ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: tradosaurus on January 31, 2016, 10:55:16 AM
-
As a proud Apollo moon lander denier and a degreed Mechanical Engineer, I have a few questions to ask those that believe in NASA's story. As you answer these questions please take a minute to ponder if you are answering the questions based on faith or based on logic and evidence. My contention is that those that believe in a globe earth universe, which includes moon landings, are operating on a basis of faith and therefore are adhering to a NASA based religion.
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
2) How did the astronauts keep cooled and heated in extreme temperatures (+/- 200F). Could 1960's technology operated in this environment? I've seen a picture of the heat transfer system supposedly used but it still needed a power supply.
3) How did the astronauts fit through a 22" docking hatch with their backpacks on when hooking back with the command module?
4) How could NASA send a rocket to the moon given the variables (as told to us by science books) of the earth's rotation (1,000 mph), the earths rotation around the sun (65,000 mph), and the moon's rotation about the earth using technology no powerful than a pocket calculator.
5) How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module? According to NASA the LM was height was 22'-11" (with legs extended) and 31 ft diameter (across extended landing gear) so LM cargo/living area was smaller.
6) What kind of camera technology could withstand +/-200 F heat and develop film so perfectly clear (and film withstand radiation twice through the Van Allen belts)?
7) How did the astronauts poop and pee during their 7 day excursion to and from the moon? Were they able to get out of their suits at all?
-
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
The camera was using a wide angle lens.
(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif)
-
As a proud Apollo moon lander denier and a degreed Mechanical Engineer, I have a few questions to ask those that believe in NASA's story. As you answer these questions please take a minute to ponder if you are answering the questions based on faith or based on logic and evidence. My contention is that those that believe in a globe earth universe, which includes moon landings, are operating on a basis of faith and therefore are adhering to a NASA based religion.
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
2) How did the astronauts keep cooled and heated in extreme temperatures (+/- 200F). Could 1960's technology operated in this environment? I've seen a picture of the heat transfer system supposedly used but it still needed a power supply.
3) How did the astronauts fit through a 22" docking hatch with their backpacks on when hooking back with the command module?
4) How could NASA send a rocket to the moon given the variables (as told to us by science books) of the earth's rotation (1,000 mph), the earths rotation around the sun (65,000 mph), and the moon's rotation about the earth using technology no powerful than a pocket calculator.
5) How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module? According to NASA the LM was height was 22'-11" (with legs extended) and 31 ft diameter (across extended landing gear) so LM cargo/living area was smaller.
6) What kind of camera technology could withstand +/-200 F heat and develop film so perfectly clear (and film withstand radiation twice through the Van Allen belts)?
7) How did the astronauts poop and pee during their 7 day excursion to and from the moon? Were they able to get out of their suits at all?
You are very talented when it comes to research on the matter. Here you won't find anyone providing evidence based on faith, but based on engineering/scientific proofs.
1. The size of the Earth depends a lot on the focal length of the lens used in each image. Please provide a calculation for the size of the earth on any give image.
2. The PLSS provided the necessary cooling for the EVA's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Life_Support_System supplied in the other thread also.
3. Numskull they didn't fit through a 22" docking hatch but the 32" hatchway.
4. All the physics calculations are available to anyone that is intelligent enough to use them. Some need more computing power than a spreadsheet, but all were quite capable with a slide rule. Some require integration.
5. All the consumable you speak of were supplied for 2 men for 3 days on the moon, the rest of the consumables were on board the CSM, for all three men.
6. Provide documentation to the amount of radiation the film/cameras were subjected to.
7. Bodily functions were contained with plastic bags that either attached with tubes, or had adhesive for fecal material. These were then stored or dumped overboard.
How did you graduate with an Engineering degree with the poor research efforts you have presented here.
-
I'm amazed anyone can be so proud of their own ignorance and lack of ability to do simple google searches to answer tired old questions that have been answered over and over again.
1. The moon is quite big. Go take a photo of it and see how small it looks. Please provide any kind of evidence that supports your claim that it is too small in Apollo images, otherwise we have rely on your faith based religion.
2. What temperature ranges were being experienced in the lunar morning during which the missions landed? Please provide any kind of evidence that the technology was not up to managing that temperature range or that the battery power supply was inadequate, otherwise we have rely on your faith based religion.
