*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
The Lunar Module
« on: July 10, 2018, 05:36:09 PM »
How many innocents continue to believe sweet fictions like Neil Armstrong hobbling about on the moon after climbing out of a capsule made of tin foil?

In itself, this statement is a lie. The lunar module was not "made of tinfoil". Much of it required little in terms of structural integrity, since it would be exposed to no wind, weather, or other environmental elements. At the core of it was a pressure vessel for the astronauts, and many of the functional elements were bolted on to the side of this.

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.



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.



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



No doubt JRowe will take me to task for "discussing space travel" when he doesn't think I should, but I really don't see the need for a new thread to specifically rebut something within this one.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6507
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2018, 07:15:15 PM »
How many innocents continue to believe sweet fictions like Neil Armstrong hobbling about on the moon after climbing out of a capsule made of tin foil?

In itself, this statement is a lie.

Incorrect. The cabin was very thin, barely thicker than tin foil.

From http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/001072.html

Quote
A quick look at my reference data shows that the pressurized cabin web thickness was specified as thin as "0.015 to 0.025" inches thick. About every 3-4 inches the thickness increased to "0.055 to 0.065" inches, centered on ribs of 0.812 inches depth, 0.04 inches wide.

then..

Quote
As a further follow-up, I wanted to verify a few dimensions and get a true sense of perspective on how thin 0.012-0.015 inches really is.

According to this ALCOA source, US aluminum beverage can walls were approximately 0.015 inches thick in the 1970s. According to this excellent Scientific American article from September 1994, The Aluminum Beverage Can, can wall thicknesses were reduced even further to 0.003-0.006 inches. This study shows that US aluminum soda cans with walls 0.005 inches thin can contain internal gas/liquid pressure loads of 50+ psi.

Moving away from aluminum pressure vessels, I wanted to check relevant dimensions of aluminum sheet and foil. According to this Aluminum Industry document, aluminum sheet is a product 0.008-0.249 inches thick (previously 0.006-0.249 inches), and aluminum foil is a product 0.0079 inches or less thick (previously less than 0.006 inches). Reynolds Wrap Aluminum Kitchen Foil varies in thickness from 0.00064-0.00137 inches as you progress from the standard product to the extra heavy product. So while the aluminum skin of the Apollo LM crew cabin may have been, in certain areas, the equivalent of 3 (very thick) layers of aluminum foil, that foil was not thin modern-day kitchen foil grade. Perhaps kitchen foil of the 1960s-1970s was an awful lot thicker!

Overall, the chem-milled aluminum skin was sufficiently robust for the lunar landing missions. While you may not have been able to push your finger through the side walls, a sharp pointed object or a stray foot may have resulted in disaster so care was needed. Andrew Chaikin wrote in A Man On The Moon (p156):

    "In the ascent stage, the walls of the crew cabin were thinned down until they were nothing more than a taut aluminum balloon, in some places only five-thousandths of an inch thick. Once, a workman accidentally dropped a screwdriver inside the cabin and it went through the floor."
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 07:22:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2018, 08:28:07 PM »
The cabin was very thin, barely thicker than tin foil.

So you agree, then, it was THICKER than tin foil?


A quick look at my reference data shows that the pressurized cabin web thickness was specified as ...

.. but we can see from the photos that the construction is clearly not a single layer of that material. So again, you appear to agree it was not "made of tin foil" ...

==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8746
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2018, 08:54:17 PM »
No doubt JRowe will take me to task for "discussing space travel" when he doesn't think I should, but I really don't see the need for a new thread to specifically rebut something within this one.

Yeah, this is off-topic and derails the other thread. I've split the lunar module posts and moved the new thread to FEI for those who want to continue to discuss.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2018, 09:02:46 PM »
No doubt JRowe will take me to task for "discussing space travel" when he doesn't think I should, but I really don't see the need for a new thread to specifically rebut something within this one.
Enjoy your new thread  :P

Ok! Time to have some fun.

