARKS

The structure of the lunar module has been designed and manufactured to reduce weight to a minimum. The design certification depended primarily on the ground test program. Formal analyses were made to supplement the test program and to serve as
a baseline for each mission. Testing at the component level was conducted when it was impractical to impose the required environment at the vehicle level.

Significant problem areas encountered were shear-panel fatigue, thickness control of panels, stress-corrosion cracking, machined-strut tolerances, and interchangeable parts similar in appearance but structurally different. The structural adequacy of the lunar module to meet the design environment conditions has been verified on 10 Apollo missions.

No problems associated with the primary lunar module occurred. The structural anomalies encountered during the mission were associated with the secondary structure and corrective action was taken. "
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 22, 2019, 01:26:53 PM
You have provided zero compelling evidence that this space ship is actually made of state-of-the-art space-age tin foil, tape, and cardboard paper, or whatever you guys are mumbling about.
I provided a lengthy post from another site that explains, in a lot of detail and with many external links, what the lander is made out of and why it looks the way it does. At least 57 people thought it was helpful, which considering the traffic the site gets makes it far more reliable than the people the wiki cites, who have no credentials on the matter at all.
Quote
You guys are literally arguing "it only looks that way...", which is a failing argument that admits that it does look trashy.
Does a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car? The Millennium Falcon gets insulted as "a piece of junk" yet can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Bastian Baasch on May 22, 2019, 02:04:49 PM
What do you mean that there is no evidence? A trashy looking space ship is the evidence.

You have provided zero compelling evidence that this space ship is actually made of state-of-the-art space-age tin foil, tape, and cardboard paper, or whatever you guys are mumbling about.

You guys are literally arguing "it only looks that way...", which is a failing argument that admits that it does look trashy.

"It only looks and seems that way" is your entire Round Earth Theory.

Have you read the bloody FAQ?
Quote
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.

Find some real evidence Bishop, then we can talk. Something looking trashy doesn't mean it is trash. At this point I'd make a you looking into the mirror joke, but you standing on such a weak argument makes me pity you.

Also, you still haven't addressed the "expert testimony" at the bottom of the wiki page. Again, opinion doesn't equal evidence. I understand a statement like that might be difficult for you to understand, but we'll work through this until you do.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: tellytubby on May 22, 2019, 03:31:13 PM
Quote
Does a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car? The Millennium Falcon gets insulted as "a piece of junk" yet can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

I can't say that I am a great authority on the Millenium Falcon or its performance. But the way this is worded makes it sound like the parsec is a unit of time.  In astronomy it is a unit of distance equal to 3.26 lightyears. Whether they have re-invented the parsec in Star Wars as a unit of time I don't know.

This is pointed out in the Wikipedia page about the MF.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 22, 2019, 04:56:14 PM
Quote
Does a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car? The Millennium Falcon gets insulted as "a piece of junk" yet can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

I can't say that I am a great authority on the Millenium Falcon or its performance. But the way this is worded makes it sound like the parsec is a unit of time.  In astronomy it is a unit of distance equal to 3.26 lightyears. Whether they have re-invented the parsec in Star Wars as a unit of time I don't know.

This is pointed out in the Wikipedia page about the MF.
My point is: Luke calls the Falcon a piece of junk, but it actually outperforms almost all other ships of its class—that's what the "12 parsecs" figure was intended to mean.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on May 22, 2019, 04:58:20 PM
I'm slowly starting to realise that the wiki isn't an attempt at a fact-based repository of information supporting FET, it's just an opinion piece dressed up as something more. Tom won't take your pictures and evidence into account, as he's already seen a picture of the lunar lander, made up his mind, and stuck it on the wiki page.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on May 22, 2019, 05:01:52 PM
Whether they have re-invented the parsec in Star Wars as a unit of time I don't know.

Whether it was originally intended as a joke or it was just a mistake I'm not sure, but this was cleared up in one of the recent movies (Solo). They re-do the Kessel run and end up taking a shortcut that means the distance they travel is shorter than the normal run.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2019, 09:59:00 PM
Quote
Something looking trashy doesn't mean it is trash

Quote
Does a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car?