3. They wriggled through the hatch carefully. Your size is incorrect. Go find the correct size.
4. Newton's laws of motion.
5.They put things away. The rover was not inside the lunar module. They did not travel to the moon in the lunar module, they travelled in the command module.
6. The same camera technology that worked just fine in Earth orbit and on various unmanned probes. Prove it couldn't have, otherwise we have rely on your faith based religion.
7. Do some research. Google is your friend.
Please let us know which engineering projects you have worked on. I need to avoid them.
-
...and a degreed Mechanical Engineer.
Nope.
I've been a practicing engineer for 30 years, and taught it for a few. There are other practicing engineers who participate in this forum, and who will no doubt arrive shortly. Your post below reveals common layman's mistakes. I reject entirely the claim that you have any formal engineering education or experience, so if your plan is to bluster your way past whom you think are unsuspecting folk, you are in for a surprise.
Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon.
Basic optics. You should have learned that as an engineer, in first-year engineering physics.
The earth should be much larger.
Exactly how large? You say you're an engineer. So am I. Thus I require quantitative arguments to be supported with computations or detailed estimates. You provide neither. Given the easily-discovered optics parameters of the Apollo cameras, lenses, and films, there is no excuse for your not having done this.
How did the astronauts keep cooled and heated in extreme temperatures (+/- 200F).
What object or substance exactly do you claim fluctuated between these temperatures? You display a layman's cartoonish understanding of the space environment.
Preventing heat transfer via convection and conduction is a matter of thermal insulation. Apollo space suits provide several dozen thicknesses of alternating materials resulting in practically zero thermal conduction across the boundary. The problem then becomes rejection of metabolic heat. Preventing heat transfer by radiation is a matter of controlling the optical properties , which you would have learned in first-year thermal design, had you really obtained an engineering degree. The outer layer of the Apollo space suit had a reflectivity in the appropriate wavelengths of around 0.8. Given a solar influx of approximately 1,300 W m-2, you should be able to compute the absorption and put some actual numbers to your claims.
Could 1960's technology operated in this environment?
Why not? The designs are publicly available, as well as examples of them. We use the same technology today, by the way. It hasn't been improved upon much since the 1960s because it works well enough.
I've seen a picture of the heat transfer system supposedly used...
But, as a purported engineer, you didn't study the designs to determine how it was intended to work?
...but it still needed a power supply.
It had one, in the form of a battery that was changed between EVAs. It is a common layman's mistake to believe the thermal control system required considerable electrical power to operate. This is sometimes true in vapor-cycle systems that require compressors, but not for sublimation systems. The heat transfer takes space via normal sublimation. The only power required is that to pump the sublimant, and to circulate air.
3) How did the astronauts fit through a 22" docking hatch with their backpacks on when hooking back with the command module?
They didn't. You clearly have not researched the Apollo mission profile. Transfers between the LM and CM through the docking tunnel were when the entire stack was pressurized and they could move about it in suits. Contingency transfers between the LM and CM, should docking prove elusive, were via the 32-inch forward hatch on the LM. Operations in suits within each spacecraft were when the suits were connected to the environmental controls via hoses.
The only time the astronauts were expected to wear the PLSS/OPS assembly in a spacecraft was in the LM just prior to and after EVA.
[quote[How could NASA send a rocket to the moon given the variables (as told to us by science books) of the earth's rotation (1,000 mph), the earths rotation around the sun (65,000 mph), and the moon's rotation about the earth using technology no powerful than a pocket calculator.[/quote]
How much computing power is required? You make no quantitative argument or supply any numbers. You simply insinuate that space travel is an exercise requiring substantial onboard computing power, and suggest that because it wasn't provided, it can't be possible. What kind of an engineer are you? You can't make even the simplest case in an engineering context.
Why are you giving rotation rates in units of scalar velocity?
To answer your question, most of the math was done ahead of time using mainframe computers and the Dept. of Energy's CDC 6600 supercomputer (roughly equivalent to a 1990s Pentium). For support during the missions, these preliminary orbital computations were adjusted by IBM mainframes in NASA computing centers and transmitted by radio to the onboard computer.
But the real problem is that you have a comical layman's understanding of what is needed, on an ongoing basis, for flying in space.
How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module?
The LRV folded up and was strapped to the forward left quadrant of the LM descent stage. There is extensive documentation for how this was done, and video of it being deployed.