Honestly I think my favorite summary of how ludicrous all this is:
Quote
    "In the ascent stage, the walls of the crew cabin were thinned down until they were nothing more than a taut aluminum balloon, in some places only five-thousandths of an inch thick. Once, a workman accidentally dropped a screwdriver inside the cabin and it went through the floor."

Absolutely something that's going to be capable of making and surviving the journey. It's going to tear, it just is. Even with everything REers say about the lack of a lunar atmosphere, air isn't the only force that is going to act on an object, it still needs to have basic structural integrity. Simply being dropped to the moon is going to impart acceleration, and so a force, which is not going to be perfectly uniformly distributed.
Further, and more importantly, why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out. What does it actually contribute?
Answer: aesthetic. It's shiny, it's how people wanted space travel to look. White and gold, naturally triumphant colors; it's pure propaganda.
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2018, 11:01:58 PM »
Absolutely something that's going to be capable of making and surviving the journey. It's going to tear, it just is.

WHY? Because you say so?

Even with everything REers say about the lack of a lunar atmosphere, air isn't the only force that is going to act on an object, it still needs to have basic structural integrity.

Please name the other forces. You can see the construction of the pressure vessel in the picture. Does it look to you as though it has no structural integrity?

Simply being dropped to the moon is going to impart acceleration, and so a force, which is not going to be perfectly uniformly distributed.

That's your 'other forces'?

Further, and more importantly, why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out.

Do some research, for goodness' sake. The mission(s) as a whole lasted anywhere from 8 to 12 days. For much of this time the LM was docked to the CM in transit between Earth and Moon and in lunar orbit. The crew did not live in their spacesuits for the whole of the missions. The environmental control systems were designed for them to wear overalls and breathe cabin air for most of the time. 
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2018, 11:13:34 PM »
Absolutely something that's going to be capable of making and surviving the journey. It's going to tear, it just is.

WHY? Because you say so?

Even with everything REers say about the lack of a lunar atmosphere, air isn't the only force that is going to act on an object, it still needs to have basic structural integrity.

Please name the other forces. You can see the construction of the pressure vessel in the picture. Does it look to you as though it has no structural integrity?

Simply being dropped to the moon is going to impart acceleration, and so a force, which is not going to be perfectly uniformly distributed.

That's your 'other forces'?

Further, and more importantly, why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out.

Do some research, for goodness' sake. The mission(s) as a whole lasted anywhere from 8 to 12 days. For much of this time the LM was docked to the CM in transit between Earth and Moon and in lunar orbit. The crew did not live in their spacesuits for the whole of the missions. The environmental control systems were designed for them to wear overalls and breathe cabin air for most of the time.
So, you begin by acting affronted when i provide an answer in the next sentence. All in all, pretty silly. Acceleration relies on forces, and tin foil can hardly stand up to much.

Yes, the lunar module was docked for most of the mission, why do you think that in any way contradicts my point? it's the command module that would need to be airtight. The lunar module has no such requirement.
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 nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2018, 11:36:43 PM »
Incorrect. The cabin was very thin, barely thicker than tin foil.

From http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/001072.html

Quote
A quick look at my reference data shows that the pressurized cabin web thickness was specified as thin as "0.015 to 0.025" inches thick. About every 3-4 inches the thickness increased to "0.055 to 0.065" inches, centered on ribs of 0.812 inches depth, 0.04 inches wide.

then..

Quote
As a further follow-up, I wanted to verify a few dimensions and get a true sense of perspective on how thin 0.012-0.015 inches really is.

According to this ALCOA source, US aluminum beverage can walls were approximately 0.015 inches thick in the 1970s. According to this excellent Scientific American article from September 1994, The Aluminum Beverage Can, can wall thicknesses were reduced even further to 0.003-0.006 inches. This study shows that US aluminum soda cans with walls 0.005 inches thin can contain internal gas/liquid pressure loads of 50+ psi.