I just see agreements with the premise of the Wiki.

The added "it only looks like a rubbish heap, but really it's a super advanced spaceship" isn't very compelling, to me.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 22, 2019, 10:33:43 PM
The thing you are missing, Tom, is that NASA doesn't give a damn about aesthetics. The only people they're selling to is their own engineers, and making the LM look pretty would not have appealed to an engineer in the way that a sleek-looking laptop might appeal to a consumer. It was contained in a fairing at launch, so streamlining it wasn't necessary.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Bastian Baasch on May 22, 2019, 10:34:37 PM
Quote
Something looking trashy doesn't mean it is trash

Quote
Does a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car?

I just see agreements with the premise of the Wiki.

The added "it only looks like a rubbish heap, but really it's a super advanced spaceship" isn't very compelling, to me.

And I just see someone ignoring the arguments presented. First off all, those aren;t agreements, they're observations about "trashiness" in general and what it means in relation to function, it doesn't mean we agree with you. Second, the premises of the wiki are faulty. It's based on one photograph. We all know what the FAQ says about photographs.
Quote
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.
What happened to that diehard zeteticism of yours that you, the glorious leader of TFES, would stoop down to the level of accepting a photograph as evidence? What wanton hypocrisy! Have you ever observed the lunar lander in person, did you go up to it and personally inspect the parts? Did you find scotch tape and curtain rods?  If you didn't, how can you conclusively say that the lunar lander is just a big prop?

Second, this is a point you've not addressed, but what's up with the quotes at the bottom of the wiki page? Is that supposed to be evidence? The opinions of random people on the Internet is not evidence, they're just opinions and it only further degrades the wiki page.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tumeni on May 23, 2019, 06:12:00 AM
Quote
Something looking trashy doesn't mean it is trash

Quote
Does a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car?

I just see agreements with the premise of the Wiki.

The added "it only looks like a rubbish heap, but really it's a super advanced spaceship" isn't very compelling, to me.

I refer you back to #6 and #13.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Bastian Baasch on May 25, 2019, 09:20:08 PM
None of the Wiki gives an opinion, and is merely a collection of sources The opinions are from third parties.

Tom, given this statement from the Bishop Experiment thread, would you care to clarify what the Lunar Module wiki article is then?
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2019, 09:23:35 PM
Multiple people are agreeing in this thread that it looks trashy. What more is there to discuss?
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Bastian Baasch on May 25, 2019, 09:29:04 PM
Multiple people are agreeing in this thread that it looks trashy. What more is there to discuss?

You said yourself none of the wiki is an opinion, yet the lunar module article provides no evidence but your and several others' opinions of the lunar module photo. This also simultaneously invalidates the claim that the wiki sources are third party, unless you consider yourself, and other forum users a third party source? Either you think opinions are evidence, or your claims are wrong. Which is it?
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: stack on May 25, 2019, 09:44:33 PM
Multiple people are agreeing in this thread that it looks trashy. What more is there to discuss?

The wiki states:

"Upon close inspection one might notice that the Lunar Lander, a supposed six billion dollar hallmark of American engineering, is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface."

Where is the evidence that the lander is, in truth, made out of things you mentioned:
- cardboard paper
- a few old curtain rods
- a roll of roofing paper
- some floodlight holders
- gold foil
- scotch tape

Or is the wiki just lying?
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tumeni on May 25, 2019, 09:54:22 PM
Multiple people are agreeing in this thread that it looks trashy. What more is there to discuss?

The fact that it was not made of the materials that you listed in the Wiki.

Oh, hang on - I did that already.
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on May 25, 2019, 10:07:00 PM
Multiple people are agreeing in this thread that it looks trashy. What more is there to discuss?
> Ignore that the wiki article states that it's made out of cardboard
> Pretend this discussion is about how trashy it looks, rather than what it's made of
> /thread

And we can all make it home in time for dinner!
Title: Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
Post by: markjo on May 25, 2019, 10:39:50 PM
Multiple people are agreeing in this thread that it looks trashy. What more is there to discuss?
What, if anything, the "trashy" appearance of the LM has to do with its legitimacy or functionality?