ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: DAKDAK on May 09, 2012, 12:15:21 AM
-
Sorry I am not sure how to correctly reply to the replies on the subject of "I don't know wether we went to the moon in the sixties or not" specifically how many cubic feet the Command module was but the Smithsonian Air and space museum(which is where the Command Module is today) says a TOTAL of 210 Cubic feet. Not a Habitable area of 210 cubic feet
Here is a link to the Smithsonian's video clip where I got this information (my source)
here is a link to part 1 and 2 of what was supposedly inside
part 1
part 2
One of very true pictures inside the module attached
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
1st video, 48 seconds in, "The crew compartment has a total volume of 210 cubic feet."
Keywords: crew compartment
Is that so hard to understand?
-
You still haven't provided the volume of each component that was installed. You still haven't answered how many cubic feet 15 miles of wire would occupy.
Except for a few small batteries required for re-entry (after the Service Module was separated) all electrical power was supplied by fuel cells in the Service Module.
-
but the Smithsonian Air and space museum...
Why would they be the ultimate authority? They didn't build it or operate it. They just store a few leftover examples. If I had a nickel for every time I've corrected a NASM docent or answered a question they couldn't...
which is where the Command Module is today
Which one? There were several built and flown. The one I was in was originally in Michigan and is now in San Diego.
says a TOTAL of 210 Cubic feet. Not a Habitable area of 210 cubic feet...
No, it says the crew compartment. That's the habitable volume, not the whole contained volume.
-
DAKDAK, let's use an analogy. Let's say you have a Thermos. Now a typical Thermos is a double walled construction. If you just measure the outside, and calculate how much lemonade you could put in it, you'd make a big mess if you tried to pour it all in, as the vacuum layer and mirrored inner wall take up space. And let's suppose, to keep things extra cold, you put a couple ice cubes in the thermos as well. Now, there is even less room for your lemonade.
Let's suppose you had to measure the space of the Thermos.
You could measure the outside, or you could measure the inside.
What you seem to be doing is taking the inside measurement and claiming "there's no room for the vacuum layer and mirrored inner wall!" when the space you are measuring is basically the space left over after those components are put in place, the room for your lemonade.
I hope this helps.
-
Sorry I am not sure how to correctly reply to the replies on the subject of "I don't know wether we went to the moon in the sixties or not" specifically how many cubic feet the Command module was but the Smithsonian Air and space museum(which is where the Command Module is today) says a TOTAL of 210 Cubic feet. Not a Habitable area of 210 cubic feet
I'll repeat what I said before:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cone+12.8%27+diameter+11.4%27+height
producing an area of 489 cubic feet
Here is a link to the Smithsonian's video clip where I got this information (my source)
here is a link to part 1 and 2 of what was supposedly inside
part 1
part 2
Did you produce the last two videos yourself?
Are you planning to actually stay on the board now, or are you going to disappear for several days again?
-
"The crew compartment has a total volume of 210 cubic feet."
Crew compartment is clearly referring to the habitable area.
-
a TOTAL of 210 Cubic feet. Not a Habitable area of 210 cubic feet
It, and every other source, say the crew compartment had a volume of 210 cubic feet. The problem you seem to be having is not grasping that the command module was not all crew compartment.
As with all spacecraft, there was an inner pressurised section where the crew lived and worked. This is the part that had a volume of 210 cubic feet. Around the outside of this was arranged things like parachutes and RCS fuel canisters, and then the outer conical shell of the spacecraft, with its heat shield covering it.
Your mistake is using the exterior dimensions and the interior volume as if they have a direct connection. Only in the case of a thin-walled box can you use the one to directly calculate the other. Beyond the fact that the interior must be smaller than the volume calculated by using the exterior dimensions, the crew compartment was not even the same shape as the outside of the spacecraft. It was more like a short cylinder with a truncated cone on top that sat inside the command module. The total volume of this was still larger than 210 cubic feet, but it had a number of stowage and equipment areas that were not part of the habitable volume.
-
Sorry I am not sure how to correctly reply to the replies on the subject of "I don't know wether we went to the moon in the sixties or not" specifically how many cubic feet the Command module was but the Smithsonian Air and space museum(which is where the Command Module is today) says a TOTAL of 210 Cubic feet. Not a Habitable area of 210 cubic feet
Putting aside the fact that the source says crew compartment, why do you rely on the accuracy of the source when you can perform your own checks? Let's assume for the moment the source did say total volume. Carpediem showed you a very simple method (assuming the the CM is a cone) that clearly demonstrates that the total volume couldn't possibly be as small as 210 ft3. What carpediem did is what we call a back-of-the-envelope calculation, that is, a calculation used to provide a rough approximation when greater accuracy is unnecessary. Of course the CM isn't a perfect cone, but it's close enough to that shape that we can very quickly demonstrate that its total volume has to be much larger than 210 ft3. In the other thread I performed a more accurate estimate of the CM's volume taking into account its true geometry and came up with a number of approximately 598 ft3. Furthermore, its possible to visit the locations where the CMs are located and measure them to verify their dimensions (the Apollo 15 CM is only about 20 miles from my house). So even if the Smithsonian did say the total volume was 210 ft3, which they didn't, we know that number must be wrong. It's insane to continue to argue something that is provably incorrect.
-
If the "crew compartment" quote isn't enough for you the narrator says, 42 seconds into the video, "This 12 foot long command module...".
You have a length. The command module is about as wide as it is long. Plug those numbers into the volume of a cone and see what you get.
-
... the Smithsonian Air and space museum(which is where the Command Module is today)
What do you mean by "the" Command Module? Are you aware there are twenty-five CMs currently on display? The locations are:
CSM-002 - Cradle of Aviation, Long Island, New York
CSM-007 - Museum of Flight, Seattle, Washington
CSM-009 - Strategic Air and Space Museum, Ashland, Nebraska
CSM-010 - U.S. Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama
CSM-011 - USS Hornet museum, in Alameda, California
Apollo 4 - Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi
Apollo 6 - Fernbank Science Center, Atlanta, Georgia
CSM-098 - Academy of Science Museum, Moscow, Russia
Apollo 7 - Frontiers of Flight Museum, Dallas, Texas
Apollo 8 - Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, Illinois
Apollo 9 - San Diego Aerospace Museum, San Diego, California ("Gumdrop")
CSM-105 - National Air & Space Museum, Washington DC
Apollo 10 - Science Museum, London, England ("Charlie Brown")
Apollo 11 - National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.C. ("Columbia")
Apollo 12 - Virginia Air and Space Center, Hampton, Virginia ("Yankee Clipper")
Apollo 13 - Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center, Hutchinson, Kansas ("Odyssey")
Apollo 14 - Astronaut Hall of Fame, Titusville, Florida ("Kitty Hawk")
Apollo 15 - USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio ("Endeavor")
Apollo 16 - U.S. Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama ("Casper")
Apollo 17 - NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas ("America")
Apollo-Soyuz - California Science Center, Los Angeles, California
Skylab 2 - Naval Aviation Museum, Pensacola, Florida
Skylab 3 - NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Skylab 4 - National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.C.
