Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by onebigmonkey on July 07, 2025, 04:42:48 PM »
Ah bless them, they've released a "critique" of Dave McKeegan's excellent video on the Apollo surface photographs, which is here:



They don't start off well by changing the title of Dave's video to strawman his position, misrepresent what his video is actually about, and then ad hominem their way through a huge assumption that Dave has never used film cameras, but that's the least of their mistakes.

Despite Allen appealing to his own authority, something that seems very much out of place, they get so many things wrong. They include footage of Dave Scott taking a panorama, something they claim that they can only be done with viewfinders or there would be gaps and misalignments - blissfully unaware that there are many panoramas that have exactly those things - including the very first one that Neil can be seen taking at the foot of the ladder:

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a11/a11pan1093226HR.jpg

They don't seem to understand the modifications made to the cameras to allow them to be used. They invent a whole new branch of physics by claiming objects instantly reach their maximum temperature the very second they're exposed to sunlight, they seem entirely unaware of the hours of training carried out in photography - despite Dave covering it very well.

They make great play about Dave not having access to the precise film that Apollo used, so his analyses must be invalid, and also that it's impossible to recreate the kind of vacuum on the moon so how could NASA test them, then without a trace of irony make claims about their own tests that obviously also aren't using the SO film or lunar vacuum.

Just one example of how dumb, ignorant and ill-informed they are can be found when they discuss the famous bootprint photo:

"Now, did he take the camera off his chest, point it down at the ground, having altered the focus ring, which required it to be focused to 3 ft, the shortest distance he can focus at, point it at the ground without a viewfinder, and get it all nicely in frame. That's a question that hasn't been answered."

If only there was footage showing it happening that anyone who had the in-depth knowledge about Apollo that they claim would know about.

Phase52012 has already stepped in with a response, but I haven't seen it uet, but it's pretty much shooting dumb fish in a barrel.

2
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by bknight on July 05, 2025, 09:24:46 PM »
Who are these detectives anyway as I don't do FB.
3
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by Ian R on June 23, 2025, 08:47:25 PM »
Yes, I've recently commented on their videos to point out the flaws in their 'analysis' of Apollo 11 Mag-H. Of course, their response (seen in their latest two efforts) is . . . lacking, shall I say?  ;D
4
General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency
« Last post by Ranb on June 22, 2025, 10:55:11 PM »
I can only imagine that the soldiers who were ordered to be in the parade, were embarrassed to be there also.  I was trained to march, sort of, in Navy boot camp.  The entirety of my remaining training (>1 year) prior to going to the fleet did not involved any marching at all.
5
General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency
« Last post by Obviousman on June 22, 2025, 06:51:00 PM »
I noticed the marching was pretty slipshod...

That wasn't marching. That was a group of similarly dressed people walking in the same direction. I'd be embarrassed about it.
6
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Chandrayaan-2 views Apollo
« Last post by Obviousman on June 22, 2025, 06:28:15 PM »
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are the bird is going to crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.

Are we talking Trump again? LOL
7
General Discussion / Re: SpaceX no longer reliable.
« Last post by bknight on June 21, 2025, 01:48:43 PM »
It has been reported that the likely culprit was a COPV exploding.  It seems to me that a few years ago a F9 suffered a similar incident that was identified as a COPV. COPVs are lighter but are not as reliable as steel, IMO.
8
General Discussion / Re: SpaceX no longer reliable.
« Last post by Peter B on June 20, 2025, 06:50:09 PM »
They've found a new way to drive efficiency. Just blow 'em up on the ground without all that lifting into the upper atmosphere nonsense. Musk is a genius!!!

I understand Musk isn't an engineer, but he seems to like to play at being one. Like the story I've read of him getting onto some part of a Tesla production line and asking the workers why they use that many bolts in that stage of manufacture. Or his interview with Tim Dodd (Everyday Astronaut) which ended up in some change in the design of Starship.

I wonder whether the problems Starship has been experiencing over the last few months are anything to do with other tinkering by him. Or is it simply that the SpaceX engineers have pushed Starship beyond current technological limits?
9
General Discussion / Re: SpaceX no longer reliable.
« Last post by grmcdorman on June 19, 2025, 07:09:36 PM »
Scott Manley also reports on it, with the title tag "Not Nominal" :-)
10
General Discussion / Re: SpaceX no longer reliable.
« Last post by Zakalwe on June 19, 2025, 02:40:14 PM »


Oh dear....

I'm no expert in rocketry by any means, and most of what I do know I picked up from here, but surely we've generally got past the problem of rockets just blowing up on the pad, haven't we?

They've found a new way to drive efficiency. Just blow 'em up on the ground without all that lifting into the upper atmosphere nonsense. Musk is a genius!!!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10