Moving away from aluminum pressure vessels, I wanted to check relevant dimensions of aluminum sheet and foil. According to this Aluminum Industry document, aluminum sheet is a product 0.008-0.249 inches thick (previously 0.006-0.249 inches), and aluminum foil is a product 0.0079 inches or less thick (previously less than 0.006 inches). Reynolds Wrap Aluminum Kitchen Foil varies in thickness from 0.00064-0.00137 inches as you progress from the standard product to the extra heavy product. So while the aluminum skin of the Apollo LM crew cabin may have been, in certain areas, the equivalent of 3 (very thick) layers of aluminum foil, that foil was not thin modern-day kitchen foil grade. Perhaps kitchen foil of the 1960s-1970s was an awful lot thicker!

Overall, the chem-milled aluminum skin was sufficiently robust for the lunar landing missions. While you may not have been able to push your finger through the side walls, a sharp pointed object or a stray foot may have resulted in disaster so care was needed. Andrew Chaikin wrote in A Man On The Moon (p156):

    "In the ascent stage, the walls of the crew cabin were thinned down until they were nothing more than a taut aluminum balloon, in some places only five-thousandths of an inch thick. Once, a workman accidentally dropped a screwdriver inside the cabin and it went through the floor."

While technically nothing you said was wrong, it wasn't the full story. The hull was .012 inches thick at the thinnest areas, but there were numerous support ridges and bars around the outside of the frame, as can be seen in these photos:

These provided structural support. Your quote above states this as well:

Quote
About every 3-4 inches the thickness increased to "0.055 to 0.065" inches, centered on ribs of 0.812 inches depth, 0.04 inches wide.

The hull wasn't weak enough to push through with a foot or anything, but something sharp could've pierced through it (a knife, for example).
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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2018, 11:36:58 PM »
Acceleration relies on forces, and tin foil can hardly stand up to much.

You can see the structure in the photo. Does that look like a single layer of tin foil to you?

Yes, the lunar module was docked for most of the mission, why do you think that in any way contradicts my point? it's the command module that would need to be airtight. The lunar module has no such requirement.

Yes, it does. The two craft were docked, and the astronauts moved between the two, through the docking port. The LM needed to be airtight because it and the CM cabin formed a combined living and working space. And, once again, the astronauts did not live in their spacesuits for either the duration of the mission, nor even for the whole duration of the LM descending to the surface, staying there, then returning to the CM.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2018, 11:41:31 PM »
The workman's tool may well have penetrated the skin whilst under construction and probably incomplete, but was any of that skin actually able to be contacted at all once the thing was completed? 

Internal views show control panels, stowage lockers, and all manner of internal build items which, even if not providing total resistance to tools launched in anger, would add to the rigidity of the structure as well as the ribbing mentioned above.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2018, 12:09:19 AM »
Acceleration relies on forces, and tin foil can hardly stand up to much.

You can see the structure in the photo. Does that look like a single layer of tin foil to you?

Yes, the lunar module was docked for most of the mission, why do you think that in any way contradicts my point? it's the command module that would need to be airtight. The lunar module has no such requirement.

Yes, it does. The two craft were docked, and the astronauts moved between the two, through the docking port. The LM needed to be airtight because it and the CM cabin formed a combined living and working space. And, once again, the astronauts did not live in their spacesuits for either the duration of the mission, nor even for the whole duration of the LM descending to the surface, staying there, then returning to the CM.

Why? You have this attachment to the party line, but they planned this mission from scratch apparently so there is no reason for any of it to be the way it is. Ditto for the tin foil; there is precisely no reason for it to exist, except for the propaganda value. I'll admit, there's a cool-factor there, vacuum being so empty that something so fragile can withstand it, but like any 60s sci-fi it falls apart when you actually think about it.
I don't know why you keep harping on about astronauts living in their spacesuits, I have literally never said they did. Airtight command module, but this is about the lunar module. You disrupt other threads to talk about this stuff, and then when you get a thread about the lunar module you still want to change the subject.