According to NASA the LM was height was 22'-11" (with legs extended) and 31 ft diameter (across extended landing gear) so LM cargo/living area was smaller.
None of the consumables were kept inside the habitable volume. Descent fuel was in two of the quadrants of the LM descent stage. RCS and APS fuel was kept in the two bulbous projections on either side of the LM cabin. Also, you account only for the LM, which was designed only to keep two men alive for two days (H-type) or 3-4 days (J-type). You seem conspicuously unaware that consumables for the rest of the mission were provided by the service module -- again, storage kept outside the habitable volumes.
What kind of camera technology could withstand +/-200 F heat and develop film so perfectly clear (and film withstand radiation twice through the Van Allen belts)?
The Hasselblad cameras were very sturdy and substantial. Their heat conduction paths were carefully considered, especially in the 70mm longroll magazines. The film base was Kodak's ESTAR, made of polyester and developed specifically for high-altitude and space environments. Its melting point is around 400 C. It was extensively tested during Gemini.
You provide no radiation figures for the trip around the Van Allen belts. In any case, the film magazines were kept inside spacecraft structure and the film was thus adequately shielded.
How did the astronauts poop and pee during their 7 day excursion to and from the moon? Were they able to get out of their suits at all?
Yes. The astronauts spent very little time in their space suits, as each spacecraft had a habitable environment. Further, all these details of life aboard the Apollo spacecraft are the subject of many books, many pre- and post-mission publications by NASA and their contractors, and frankly common knowledge among the engineering community.
You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
-
As a proud Apollo moon lander denier and a degreed Mechanical Engineer,
Where's your degree from if you can't work out that the Earth isn't flat?
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
"should look much larger"? Says who? On what basis do you make that claim?
5) How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module?
Hmmm..are you Dak Dak? He had a similar obsession. And why do you think that the LRV was inside the LM?
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
2) How did the astronauts keep cooled and heated in extreme temperatures (+/- 200F). Could 1960's technology operated in this environment? I've seen a picture of the heat transfer system supposedly used but it still needed a power supply.
3) How did the astronauts fit through a 22" docking hatch with their backpacks on when hooking back with the command module?
4) How could NASA send a rocket to the moon given the variables (as told to us by science books) of the earth's rotation (1,000 mph), the earths rotation around the sun (65,000 mph), and the moon's rotation about the earth using technology no powerful than a pocket calculator.
5) How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module? According to NASA the LM was height was 22'-11" (with legs extended) and 31 ft diameter (across extended landing gear) so LM cargo/living area was smaller.
6) What kind of camera technology could withstand +/-200 F heat and develop film so perfectly clear (and film withstand radiation twice through the Van Allen belts)?
7) How did the astronauts poop and pee during their 7 day excursion to and from the moon? Were they able to get out of their suits at all?
Really? You claim to have a University education and you are asking questions that a primary school student would be embarrassed to ask? Go and do some research.
-
Where's your degree from if you can't work out that the Earth isn't flat?
The university of general mills??
Hmmm..are you Dak Dak? He had a similar obsession. And why do you think that the LRV was inside the LM?
I suspected a sock.
-
Yes. The astronauts spent very little time in their space suits, as each spacecraft had a habitable environment. Further, all these details of life aboard the Apollo spacecraft are the subject of many books, many pre- and post-mission publications by NASA and their contractors, and frankly common knowledge among the engineering community.
You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
I mean, has he even seen Apollo 13?
-
...and a degreed Mechanical Engineer.
Nope.
I've been a practicing engineer for 30 years, and taught it for a few. There are other practicing engineers who participate in this forum, and who will no doubt arrive shortly. Your post below reveals common layman's mistakes. I reject entirely the claim that you have any formal engineering education or experience, so if your plan is to bluster your way past whom you think are unsuspecting folk, you are in for a surprise.
Jay you always have a good way of saying what's on my mind.
-
As a proud Apollo moon lander denier and a degreed Mechanical Engineer, I have a few questions to ask those that believe in NASA's story. As you answer these questions please take a minute to ponder if you are answering the questions based on faith or based on logic and evidence. My contention is that those that believe in a globe earth universe, which includes moon landings, are operating on a basis of faith and therefore are adhering to a NASA based religion.
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
Already answered. Wide angle lens. The type of lens used affects the relative size of objects in the frame. Do the math for the focal length though and you'll find the Earth takes up about 2 degrees, exactly how much it should.