Skylab Rescue - Kennedy Space Center, Florida
-
I thought that was Kitty Hawk at KSC.
-
SpaceyChick has photos of all the manned capsule plus some. (http://www.spaceychick.com/capsules/apollo/index.htm)
-
I thought that was Kitty Hawk at KSC.
Kitty Hawk is at the Astronaut Hall of Fame, which is located at KSC. So KSC actually has two CMs, as does Huntsville. The National Air & Space Museum in DC has three of them.
-
SpaceyChick has photos of all the manned capsule plus some. (http://www.spaceychick.com/capsules/apollo/index.htm)
I've only seen three of them - 11, 15 and 16.
DAKDAK, here's another quick check you can do to demonstrate that 210 ft3 is not the total volume. The cube root of 210 is 5.94. Therefore, 210 ft3 is the volume occupied by a cube that is roughly 6' X 6' X 6'. When you look at the photos linked to above, the CM is clearly quite a bit larger than a cube with those dimensions.
-
Does anyone know what is at the pointy end of the Saturn Five on display in Houston?
-
The Launch Escape System?
-
Apollo 9 - San Diego Aerospace Museum, San Diego, California ("Gumdrop")
I was privileged to be allowed inside this one while on display in Michigan, before it was moved to San Diego. I found it to be pretty roomy, but I'm small and there weren't two other guys there. I've also been inside boilerplate CM011A that's now aboard USS Hornet in Alameda, where they keep the nuclear wessels. That has no couches though, and only mockup panels. But its habitable volume feels about the same as the flight article.
-
The Launch Escape System?
Yes, incorporating the forward portion of the boost protective cover. The BPC would ordinarily obscure the CM, but the LES is essential for displaying the Saturn V in its launch configuration.
-
SpaceyChick has photos of all the manned capsule plus some. (http://www.spaceychick.com/capsules/apollo/index.htm)
Anybody know if any changes were made to the CM's external surface during production? Some of the CMs on display show the brown phenolic heatshield, while others show white paint.
For the most part, those with white paint came back from earth orbit and the others came back from the moon, but there are exceptions; Apollo 8 has a fair amount of white paint, while Apollo-Soyuz is mostly brown. (This collection omits Apollo 6 and the three Skylab ferry CMs)
Every CM had an original outer surface of aluminized Mylar for thermal protection. Most of it burned away during re-entry, but a few CMs (notably Apollo 7 and ASTP) still have some. I've read that people often took pieces after landing as souvenirs. I'm wondering if there was white paint under the Mylar that (except for Apollo 8 ) also burned away on the faster lunar re-entries but not from earth orbit.
-
(This collection omits Apollo 6 and the three Skylab ferry CMs)
Sorry. I should have provided one link up: http://www.spaceychick.com/capsules/index.htm She has Skylab in its own folder.
-
Let's see.. I have seen Apollos 9, 10, 11, 15, 17(?) and Skylab 4. Of the interiors I remember seeing, all were badly cannibalized. Are any intact CMs on display anywhere? We really ought to keep at least one, complete and unused CSM and LM somewhere for the sake of future space historians and engineers.
-
The Launch Escape System?
A failed attempt levity.
I was wondering which capsule is mounted there. It looks like it was on that had been in orbit.
-
Sorry. I should have provided one link up: http://www.spaceychick.com/capsules/index.htm She has Skylab in its own folder.
Thank you! They do seem to follow the pattern of the earth-orbiting CMs having a lot of white paint on the exterior. I'm wondering if that was a design difference in those CSMs built for earth orbit, or if they all had the same exteriors and the higher entry velocities of a lunar re-entry burned away the white paint, except for Apollo 8.
-
The Launch Escape System?
A failed attempt levity.
I was wondering which capsule is mounted there. It looks like it was on that had been in orbit.
McKinley added to the NASA report that the Command Module (No. 115) has now been restored to an historically accurate depiction. (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030104a.html)
At the Johnson Space Center the Saturn V display is made up of the first stage of SA-514, the second stage from SA-515 and the third stage from SA-513. This display includes a production command/service module (CSM-115) which was never completed after funding was cut. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions#Surplus_hardware)
Apparently it was intended for Apollo 19.
-
I do appreciate any time and or energy that anyone on this site spends debating the mysteries of the MOON with me. I am very impressed with the credentials of this sites member's. As you probably can tell from reading my OUTRAGEOUS posts in the wrong format and the wrong place (threads) and posted late at night I am way out of my league debating with you guys and girls. I have really enjoyed reading your replies and frankly I am very surprised I haven't been removed from the site. And that anyone replied to any posts I made at all. I don't really consider myself a Conspiracy Theorist but I do think that the record of the Apollo Program and at least 75 percent of everything I learned in school about space is completely FALSE. I also want to say three years ago when I realized The Apollo Program as we (the public) were told In my opinion is not and was not possible it was one of the most traumatic events in my life (forever changing my concept of reality), and if anyone could convince me that the official Apollo record was even close to true I would be forever indebted. If the Command Module is 400 plus Square feet I am very embarrassed You might have heard the expression “OH THAT GUY IS LOONEY” well that's me according to my friends, family and acquaintances especially my neighbors. I to believe that I have gone at least a little CRAZY since I started watching and trying to understand the MOON maybe that's because when the moon is filling up I stay up all night on my roof (I cut a door to above the garage) taking pictures and messing with telescopes, cameras binoculars, flashlights and cell phone star and planet charts. Does anyone else on this site other than me think that the moon emits not just a little but an amazing amount of light when it (the MOON) is almost or completely full, and that this light would have absolutely blinded any astronaut on the surface or Spaceship orbiting the MOON!!
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
I have really enjoyed reading your replies and frankly I am very surprised I haven't been removed from the site.
No-one is removed from the site for believing or discussing the hoax theory. As long as you reamin polite and actually engage in the discussion there is no reason to kick you off.