The combined CM-LM living/working space is just such a bad idea. The lunar lander is the crux of the mission, by any account it ought to be kept in the best possible condition, not constantly pressurized then depressurized then repressurized (particular with such fragile components) once it makes it to the moon, and with astronauts tramping all through it. Plus imagine the worst happened and the module broke down on the moon; unlucky Mr Three without the name recognition of Armstrong or Aldrin suddenly loses a chunk of his living space and has to trust that a docking port holds rather than a more secure airlock. A bunch of men banging around the connector while they float from module to module over a period of several days in a high-risk, brand new environment is hardly what a sensible organization would opt for.

Really, they shouldn't need any more than a frame with a couple of rockets, two chairs, seatbelts and pockets on. But it isn't about the practicality of the mission, it's about the look of the thing.

The workman's tool may well have penetrated the skin whilst under construction and probably incomplete, but was any of that skin actually able to be contacted at all once the thing was completed? 



Looks easy to contact to me. (Unless you want to cry photoshop and I would genuinely love it if you did).
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2018, 08:25:10 AM »
Acceleration relies on forces, and tin foil can hardly stand up to much.

You can see the structure in the photo. Does that look like a single layer of tin foil to you?

Yes, the lunar module was docked for most of the mission, why do you think that in any way contradicts my point? it's the command module that would need to be airtight. The lunar module has no such requirement.

Yes, it does. The two craft were docked, and the astronauts moved between the two, through the docking port. The LM needed to be airtight because it and the CM cabin formed a combined living and working space. And, once again, the astronauts did not live in their spacesuits for either the duration of the mission, nor even for the whole duration of the LM descending to the surface, staying there, then returning to the CM.

Why? You have this attachment to the party line, but they planned this mission from scratch apparently so there is no reason for any of it to be the way it is.

It's the way it is because of the design specifications and requirements defined in the 1950s and 1960s. These are easily found online

Ditto for the tin foil; there is precisely no reason for it to exist, except for the propaganda value.

If they were going for propaganda value, the LM would not have looked the way it did.

I don't know why you keep harping on about astronauts living in their spacesuits, I have literally never said they did.

Yes, you did. "why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out. "


Airtight command module, but this is about the lunar module. You disrupt other threads to talk about this stuff, and then when you get a thread about the lunar module you still want to change the subject.

You cannot get away from discussing both when they actually formed one living environment for large parts of the missions.

The combined CM-LM living/working space is just such a bad idea.

..but six missions have already taken place like this, regardless of whether you think it so or not.


The lunar lander is the crux of the mission, by any account it ought to be kept in the best possible condition, not constantly pressurized then depressurized then repressurized (particular with such fragile components) once it makes it to the moon, and with astronauts tramping all through it. Plus imagine the worst happened and the module broke down on the moon; unlucky Mr Three without the name recognition of Armstrong or Aldrin suddenly loses a chunk of his living space and has to trust that a docking port holds rather than a more secure airlock. A bunch of men banging around the connector while they float from module to module over a period of several days in a high-risk, brand new environment is hardly what a sensible organization would opt for.

Yet they did this six times, seven if you include Apollo 13, regardless of whether you think it good planning or not 

Really, they shouldn't need any more than a frame with a couple of rockets, two chairs, seatbelts and pockets on. But it isn't about the practicality of the mission, it's about the look of the thing.

If it was about the look of the thing, the LM would not have looked like that

The workman's tool may well have penetrated the skin whilst under construction and probably incomplete, but was any of that skin actually able to be contacted at all once the thing was completed? 

IMG

Looks easy to contact to me.

That's the outside. The quote above says the workman dropped a tool INSIDE it. I say that once complete, I'm not convinced that any of the skin's surface could be seen, or anything make contact with it.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2018, 08:31:18 AM »
You have this attachment to the party line ...

I also have a wide selection of third-party confirmations, during and after the missions;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

The Apollo Experience Reports;

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolExpRpts.html

... and a host of other evidence.