2) How did the astronauts keep cooled and heated in extreme temperatures (+/- 200F). Could 1960's technology operated in this environment? I've seen a picture of the heat transfer system supposedly used but it still needed a power supply.
using the same kind of equipment they use in low Earth orbit which has the same thermal environment. Your quoted temps are the MAX and MIN temps for the surface. It takes time to heat up or cool down. They weren't there when the surface was near those temps and even then only their boots would have been in contact with it.
3) How did the astronauts fit through a 22" docking hatch with their backpacks on when hooking back with the command module?
Already answered.
4) How could NASA send a rocket to the moon given the variables (as told to us by science books) of the earth's rotation (1,000 mph), the earths rotation around the sun (65,000 mph), and the moon's rotation about the earth using technology no powerful than a pocket calculator.
Movement around the sun doesn't matter (or rather, isn't needed to be worried about in the calculation) when a trip to the Moon is essentially an elongated orbit around Earth. The relevant calculations can be done on a slide-rule. They were also often done in the large mainframes on Earth and the necessary info radioed up.
5) How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module? According to NASA the LM was height was 22'-11" (with legs extended) and 31 ft diameter (across extended landing gear) so LM cargo/living area was smaller.
Haven't you studied at all? The rover attached to the outside. The Lunar Module carried 2 men not 3. The info is out there showing there was plenty of room. If you don't agree then show why. Hand waving won't cut it.
6) What kind of camera technology could withstand +/-200 F heat and develop film so perfectly clear (and film withstand radiation twice through the Van Allen belts)?
They went around the majority of the belts.
and the film never came in contact with anything that temperature. See #2 above.
7) How did the astronauts poop and pee during their 7 day excursion to and from the moon? Were they able to get out of their suits at all?
Most of the time they were in flight suits as they were in the pressurized spacecraft. Have you studied this at all?
-
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
The camera was using a wide angle lens.
(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif)
I love that pic. I'm glad I saved it to photobucket before the original site it was on shut down.
-
It's pretty trippy. I wish I understood the math behind it, but the evidence is there, as well as in movies that use Hitchcock's famous dolly zoom.
-
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
The camera was using a wide angle lens.
(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif)
I love that pic. I'm glad I saved it to photobucket before the original site it was on shut down.
Here is another non-animated example.
(http://cdn-7.nikon-cdn.com/Images/Learn-Explore/Photography-Techniques/2009/Focal-Length/Media/red-barn-sequence.jpg)
-
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
The camera was using a wide angle lens.
(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif)
That's awesome with 1960's camera technology. In addition the astronauts had the cameras fitted to the front of the suits with no view finders so I think they did a fantastic job of getting all these great and clear shots.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
From the humor department of NASA: "The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature.".
-
From the humor department of NASA: "The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature.".
What's almost humorous is that someone claiming to be a mechanical engineer has no comprehension about thermal reflectivity. "Humorous" in that anyone with more than a few working brain cells is watching you making an eejit out of yourself.
-
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
The camera was using a wide angle lens.
(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif)
That's awesome with 1960's camera technology. In addition the astronauts had the cameras fitted to the front of the suits with no view finders so I think they did a fantastic job of getting all these great and clear shots.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
From the humor department of NASA: "The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature.".
Have you actually looked through the Apollo images online? They took a lot of really bad photos, too. No, really.
-
That's awesome with 1960's camera technology.
What part of "camera technology" do you think has changed since 1960? What part do you think needs to have changed? You can still buy the Ziess Biogon lens for a variety of camera bodies. You can still buy the 500/EL body.
What you're seeing in this demonstration is not a product of "technology." What you're seeing is a very straightforward application of focal length, something that's been known to photographers since the 1820s. It's a natural feature of all compound lenses, and we've had compound lenses since Galileo. It's also something all modern photographers are either taught or become acquainted with as they work. Have you actually ever used a camera?
In addition the astronauts had the cameras fitted to the front of the suits with no view finders so I think they did a fantastic job of getting all these great and clear shots.
They were not "fitted," but rather could be hung there, using a bayonet-type mount on the RCU. The RCU itself was merely hung on hooks from the PLSS straps and could be moved at will. I've tested this myself.