I don't really consider myself a Conspiracy Theorist but I do think that the record of the Apollo Program and at least 75 percent of everything I learned in school about space is completely FALSE.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive. If you do not believe the Apollo record is true then you must by definition believe in some form of conspiracy to spread false information.
I also want to say three years ago when I realized The Apollo Program as we (the public) were told In my opinion is not and was not possible
It is possible. If you actually engage in the discussions people are trying to have with you here you might come to realise that. Do you plan on addressing any of the responses to your other points you raised in your first post?
Does anyone else on this site other than me think that the moon emits not just a little but an amazing amount of light when it (the MOON) is almost or completely full, and that this light would have absolutely blinded any astronaut on the surface or Spaceship orbiting the MOON!!
No, because, as you have already been told, the Moon does not emit any light whatsoever. It reflects sunlight, and that sunlight is no brighter in orbit of the Moon than it is in orbit of Earth, or on a bright summer's day here on Earth. It looks amazingly bright at night because your eyes have adjusted to darkness. In the daylight it is just barely visible in the blue sky. If you don't get blinded by the daytime sky here, and you can only just see the Moon through it, then it is not going to be beyond the ability of your eye to adapt to the same light level when in orbit of, or on the surface of, the Moon.
-
I am very impressed with the credentials of this sites member's.
"site's members."
...I do think that the record of the Apollo Program and at least 75 percent of everything I learned in school about space is completely FALSE.
Why?
... three years ago when I realized The Apollo Program as we (the public) were told In my opinion is not and was not possible...
What evidence led you to this realization?
...when the moon is filling up...
Do you mean to say "as the moon is approaching the phase we call full moon?"
Does anyone else on this site other than me think that the moon emits not just a little but an amazing amount of light when it (the MOON) is almost or completely full...
It is a documented fact that the moon reflects proportionally more sunlight at full moon than at partial phases, largely because of the nature of its surface. It tends to preferentially reflect light back in the direction from which it approached, rather than randomly scattering it, so a full moon is measurably more than twice as bright as a half moon.
...and that this light would have absolutely blinded any astronaut on the surface or Spaceship orbiting the MOON!!
The earth, as seen from the distance of the moon, is brighter than the moon is as seen from earth. Are you blinded by earthlight?
-
I am very impressed with the credentials of this sites member's.
Many (most) of us have no "credentials" at all. We are merely interested in the topic and have applied ourselves to learning. However we do have some real rocket scientists.
I have really enjoyed reading your replies and frankly I am very surprised I haven't been removed from the site. And that anyone replied to any posts I made at all.
We are here to discuss moon hoax ideas and you contribution is welcomed. It can get very quite here when no hoax believers are posting.
I don't really consider myself a Conspiracy Theorist but I do think that the record of the Apollo Program and at least 75 percent of everything I learned in school about space is completely FALSE.
Fair enough, you seem basically to doubt the reality of what you have been told rather than to be promoting some alternate idea about the Apollo program. Doubts can be erased through gaining knowledge, if you are willing to learn. Saying that you doubt "at least 75 percent" implies that there is some part of the record that you accept or at least have fewer doubts about. Can you elaborate on the 25%?
I to believe that I have gone at least a little CRAZY since I started watching and trying to understand the MOON....
Have you done further investigations to determine the validity of this hypothesis?
Does anyone else on this site other than me think that the moon emits not just a little but an amazing amount of light when it (the MOON) is almost or completely full, and that this light would have absolutely blinded any astronaut on the surface or Spaceship orbiting the MOON!!
No. Several of us have made explanations of why this is wrong, which you evidently do not accept. Perhaps if you elaborate on how you came to this belief, we could be more informative. For instance where do you think the light we see from the moon actually originates? From the moon? From the sun? Elsewhere?
-
Bit bemused by this business on the moon emitting light, DAKDAK. Can you explain the phases of the Moon and what happens at a new Moon?
-
Also, Dak, can you answer this question with a Yes or No..
When the Moon is in the daytime sky, does looking at it dazzle or blind you?
After you have answered that question, I'd like you to think a little more deeply..
Imagine it is a very bright, sunny day, about 10am.
Then imagine that.. the sky is dark. But wait, the Sun is still up there, so one area of the sky is extraordinarily bright.. and the entire landscape is still brightly sunlit.
Now, mainly because of that brightly lit landscape, your eyes will adjust to their normal daylight settings, so the landscape is not all that dazzling (just as the Moon isn't dazzling in the daytime sky)...
As your eyes have adjusted to daylight, you can't see any stars (well, maybe you can spot the planet Venus if you know exactly where to look..), but your view of the sunlit landscape is just fine.
That little thought experiment is exactly what the Moon was like. Bright daylight, but because of no atmosphere, dark sky. Because landscape (and LM and astronauts, etc) are all daylit, eyes (and cameras) have to be adjusted for daylight use.
Dak, that is a situation outside our normal experience - there is nothing on earth that comes close to it (-except possibly standing in the middle of an incredibly brightly lit sports stadium (still way way short of sunlit brightness)
But is it really that difficult to imagine how that would work, what it would look like? Just look at the Apollo photographic record and you will see.
The sad thing is that Apollo deniers all seem to be challenged in their ability to understand things that are not like on earth. That's quite sad.
But if you can follow that little thought experiment above, perhaps you are a bit better than the average Apollo denier, and you can continue to learn and understand what happened during the Apollo missions, and why things were as they were. If so, you will discover that learning is fun, and being wrong (and admitting it and moving forward) is a great way to learn new stuff...
-
Does anyone else on this site other than me think that the moon emits not just a little but an amazing amount of light when it (the MOON) is almost or completely full, and that this light would have absolutely blinded any astronaut on the surface or Spaceship orbiting the MOON!!
As others have mentioned it is called the opposition surge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_effect) and is not fully understood.
-
To elaborate further on the opposition surge.
Since you have looked at the moon through a telescope, please recount your observations about shadows under these two circumstances.
1. At the half moon, looking at the area where it transitions from lighted to shaded, is the surface fully lit?
2. Looking at the full moon, is the surface fully lit or do you see shaded areas?
With these observations in mind, make a hypothesis about a possible cause of additional brightness of the full moon.
-
From the Apollo experience report: Command and service module environmental control system (PDF) (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720012252_1972012252.pdf)
is this description of the system:
(http://i.imgur.com/X2w0P.png)
The "gas free volume", the pressurized volume of the CM, is larger than the habitable volume.