 
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2018, 12:21:23 PM »
It's the way it is because of the design specifications and requirements defined in the 1950s and 1960s. These are easily found online
...
If they were going for propaganda value, the LM would not have looked the way it did.

...
You cannot get away from discussing both when they actually formed one living environment for large parts of the missions.
...
..but six missions have already taken place like this, regardless of whether you think it so or not.

...
Yet they did this six times, seven if you include Apollo 13, regardless of whether you think it good planning or not 
...
If it was about the look of the thing, the LM would not have looked like that
Do you have anything to contribute beyond plugging your ears and blindly insisting? "They would not have done this if it were real because [list of valid reasons]." "But they did do it! Lalalala I can't hear you!"

The whole set-up was impractical and unsafe and frankly rubbish, for reasons I've barely even started to go into. They were the ones that wrote the regulations, they would not have to be bound to them. But they wanted it to look good, they picked good old white and gold for the colors of their propaganda flagship, and they had to find excuses for it all.

Quote
Yes, you did. "why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out. "
Well, yes, talking about the lunar module. Ie, that thing that goes down to the lunar surface, clue's in the name. How do you go from that to claiming they spent the whole journey from Earth to the moon in spacesuits,e specially given I already pointed out I did NOT say that?

Quote
Quote
The workman's tool may well have penetrated the skin whilst under construction and probably incomplete, but was any of that skin actually able to be contacted at all once the thing was completed? 

IMG

Looks easy to contact to me.

That's the outside. The quote above says the workman dropped a tool INSIDE it. I say that once complete, I'm not convinced that any of the skin's surface could be seen, or anything make contact with it.
Are you kidding me?[/list]
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2018, 12:36:49 PM »
Do you have anything to contribute beyond plugging your ears and blindly insisting?

I've got loads. I've got all the third-party confirmations of the missions;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

I've got all the work that was done on the lunar samples, experimental and other data from the missions;

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/


"They would not have done this if it were real because [list of valid reasons]." "But they did do it! Lalalala I can't hear you!"

I don't accept your reasons as valid. Simply saying "They should have done X, Y and Z. A, B and C shouldn't have looked like that" is not "valid reasons". That's just the "If I had been running the ship back then, I would have...." argument, and that's no proof or disproof of anything.


The whole set-up was impractical and unsafe and frankly rubbish ...

Why should we accept this?

Well, yes, talking about the lunar module. Ie, that thing that goes down to the lunar surface, clue's in the name. How do you go from that to claiming they spent the whole journey from Earth to the moon in spacesuits,e specially given I already pointed out I did NOT say that?

You initially said "It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits"  which implies to me that you thought that most or all of the mission was carried out in the suits. It wasn't.

Are you kidding me?

No.[/list]
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2018, 12:46:56 PM »
I've got loads. I've got all the third-party confirmations of the missions;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

I've got all the work that was done on the lunar samples, experimental and other data from the missions;

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/
Good for you. Do you want me to quote the appendices of Lord of the Rings?

Quote
I don't accept your reasons as valid. Simply saying "They should have done X, Y and Z. A, B and C shouldn't have looked like that" is not "valid reasons". That's just the "If I had been running the ship back then, I would have...." argument, and that's no proof or disproof of anything.
Oh, that counts as an argument now? Then I don't accept your reasons as valid either. Cool beans.
It is not what 'I' would have done, it's basic common sense. You would not put the crux of the whole mission under undue strain, and given that the CM has to be airtight independent of the LM anyway you'd want to minimize mass.


Quote
Why should we accept this?
Have you just progressed to pretending my posts don't exist then?

Quote
You initially said "It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits"  which implies to me that you thought that most or all of the mission was carried out in the suits. It wasn't.
The 'it' in question pretty bloody obviously being the lunar module. I am thoroughly sick of this REer bs, instead of bothering with the slightest bit of reading comprehension you instead try to focus on what non-existent ambiguity you could possibly use to mock. Move on, stop harping on about spacesuits. I pointed out first time I was talking about the module, you still felt the need to complain. Drop it, drop the cheap dishonest tactics and respond to a simple point already. You wanted this discussion so much you kept spamming it in other threads, so let's have it. Why are you balking the moment you get it?