Further, the horizontal field of view was about 45ยบ. This makes it very easy just to point the camera in the general direction of the subject and have a very good chance of framing the shot successfully. Again, I tested this myself with an actual Apollo camera and lens. I had no practice shots, but the Apollo astronauts were given Apollo-modified Hasselblads for several months to practice.
You seem to not know how wide-angle lenses work, or focal lengths or distances of any kind. Yet you claim to have a degree in engineering, which would have required passing classes that teach basic optics.
From the humor department of NASA: "The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature.".
Humor department? The coatings on the cameras and magazines were relatively straightforward, the same sort of thing put on Thermos bottles back in the 1940s. Aluminum paint is not rocket science, or even especially exotic. For someone who claims to be an engineer, you don't seem to know anything about very simple engineering concepts like heat transfer. In fact, you don't seem to know much more about "engineering" than what you read on long-debunked hoaxie web sites.
Normally when someone claims to be an engineer, it's to set forth the expectation that arguments he will make will be supported by an appropriate demonstration of engineering knowledge and skill. You seem to have claimed it as a ploy to masquerade your ignorant bluster behind intimidation. You really have no clue what you're talking about, and you seem to think that no one else would know these things either and therefore be unable to catch you.
-
I'm amazed anyone can be so proud of their own ignorance and lack of ability to do simple google searches to answer tired old questions that have been answered over and over again.
1. The moon is quite big. Go take a photo of it and see how small it looks. Please provide any kind of evidence that supports your claim that it is too small in Apollo images, otherwise we have rely on your faith based religion.
2. What temperature ranges were being experienced in the lunar morning during which the missions landed? Please provide any kind of evidence that the technology was not up to managing that temperature range or that the battery power supply was inadequate, otherwise we have rely on your faith based religion.
3. They wriggled through the hatch carefully. Your size is incorrect. Go find the correct size.
4. Newton's laws of motion.
5.They put things away. The rover was not inside the lunar module. They did not travel to the moon in the lunar module, they travelled in the command module.
6. The same camera technology that worked just fine in Earth orbit and on various unmanned probes. Prove it couldn't have, otherwise we have rely on your faith based religion.
7. Do some research. Google is your friend.
Please let us know which engineering projects you have worked on. I need to avoid them.
1. The earth is supposedly 7,917 miles in diameter. The moon is supposedly 2159 in diameter. So the earth is almost 4 times as big as the moon but in all the camera shots from the moon the earth looks like the same size as we would see the moon from earth. Oops! Someone in the hollywood department of NASA didn't do their homework.
2. i asked the question. Can you give me a reasonable answer without relying on nasa? According the website on the PLSS the battery provided 279 W-hr supply for the system to keep the astronots from frying in 200F+ heat or freezing in -200F cold. A typical car battery provides about 780 W in one hour. So somehow NASA was able to create a battery to provide 279 watts in one hour and evidently recharge or have extra batteries for the astro-nots. Doesn't compute.
3. The size is correct within 12 inches, I promise. Refute it please.
4. Sorry, Newton laws of motion doesn't cut it. NASA admits their computing power was as powerful as a handheld calculator. Can't get there from here unless you have faith in NASA.
5. The rover was in the Lunar module which went supposedly landed on the moon. http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-LM-general-arrangement.gif
6. I asked the question. All NASA states is that they put a silver finish on the outside of the camera to withstand thermal variations. LOL. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
7. Please answer the question. How do you poop from a space suit when there was no room to maneuver? (according to the diagrams of the capsule from NASA).
-
1. The earth is supposedly 7,917 miles in diameter. The moon is supposedly 2159 in diameter. So the earth is almost 4 times as big as the moon but in all the camera shots from the moon the earth looks like the same size as we would see the moon from earth. Oops! Someone in the hollywood department of NASA didn't do their homework.
2. i asked the question. Can you give me a reasonable answer without relying on nasa? According the website on the PLSS the battery provided 279 W-hr supply for the system to keep the astronots from frying in 200F+ heat or freezing in -200F cold. A typical car battery provides about 780 W in one hour. So somehow NASA was able to create a battery to provide 279 watts in one hour and evidently recharge or have extra batteries for the astro-nots. Doesn't compute.
3. The size is correct within 12 inches, I promise. Refute it please.
4. Sorry, Newton laws of motion doesn't cut it. NASA admits their computing power was as powerful as a handheld calculator. Can't get there from here unless you have faith in NASA.