This information is easily found on the NASA Technical Reports Server. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp)
Now you need to find the volume of all the components you listed in your video and add them up if you want to support your claim that there was too much stuff to fit in the CM.
-
I don't really consider myself a Conspiracy Theorist but I do think that the record of the Apollo Program and at least 75 percent of everything I learned in school about space is completely FALSE.
If that were true, you are necessarily a conspiracy theorist, because for the Apollo record to be false would require a conspiracy of truly staggering proportions.
I also want to say three years ago when I realized The Apollo Program as we (the public) were told In my opinion is not and was not possible it was one of the most traumatic events in my life (forever changing my concept of reality), and if anyone could convince me that the official Apollo record was even close to true I would be forever indebted.
Sure, but that depends on how willing you are to consider the evidence.
I to believe that I have gone at least a little CRAZY since I started watching and trying to understand the MOON maybe that's because when the moon is filling up I stay up all night on my roof (I cut a door to above the garage) taking pictures and messing with telescopes, cameras binoculars, flashlights and cell phone star and planet charts.
Heh, there's a reason it's called "lunacy".
Does anyone else on this site other than me think that the moon emits not just a little but an amazing amount of light when it (the MOON) is almost or completely full,
It does reflect more light at opposition due to optical effects (not just the larger illuminated amount).
and that this light would have absolutely blinded any astronaut on the surface or Spaceship orbiting the MOON!!
First of all, if the attached picture is of you, it seems like you could close the hatches and fly there yourself to check it out ;-)
Second, the lunar surface during its day is not substantially brighter than that of the desert where I grew up. I didn't have to wear sunglasses, and the astronauts had adjustable shielding for their eyes.
-
...I am way out of my league debating with you guys and girls.
Not to seem immodest, but nearly all hoax proponents are. There's a reason why the ranks of hoax believers don't include engineers, technicians, or scientists: those professions provide the training and experience to comprehend how Apollo was accomplished, where layman does not.
I have really enjoyed reading your replies and frankly I am very surprised I haven't been removed from the site.
This is not one of those sites that sends you packing simply for disagreeing with the regulars. It's meant to entertain debate and disagreement, and the guidelines are to facilitate the debate, not to enforce a particular point of view. You get points for why you believe something, not what.
I don't really consider myself a Conspiracy Theorist but I do think that the record of the Apollo Program and at least 75 percent of everything I learned in school about space is completely FALSE.
I don't know what you learned in school, but the Apollo program is well supported in the relevant industries and science by sound practices and principles. There is absolutely no doubt among the relevant professions that Apollo was real and happened substantially as documented. There is no suspicion among the relevant professions that the record of the Apollo development and operation has been tampered with or falsified. Those claims arise solely among a small but noisy minority who have no relevant knowledge, little interest in acquiring it, and what turns out invariably to be political and social reasons for their disbelief.
...if anyone could convince me that the official Apollo record was even close to true I would be forever indebted.
This is the group to do that, but you need to be aware that every single conspiracy theorist tells the same story. They all say that they were once staunch believers and even fans of the U.S. space program, that they were convinced by the hoax evidence, became despondent, and now wish that someone would restore their faith. The problem is that the hoax arguments are pretty clearly bunk, very easy to debunk, and that the people who came before you begging us to restore their faith usually cling pretty desperately to their hoax beliefs. That's a lot of baggage for you to have to carry, so you'll have to work hard to distance yourself from your predecessors.
If the Command Module is 400 plus Square feet I am very embarrassed.
The command module is a container within a container, as most spacecraft and aircraft are. If you fill up a swimming pool to the brim, sink a command module in it, and measure the amount of water that spills out, you'll come up with around 400 cubic feet of water. You'll get about the same volume if you go through the analytical geometry method and measure the dimensions and apply the proper formulas.
Ah, but if you opened the lid and poured water in the top, how much would you need to add before it fills up? Only 200-300 cubic feet.
How does that work? Because when you dunk the CM in a swimming pool you're measuring the total volume of the outside container. When you pour water in the top, you're measuring the pressurized volume -- the inner container. The difference between the 300 cubic feet inside and the 400 cubic feet outside is the space between the inner container (the pressurized crew compartment) and the outer shell.
We get the 200 cubic feet of habitable volume because some of the CM's equipment necessarily lives inside that pressurized crew compartment. All the wiring and electronics behind the control panels is part of the pressurized volume because air gets back there. But it's not part of the habitable volume because the crew can't crawl back behind the control panels. Ditto for things like storage lockers.
All the numbers mean something. To the engineer computing the buoyancy of the CM, the proper value to use would be the outside volume because he's determining the displacement and overall effective mass density of the vehicle. To the engineer designing the air scrubber, the pressurized volume is the right value because he's got to size the fans and duct work to achieve the proper gas exchange rate. To the engineers planning the cabin layout, the habitable volume is the right value.
Does anyone else on this site other than me think that the moon emits not just a little but an amazing amount of light when it (the MOON) is almost or completely full...
You're using the word "emit" wrong.
To emit light means that the light originates there and is generated by the emitting object by means of some latent or ongoing process. Plasma does this in the form of a fire flame (ongoing combustion). Incandescent light filaments do this (ongoing response to electrical resistance heating). Phosphorescent ("glow in the dark") objects do this (latent effect). Hot metal in a furnace or forge does this (radiation of stored heat). The Moon does not do this. The Moon does not generate visible light.
To reflect light means that light that originated elsewhere bounces off it. All objects do this to some extent, otherwise you couldn't see them at all. That is, seeing things means seeing the light that has reflected off of it. The Moon does this. What you see in the night sky is the sunlit Moon seen against the blackness of space. You can't see the Sun because the Earth is in the way, underneath you. But where the Moon is, way out in space, the sunlight reaches it. And this reflected sunlight is what you see.
And a portion of the sunlight that's reflecting off the Earth (which is on average three times the better reflector than the Moon) strikes the part of the Moon that the sunlight isn't reaching, and then reflects back to Earth where you see it as a faint illumination of the "dark" side. As an engineer, I study and use complex interreflections such as this in the science of photometry, to determine whether designs destined for space will reflect light energy in ways that overheat the design. As a photographer, I use complex interreflections to achieve an aesthetic result.
And for the sake of completeness, to transmit light means to let it pass completely through -- i.e., transparency or translucency. The Moon doesn't do this, but every bit of light seen coming from an object is accounted as reflection, emission, or transmission. Similarly, every bit of light striking an object goes toward reflection, absorption, or transmission. Yes, there is fluorescence, but I'm not going to go there in this post. All the light energy arriving at or leaving an object has to be accounted for in those models. Light seen coming from the Moon is reflected light only.