The lunar module was a propaganda tool, thoroughly impractical and decked out in colors meant to announce triumph.
There is no reason whatsoever for the tin foil to exist.
A bunch of numbers claimed to have been used and a bunch of photos others claim to have taken onm the moon are not evidence for the lunar landing any more than LOTR appendices and fanfic are evidence of Middle-Earth.
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2018, 01:28:47 PM »
I've got loads. I've got all the third-party confirmations of the missions;
LINK
I've got all the work that was done on the lunar samples, experimental and other data from the missions;
LINK
Good for you. Do you want me to quote the appendices of Lord of the Rings?

No, because it's a work of fiction. Everyone knows this. Apollo was not. Everyone knows this except FEers, apparently.

Oh, that counts as an argument now? Then I don't accept your reasons as valid either. Cool beans. It is not what 'I' would have done, it's basic common sense.

I don't accept your reasons because all you offer is "doesn't make sense", "doesn't look right", "I would have done it this way" - no evidence, merely doubts based on your "common sense" ...  No valid disproof.

The lunar module was a propaganda tool, thoroughly impractical and decked out in colors meant to announce triumph.

Grey and black?

A bunch of numbers claimed to have been used and a bunch of photos others claim to have taken on the moon are not evidence for the lunar landing any more than LOTR appendices and fanfic are evidence of Middle-Earth.

... but you have no photos, data, film, video, etc. of Middle Earth. I/we have these of the Apollo missions. You have no evidence of independent travel to Middle Earth after Frodo's adventure. I/we have multiple instances of third-party confirmations years after the Apollo missions.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2018, 04:19:28 PM »
No, because it's a work of fiction. Everyone knows this. Apollo was not. Everyone knows this except FEers, apparently.
...
I don't accept your reasons because all you offer is "doesn't make sense", "doesn't look right", "I would have done it this way" - no evidence, merely doubts based on your "common sense" ...  No valid disproof.
Why is it you spend so much time trying to discuss this, then when people bring it up you defend it with nothing but empty insistence?
It demonstrates the mission fundamentally does not make sense. If that isn't a disproof, I don't know what is.

You wanted to discuss this, so discuss already. If all you're going to do is go "I'm right and you're wrong!" I don't see any reason to bother.

Quote
The lunar module was a propaganda tool, thoroughly impractical and decked out in colors meant to announce triumph.

Grey and black?
White and gold. The lunar module was more than the ascent stage.

Quote
... but you have no photos, data, film, video, etc. of Middle Earth. I/we have these of the Apollo missions. You have no evidence of independent travel to Middle Earth after Frodo's adventure. I/we have multiple instances of third-party confirmations years after the Apollo missions.
Twenty hours of film and video, but who's counting?
So space travel is possible because people said so, and otehr people said those people were right? Got it.
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2018, 11:06:16 PM »
So space travel is possible because people said so, and other people said those people were right? Got it.

Same applies to anything else in this world;

Person A says something, and this is confirmed when persons B, C, and D agree with what A says.

I say I've been to California, and other people say I'm right.
You say you went to work yesterday, and other people say you're right.
etc
etc

No?

Or are you just cherry-picking space travel because that's what you want to believe is wrong?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 11:16:14 PM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: The Lunar Module
« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2018, 11:20:31 PM »
... you defend it with nothing but empty insistence?

Not empty. I've cited numerous sources to back up what I said. You've cited none.

You wanted to discuss this, so discuss already. If all you're going to do is go "I'm right and you're wrong!" I don't see any reason to bother.

Again, not just doing this. Cited multiple sources of proof and data.


The lunar module was a propaganda tool, thoroughly impractical and decked out in colors meant to announce triumph.

Wow, your best point is that it's the wrong colour for you?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"