5. The rover was in the Lunar module which went supposedly landed on the moon. http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-LM-general-arrangement.gif
6. I asked the question. All NASA states is that they put a silver finish on the outside of the camera to withstand thermal variations. LOL. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
7. Please answer the question. How do you poop from a space suit when there was no room to maneuver? (according to the diagrams of the capsule from NASA).
Wow....so much stupid in one post. At this stage its clear that you are just trolling.
-
From the humor department of NASA: "The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature.".
What's almost humorous is that someone claiming to be a mechanical engineer has no comprehension about thermal reflectivity. "Humorous" in that anyone with more than a few working brain cells is watching you making an eejit out of yourself.
I'm still waiting for Mythbusters to replicate the extreme temperatures on the moon while trying to take pictures without the camera being ruined. Or borrow the PLSS from NASA (if it exists) and run an experiment ;)
-
Wow....so much stupid in one post. At this stage its clear that you are just trolling.
it's clear that I've upset your religious belief in a globe earth universe where NASA has all the answers.
-
.... a degreed Mechanical Engineer,
Again, where did you get your degree from?
-
Where's your degree from if you can't work out that the Earth isn't flat?
Now that you mention it the main reason I know NASA is a fraud and has bilked billions from taxpayers to fund their fantasy expeditions is the observable and tested facts that the earth is flat. But I digress ;)
-
Wow....so much stupid in one post. At this stage its clear that you are just trolling.
it's clear that I've upset your religious belief in a globe earth universe where NASA has all the answers.
WOW a flat-Earther also, but I could've guessed that. ::)
You have been asked questions, quit stalling and provide evidence for your adolescent beliefs.
-
Oops! Someone in the hollywood department of NASA didn't do their homework.
Oops, someone doesn't know how focal length works.
I asked the question.
You provide figures for battery capacity, but you don't say how much electricity you think was needed to power the space suit. You don't get to say it wouldn't have worked unless you can provide both numbers and show that one is less than the other.
The size is correct within 12 inches, I promise. Refute it please.
The refutation is that you wrongly believe the astronauts wore their spacesuits and backpacks continuously throughout the mission, and that they were meant to go through the docking hatch so dressed. The problem is your ignorance of the Apollo program.
Sorry, Newton laws of motion doesn't cut it.
Then you don't know Newton. Kepler worked out the basic laws of orbits, and Newton later proved them via his theory of gravitation. All celestial mechanics is based on that, and was a well-developed science as early as 1900. The same mathematics governs the natural motion of planets and moons that dictates the trajectory of spacecraft in space.
NASA admits their computing power was as powerful as a handheld calculator.
You haven't told us how much computing power is needed to get to the Moon. You simply declare that there wasn't enough provided.
The rover was in the Lunar module which went supposedly landed on the moon.
The rover was strapped to the side of the LM descent stage in folded form. You haven't explained why this allegedly didn't work.
I asked the question.
Your question included several ignorant layman's assumptions regarding heat transfer.
All NASA states is that they put a silver finish on the outside of the camera to withstand thermal variations.
And a real engineer knows why that works and why that's sufficient.
How do you poop from a space suit when there was no room to maneuver?
The astronauts wore diapers when in their spacesuit. The problem is that you ignorantly seem to believe they were wearing their space suits all the time. This indicates how very little research you've done on the Apollo program before declaring it fake.
-
.... a degreed Mechanical Engineer,
Again, where did you get your degree from?
And why do you care? Yes, I have a degree BSME (1989) from the University of Texas. Although I'm not particularly proud of having been hoodwinked on a few principles of the universe.
-
1. The earth is supposedly 7,917 miles in diameter. The moon is supposedly 2159 in diameter. So the earth is almost 4 times as big as the moon but in all the camera shots from the moon the earth looks like the same size as we would see the moon from earth. Oops! Someone in the hollywood department of NASA didn't do their homework.
2. i asked the question. Can you give me a reasonable answer without relying on nasa? According the website on the PLSS the battery provided 279 W-hr supply for the system to keep the astronots from frying in 200F+ heat or freezing in -200F cold. A typical car battery provides about 780 W in one hour. So somehow NASA was able to create a battery to provide 279 watts in one hour and evidently recharge or have extra batteries for the astro-nots. Doesn't compute.
3. The size is correct within 12 inches, I promise. Refute it please.
4. Sorry, Newton laws of motion doesn't cut it. NASA admits their computing power was as powerful as a handheld calculator. Can't get there from here unless you have faith in NASA.