...and that this light would have absolutely blinded any astronaut on the surface or Spaceship orbiting the MOON!!
No.
This is simply wrong. You're considering the Moon as an emitter of light, when in fact it is only a reflector.
The only significant source of emitted light in the solar system is the Sun. Everything we see in the solar system is visible only because we see the sunlight reflected from it.
Reckoned by planetary albedo, the Earth is almost three times a better reflector than the Moon. The light seen coming from the Earth, in orbit or faraway in space, is sunlight reflected from Earth. The astronauts in the space station or space shuttle aren't blinded by light. Your eyes are only a couple of meters away from the Earth's surface and you aren't blinded -- well, not immediately. (Recall the plight of desert dwellers.) And that's sunlight at almost full strength (cf. atmospheric attenuation) hitting a reflector with a reflectivity index of about 30%. The Moon generally can manage only about a third of that, so whether 2 meters or 2,000 meters above it, you're simply not going to be blinded by reflect sunlight from it.
I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. You're continuing to labor under the false assumption that the Moon appears bright to you at night because it's blazing with its own light at an incredible intensity. No, that's simply wrong.
Now why does the Moon appear brighter when full? It's not just your imagination; the Moon is measured as four times brighter when full than at half phase, not twice as bright -- the way you'd think.
This is for two reasons. First, it's a textured object. As others have told you to check, the Moon at half phase is a patchwork of bright and dark, because objects are casting shadows. Elements of the Moon's texture (hills, valleys, craters, mountains, etc.) cast shadows from the grandest mountain scale to the tinest dust particle. This cumulative effect just makes the Moon seem overall brighter or dimmer depending on phase angle. This is a property all textured objects share when used as reflectors.
Here are some photos I took. http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html
In the top photos, the phase angle is large: I'm looking down over the objects while the sun is low on the horizon. The ground appears dark because a lot of it is shade and shadow. In the bottom photos I've stepped away and my line of sight is more horizontal, more along the way the light is shining. The ground appears lighter because those texture elements (i.e., the gravel) are now hiding their own shadows from me.
This is even more apparent in Figs. 5 and 6 on this page, also taken by me: http://www.clavius.org/manmoon.html
From a distance you can't see the detail in the shade or shadow; it just appears overall darker or lighter.
There's another effect. In addition to being a textured object and therefore naturally a better retroreflector, the Moon's surface is composed of a regolith (dust) that contains a high proportion of tiny glass spheres call spherules. These are formed when impacts generate a huge amount of ejected material that's very hot. As you know, glass is just heated-up and fused mineral, so these droplets of matter blasted into space by an impact cool and fall back down to the Moon's surface as perfect little transparent spheres. These have the property of preferentially reflecting light back the way they came. We use this property to make roadway paint and the paint for license plates on cars. "Reflectors" made intentionally for high visibility exploit this property that occurs naturally on the lunar surface.
-
Yeah, as resident Word Person, let me chime in that you cannot simultaneously doubt the Apollo record and not be a conspiracy theorist. I suspect you don't want to be lumped in with Those Guys, and I certainly don't blame you for that. Those Guys are not desirable company to be in, even just intellectually. (For my tastes, especially intellectually!) But if I'm reading this right (I'm probably also resident Psychology Person, though I'm certainly not trained in the field and am merely a really experienced amateur), think about why it bothers you. Is it just the label? Well, the label has been applied because it's accurate, except that "theory" is not the word. However, we've none of us been able to agree on a replacement, which is why I've started using the term "conspiracist" instead.
But the thing is, in order to deny the reality of something like Apollo, or even just to say "I don't think the record is an accurate depiction of what happened," you do need to accept and even assume a conspiracy of some sort. It's just not possible for a fake Apollo record to have leaped into existence and been accepted by the people who would have been involved in creating the real one. The most obvious example is the astronauts; even if you assume that most people working on Apollo didn't know how the whole record hung together--and I have to say I'm a bit in that camp myself, though I still acknowledge that literally thousands of people did--the astronauts definitely know the truth of what happened. A lot of conspiracists shy away from calling them liars, because those men (at least those men whose names the general public remembers!) are rightly considered heroes. However, if you do not believe the Apollo record was valid, you are calling them liars by definition, because they have treated the Apollo record as fact.
Can I ask you what, why, and how? What was faked/what was real? Why was it faked? How was it faked? And a bonus question--if it was faked, why do so many experts believe it was real?
-
Yeah, as resident Word Person, let me chime in that you cannot simultaneously doubt the Apollo record and not be a conspiracy theorist.
This sentiment has been posted several times and I believe it is untrue.
So far DAKDAK has committed the logical fallacy of disbelief based on incredulity. His main point is not the assertion that the record is fraudulent but that he just can't believe the record of the moon landing is correct. Part of that incredulity derives from an incorrect understanding of physics. As the above statement and others have pointed out, there are few other logical options if one doubts the veracity of the Apollo record and it is reasonable to say that a conspiracy is implied by logic. Nevertheless one who doubts based on a fallacy can maintain that state without the requirement of holding any opinion regarding a conspiracy or any other option.
-
Yeah, as resident Word Person, let me chime in that you cannot simultaneously doubt the Apollo record and not be a conspiracy theorist.
This sentiment has been posted several times and I believe it is untrue.
So far DAKDAK has committed the logical fallacy of disbelief based on incredulity. His main point is not the assertion that the record is fraudulent but that he just can't believe the record of the moon landing is correct. Part of that incredulity derives from an incorrect understanding of physics. As the above statement and others have pointed out, there are few other logical options if one doubts the veracity of the Apollo record and it is reasonable to say that a conspiracy is implied by logic. Nevertheless one who doubts based on a fallacy can maintain that state without the requirement of holding any opinion regarding a conspiracy or any other option.
Sorry, but DAKDAK said (bolding mine):
I don't really consider myself a Conspiracy Theorist but I do think that the record of the Apollo Program and at least 75 percent of everything I learned in school about space is completely FALSE.
That requires the record to be falsified, especially (as gillianren pointed out) the direct observations of the astronauts, which is the most obvious part of the record. There's no way around this.
Of course, there's much more that would have to be part of a conspiracy in order for his observation to be true, but even the most superficial view of Apollo-as-fake means one believes in a conspiracy involving at a theoretical minimum a couple of dozen guys. He may or may not want to think of it that way, but he is absolutely claiming a conspiracy and calling them liars.
[ Edit: fixed formatting. ]
-
Sadly, it's entirely possible that 3/4 of what he was told about space in school was wrong, with no conspiracy needed - just a poor science curriculum.
-
Yes, but he does specifically say the Apollo record is also false, not just most of what he learned in school. What he learned in school can be chalked up to having had lousy science teachers. The Apollo record cannot. The Apollo record stands on its own merits regardless of the quality of anyone's science teachers.
-
I suppose, on further thought, that at least part of the reason I think the word "conspiracist" is better than the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is that Dakdak, or anyone else, does not have to know with what they'd replace the Apollo record in order to believe that there was a conspiracy. "I just think there was one" is not, by any reasonable definition, conspiracy theorizing. It requires having a theory as to exactly what happened in order to really be a conspiracy theorist. Dakdak may just have a belief that there is a conspiracy, which to my mind qualifies him as a conspiracist, but if he doesn't have a replacement for the record, he cannot really be a conspiracy theorist. This may be more word geekery than is necessary, but I don't have a lot to do with my time, so I think a lot about words.
-
For the record, I've revised my calculation of the CM's total volume to 580 cubic feet. This is based on the CM's actual geometry and dimensions as best as I could determine. There were a few gaps that I had to fill in with guesstimates, so I could still be off a little bit. Nonetheless, this should be pretty close to the correct number.
-
The command module is a container within a container, as most spacecraft and aircraft are.
And not just spacecraft and aircraft. The issue isn't exactly analogous, but my car is the same. If I dunked my car in the pool, the water displaced would be equivalent to the total volume of the external shell. If I fill up the passenger compartment, significantly less water would be required because it doesn't for the engine compartment (which is full of engine) and the boot which (in my case) is full of musical instruments and PA equipment. Which is the correct volume of the car? Actually, both are.
-
Though of course your car is a lot more likely to leak than a spacecraft or aircraft.
-
Sadly, it's entirely possible that 3/4 of what he was told about space in school was wrong, with no conspiracy needed - just a poor science curriculum.
He said 75% of what he learned. It's possible that that was different than what he was told.
I can think of quite a few occasions, both in classroom and in independent research settings, when students have "learned" some quite remarkable things!
-
SpaceyChick has photos of all the manned capsule plus some. (http://www.spaceychick.com/capsules/apollo/index.htm)
I've only seen three of them - 11, 15 and 16.
DAKDAK, here's another quick check you can do to demonstrate that 210 ft3 is not the total volume. The cube root of 210 is 5.94. Therefore, 210 ft3 is the volume occupied by a cube that is roughly 6' X 6' X 6'. When you look at the photos linked to above, the CM is clearly quite a bit larger than a cube with those dimensions.
Here is a clip of Aaron Cohen who supposedly was the Manager of the Command module for NASA at the time stating that the CM was about a 6X6X6 CUBE since you don't believe the Smithsonian that currently has possesion of the CM maybe the boss of the design team might help
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
SpaceyChick has photos of all the manned capsule plus some. (http://www.spaceychick.com/capsules/apollo/index.htm)
I've only seen three of them - 11, 15 and 16.
DAKDAK, here's another quick check you can do to demonstrate that 210 ft3 is not the total volume. The cube root of 210 is 5.94. Therefore, 210 ft3 is the volume occupied by a cube that is roughly 6' X 6' X 6'. When you look at the photos linked to above, the CM is clearly quite a bit larger than a cube with those dimensions.
Here is a clip of Aaron Cohen who supposedly was the Manager of the Command module for NASA at the time stating that the CM was about a 6X6X6 CUBE since you don't believe the Smithsonian that currently has possesion of the CM maybe the boss of the design team might help
"it's about a 6 x 6 x 6 cube. That's what you're living in."
"living in". Do you not understand what that means? "living in". As in that is the habitable volume.
How much longer are you going to keep up this idiotic bullshit?
Does this look the same size as a 6' x 6' x 6' cube?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KEArRUZspiA/SmdUWdGI7WI/AAAAAAAAB9U/SEIAVszCoX0/s400/apollo11e.jpg)
-
Welcome back, DAKDAK. It's not that we disagree with the Smithsonian, or Mr. Cohen, but rather we disagree with you as to what is being measured.
-
Here is a clip of Aaron Cohen who supposedly was the Manager of the Command module for NASA at the time stating that the CM was about a 6X6X6 CUBE since you don't believe the Smithsonian that currently has possesion of the CM maybe the boss of the design team might help
He said you are living in the space of a 6 x 6 x 6 cube. What is the volume of a 6 x 6 x 6 cube? 216 cubic feet. Pretty close to the 210 cubic feet given in every source as the habitable volume of the command module.
We are not disputing that the habitable volume is 210 cubic feet, but your interpretation that the entire volume was 210 cubic feet. Why is it you cannot grasp the very basic difference between them? You've had it explained to you in words and pictures several times over that the cabin, with a habitable volume of 210 cubic feet, was an internal structure that sat inside the overall conical structure. The volume taken up by the entire command module was on the order of 400 cubic feet; the volume taken up by the whole of the cabin structure was about 300 cubic feet; and the internal volume of the cabin structure, less the stowage and equipment spaces that could not be occupied by crewmen, was about 210 cubic feet. What is so difficult about this arrangement that you just won't get it through your head?
-
Here is a clip of Aaron Cohen who supposedly was the Manager of the Command module for NASA at the time stating that the CM was about a 6X6X6 CUBE since you don't believe the Smithsonian that currently has possesion of the CM maybe the boss of the design team might help
(http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q235/avgjoe42/1262023659279.jpg)
-
You've had it explained to you in words and pictures several times over that the cabin,
What is so difficult about this arrangement that you just won't get it through your head?
Maybe the words used contain too many syllables?
We might need to try finger-painting next.... :P ;)
-
Here is a clip of Aaron Cohen who supposedly was the Manager of the Command module for NASA at the time stating that the CM was about a 6X6X6 CUBE since you don't believe the Smithsonian that currently has possesion of the CM maybe the boss of the design team might help
First, don't try to play the name game with me; I used to work for Max Faget and C.C. Johnson.
Second, he did not say the CM itself was "about a 6X6X6 CUBE".
Finally, I have inspected Columbia personally at the Air & Space Museum. It is not " about a 6X6X6 CUBE".
You are simply and unambiguously wrong.
DAKDAK, are you just trolling? If not, please explain why you seem unable to concede such a simple error? And when are you going to give an account for the numerous other mistakes you have made which have been corrected here? Such as your laughable claim that the Moon "fills up" with water from the Earth?
And, again, are you just trolling?
-
There's something incredibly pathetic about a man who whines about other people being too educated when he can't figure out of the volume of a cone.
-
SpaceyChick has photos of all the manned capsule plus some. (http://www.spaceychick.com/capsules/apollo/index.htm)
I've only seen three of them - 11, 15 and 16.
DAKDAK, here's another quick check you can do to demonstrate that 210 ft3 is not the total volume. The cube root of 210 is 5.94. Therefore, 210 ft3 is the volume occupied by a cube that is roughly 6' X 6' X 6'. When you look at the photos linked to above, the CM is clearly quite a bit larger than a cube with those dimensions.
Here is a clip of Aaron Cohen who supposedly was the Manager of the Command module for NASA at the time stating that the CM was about a 6X6X6 CUBE since you don't believe the Smithsonian that currently has possesion of the CM maybe the boss of the design team might help
DAKDAK, can you be anymore obtuse? The man in the video says the exact same thing that I did, that is, the living space of the CM is equivalent to a 6X6X6 cube.
-
Here is a clip of Aaron Cohen who supposedly was the Manager of the Command module...
I agree; don't drop names. I was taught my trade by the people who worked on this spacecraft. We're closer to the original sources than you.
...stating that the CM was about a 6X6X6 CUBE
He states the volume of the crew compartment was this value. You seem unable to distinguish habitable volume from total volume even after it has been explained to you in half a dozen different ways. At one point you praised the skill and credentials of the people here. Now would be a good time for you to admit that you simply don't have the math and geometry background to understand what's going on.
since you don't believe the Smithsonian that currently has possesion of the CM...
First, there is more than one CM. In fact, the NASM possesses more than one CM.
Second, no one is disputing the Smithsonian's claim. We are disputing your interpretation of what that cited number means. You are patently incapable of understanding the difference, and that's the problem -- not some farfetched claim that the CM was somehow too small.
maybe the boss of the design team might help
Maybe you shouldn't have resigned from your education. It should be obvious to you now why you needed it.
-
Do any of the regulars here have a degree or any kind of training in psychology? How about a student of psychology looking for a dissertation topic? I think someone could earn a well-deserved PhD and make a real contribution to science by making a methodical and comprehensive study of the conspiracy mindset.
I've been following conspiracy theories long enough to see many of the same concepts (and many of the same people) appear over and over. I fear that Apollo deniers and 9/11 "truthers" are merely the more extreme manifestations of a much more widespread problem. Rational public policy in a democratic society requires a well-informed and well-educated electorate, so this phenomenon threatens some very real consequences.
The increasing popularity of conspiracy beliefs is probably due to a combination of things: a failing school system; ready access via the Internet to large audiences of like-minded individuals; a series of bona-fide scandals and conspiracies such as the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran-Contra and the Iraq invasion that has led to widespread distrust of government institutions; economic pressures; news media, politicians and businesses who exploit all these things for their own purposes; and so on. We could really use a serious, careful analysis.
-
[
-
This picture of the APOLLO 11 command Module with Spacey chick does appear to be 6x6x6 dont you think??
You're looking at the outside volume. The figures cited are for the habitable volume inside. You don't seem to care that there is equipment contained in the hull of the CM that is not part of the habitable volume inside.
Further, 6x6x6 is a description of a cube. Your cited authority used that conceptual cube as an example to visualize how much volume 210 cubic feet would be in familiar terms. You're looking at a truncated cone in the photos, so the 6x6x6 foot dimensions are simply irrelevant to the visual shape of the command module.
I don't know how much simpler this can be made for you.
-
Do any of the regulars here have a degree or any kind of training in psychology? How about a student of psychology looking for a dissertation topic? I think someone could earn a well-deserved PhD and make a real contribution to science by making a methodical and comprehensive study of the conspiracy mindset.
Well, I'm strictly amateur, but I think there's more than one conspiracy mindset. I can see at least two distinct mental disorders at play aside from the people who are just kind of dumb.
-
Which Command module is that picture suppose to be ??
It doesn't matter. They were all exactly the same size and shape.
This picture of the APOLLO 11 command Module with Spacey chick does appear to be 6x6x6 dont you think??
Not even remotely!
How many more ways do you want this explained to you, DAKDAK? You don't understand how to work out the volume of a cone, despite having it explained to you, and despite your claims to have 'come up with' the 210 cubic feet value by using the exterior dimensions. You don't understand the difference between total volume and habitable volume. You essentially don't understand anything relevant to your argument.
-
Not much longer. I thought we werent suppose to use inapropriate language.
I agree the language was inappropriate, but I can sympathize with the frustration engendered by your apparently willful refusal to face reality.
Which Command module is that picture suppose to be ??
Apparently Apollo 11 - the same CM an image of which you posted.
What does it matter? Do you think the size of the CMs changed significantly from mission to mission?
This picture of the APOLLO 11 command Module with Spacey chick does appear to be 6x6x6 dont you think??
"Spacey chick"? What happened to appropriate language? [Edit: never mind - see Daggerstab's post below]
Anyway, no, it is obviously not 6'x6'x6'. And, again, I have been there, a number of times, and been up close to that very spacecraft.
I ask you again, are you just trolling? If not, when are you going to start answering all the other challenges to your claims?
edit: removed extra quoted material
-
Well, I'm strictly amateur, but I think there's more than one conspiracy mindset. I can see at least two distinct mental disorders at play aside from the people who are just kind of dumb.
Which ones? I'm curious, and I have very little education in psychology but I'm interested in learning.
-
This picture of the APOLLO 11 command Module with Spacey chick does appear to be 6x6x6 dont you think??
Now I think DAKDAK is suffering from Jack White syndrome.
-
This picture of the APOLLO 11 command Module with Spacey chick does appear to be 6x6x6 dont you think??
"Spacey chick"? What happened to appropriate language?
Well, that's the chosen nom-de-keyboard of the author of the website that was linked previously:
http://www.spaceychick.com/capsules/apollo/index.htm
That picture was taken from there.
-
Got it. Previous post marked up accordingly. Thanks.
-
Well, I'm strictly amateur, but I think there's more than one conspiracy mindset. I can see at least two distinct mental disorders at play aside from the people who are just kind of dumb.
Which ones? I'm curious, and I have very little education in psychology but I'm interested in learning.
The most obvious is paranoid schizophrenia. I very seldom think this to be the case in garden-variety conspiracists, but there have been several in whom that would have been my diagnosis, if I were qualified to diagnose and were willing to do so based merely on words on a screen. These are the kinds who think we're all disinformation agents if we don't agree with them, who think they're being stalked by Sinister Forces. In those cases, the paranoia has not manifested in (as in the case of my best friend's aunt) a conviction that everyone around them, even people who haven't ever directly harmed them, is an agent of the KKK. (My best friend's aunt is a white Presbyterian!) Their delusions focus on NASA or some other government agency instead.
There is actually also a disorder called delusional disorder, which I believe in the DSM-V will include extreme conspiracism all by itself. (Note that it will only qualify as a disorder when it has a negative impact on the person's every day life.) This leaves aside certain of the other aspects of schizophrenia but acknowledges that the delusions alone can be the problem. Delusions can also be possible in the most severe sufferers of bipolar disorder, but as far as I know, not in all. If so, will someone tell me what my delusions are?
-
I very seldom think [paranoid schizophrenia] to be the case in garden-variety conspiracists, but there have been several in whom that would have been my diagnosis, if I were qualified to diagnose and were willing to do so based merely on words on a screen.
A poster named "Plautus Satire" on the old Yahoo! forum probably qualifies. Some of you may remember J.R. Keller, who pops into these forums occasionally. If memory serves, his wife is a degreed and qualified psychologist and that was her conclusion based solely on the writings. There is some speculation whether DaveC/Rocky/FatFreddy88 might qualify, but I don't know if anyone properly trained has rendered an opinion there.
These are the kinds who think we're all disinformation agents if we don't agree with them, who think they're being stalked by Sinister Forces.
It's important to understand that the clinical distinction is between those who truly believe this, and those who merely put the antic disposition on for the sake of trolling or debate.
-
A poster named "Plautus Satire" on the old Yahoo! forum probably qualifies. Some of you may remember J.R. Keller, who pops into these forums occasionally. If memory serves, his wife is a degreed and qualified psychologist and that was her conclusion based solely on the writings. There is some speculation whether DaveC/Rocky/FatFreddy88 might qualify, but I don't know if anyone properly trained has rendered an opinion there.
I'm not trained, but I've often thought he qualified. He's one of the few I was specifically thinking about. However, the only person whose real-world actions I know of which led me to be certain of the diagnosis is a certain woman who put her dog to sleep so it wouldn't suffer when Planet X came. Everything she'd said up until that point could have been a con. That final step? Not so much.
It's important to understand that the clinical distinction is between those who truly believe this, and those who merely put the antic disposition on for the sake of trolling or debate.
Absolutely, which is why I'm so adamant that you can't diagnose just based on what you see here. You can get a strong supposition, but if I worked at it (I don't see the point to doing so!), I could probably pull off a convincing enough schizophrenic that it would fool a mental health professional who was only familiar with my posts and never saw me in person or knew anything else about me. Actually, I don't think it would be that difficult for me to do, if I cared enough. It's one of the reasons I tend to disagree with anyone who tries to diagnose all conspiracists with the same label. Honestly, some of them might be sociopaths who are just amusing themselves winding people up!
-
Honestly, some of them might be sociopaths who are just amusing themselves winding people up!
It's pronounced "troll."
-
I don't think a troll is necessarily a sociopath; the apparent anonymity and frequent lack of consequentness of the Internet brings out a certain level of anti-social behaviour that they otherwise would not engage in.
-
DAKDAK's original post, reconstructed from quoted material.
******
Sorry I am not sure how to correctly reply to the replies on the subject of "I don't know wether we went to the moon in the sixties or not" specifically how many cubic feet the Command module was but the Smithsonian Air and space museum(which is where the Command Module is today) says a TOTAL of 210 Cubic feet. Not a Habitable area of 210 cubic feet
Here is a link to the Smithsonian's video clip where I got this information (my source)
here is a link to part 1 and 2 of what was supposedly inside
part 1
part 2
-
DAKDAK's second post in this thread (link (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=83.msg1732#msg1732)), reconstructed.
******
I am very impressed with the credentials of this sites member's.
I am way out of my league debating with you guys and girls.
I have really enjoyed reading your replies and frankly I am very surprised I haven't been removed from the site. And that anyone replied to any posts I made at all.
I don't really consider myself a Conspiracy Theorist but I do think that the record of the Apollo Program and at least 75 percent of everything I learned in school about space is completely FALSE.
I also want to say three years ago when I realized The Apollo Program as we (the public) were told In my opinion is not and was not possible it was one of the most traumatic events in my life (forever changing my concept of reality), and if anyone could convince me that the official Apollo record was even close to true I would be forever indebted.
I to believe that I have gone at least a little CRAZY since I started watching and trying to understand the MOON maybe that's because when the moon is filling up I stay up all night on my roof (I cut a door to above the garage) taking pictures and messing with telescopes, cameras binoculars, flashlights and cell phone star and planet charts.
Does anyone else on this site other than me think that the moon emits not just a little but an amazing amount of light when it (the MOON) is almost or completely full, and that this light would have absolutely blinded any astronaut on the surface or Spaceship orbiting the MOON!!
-
Sorry I am not sure how to correctly reply to the replies on the subject of "I don't know wether we went to the moon in the sixties or not" specifically how many cubic feet the Command module was but the Smithsonian Air and space museum(which is where the Command Module is today) says a TOTAL of 210 Cubic feet. Not a Habitable area of 210 cubic feet
Here is a link to the Smithsonian's video clip where I got this information (my source)
here is a link to part 1 and 2 of what was supposedly inside
part 1
part 2
One of very true pictures inside the module attached
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
Think of a bathroom, that's how big the CM was, a big bathroom.
-
Sorry I am not sure how to correctly reply to the replies on the subject of "I don't know wether we went to the moon in the sixties or not" specifically how many cubic feet the Command module was but the Smithsonian Air and space museum(which is where the Command Module is today) says a TOTAL of 210 Cubic feet. Not a Habitable area of 210 cubic feet
Here is a link to the Smithsonian's video clip where I got this information (my source)
here is a link to part 1 and 2 of what was supposedly inside
part 1
part 2
One of very true pictures inside the module attached
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
Think of a bathroom, that's how big the CM was, a big bathroom.
And here's the setup...
OK, I'll play straight man before I go to work and be a productive part of society: [Joe Pesche voice]What possible reason what you have picked that analogy?[/Joe Pesche voice]