5. The rover was in the Lunar module which went supposedly landed on the moon. http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-LM-general-arrangement.gif
6. I asked the question. All NASA states is that they put a silver finish on the outside of the camera to withstand thermal variations. LOL. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
7. Please answer the question. How do you poop from a space suit when there was no room to maneuver? (according to the diagrams of the capsule from NASA).
Wow....so much stupid in one post. At this stage its clear that you are just trolling.
I second or third that comment.
-
it's clear that I've upset your religious belief in a globe earth universe where NASA has all the answers.
Troll.
-
And why do you care? Yes, I have a degree BSME (1989) from the University of Texas.
No.
You display no correct knowledge of engineering.
-
.... a degreed Mechanical Engineer,
Again, where did you get your degree from?
And why do you care? Yes, I have a degree BSME (1989) from the University of Texas. Although I'm not particularly proud of having been hoodwinked on a few principles of the universe.
I thought they were a better school than to give you a degree which you obviously did not earn. Perhaps go back and re-take the classes you missed while partying.
-
And why do you care? Yes, I have a degree BSME (1989) from the University of Texas. Although I'm not particularly proud of having been hoodwinked on a few principles of the universe.
Not that it makes any difference, but either you are lying (most likely) or you have undergone some pretty significant mental trauma (we've seen that before on here).
Why do I say this? Because no-one with even the tiniest modicum of engineering or education would ask the questions that you have just asked. And, more revealingly, would have asked them in the way that you have asked them.
-
Not that it makes any difference...
It only makes a difference because he led with it. He considers it relevant, and my guess is that he expected to intimidate his audience with it. He's cribbing pseudo-scientific arguments from the usual sources and hoping to forestall criticism by presenting them as an "engineering" reasons why Apollo was not possible.
I'm not discounting the "serious brain trauma" explanation, but there is absolutely no way an accredited engineering school will grant a degree for such blatant ignorance as is displayed here.
-
WOW a flat-Earther also, but I could've guessed that. ::)
This individual has been raving over on the Flat Earth Society for a few months.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=a4tsvp20lgneahn6ii4ino7411&action=profile;area=showposts;u=1046975
-
Now that you mention it the main reason I know NASA is a fraud and has bilked billions from taxpayers to fund their fantasy expeditions is the observable and tested facts that the earth is flat. But I digress ;)
You know our ancestors, starting with Eratosthenes, and continuing with mariners in the middle ages proved the world is roughly spherical, this has nothing to do with NASA, although they provide breath taking images to cement that idea.
-
it's clear that I've upset your religious belief in a globe earth universe where NASA has all the answers.
Says the guy who can't even get other flat-earthers (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=k7lmqua6qgf9coagoaqgls9216&action=profile;area=showposts;u=1046975) to buy into his nonsense.
-
WOW a flat-Earther also, but I could've guessed that. ::)
This individual has been raving over on the Flat Earth Society for a few months.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=a4tsvp20lgneahn6ii4ino7411&action=profile;area=showposts;u=1046975
Do I need my tin foil hat to go there?
-
It only makes a difference because he led with it. He considers it relevant, and my guess is that he expected to intimidate his audience with it. He's cribbing pseudo-scientific arguments from the usual sources and hoping to forestall criticism by presenting them as an "engineering" reasons why Apollo was not possible.
This isn't YouTube though, so that approach will zero traction here.
I'm not discounting the "serious brain trauma" explanation, but there is absolutely no way an accredited engineering school will grant a degree for such blatant ignorance as is displayed here.
The mind is such a fragile thing...it takes so little for it to go completely wrong. Bjorkmann, Neil Baker, Patrick Tekeli are just a few that spring to mind. I guess we should be grateful to have a working mind and at the same time recognise just how little it would take to turn someone into a troll raving about conspiracy theories and suchlike.
-
Where's your degree from if you can't work out that the Earth isn't flat?
Now that you mention it the main reason I know NASA is a fraud and has bilked billions from taxpayers to fund their fantasy expeditions is the observable and tested facts that the earth is flat. But I digress ;)
Not facts but more like conjecture support such idea.
If you cant use basic geometry to figure the shape of the earth, you probably are not an engineer.
-
Do I need my tin foil hat to go there?
Well, either approach from the angle that the whole site is a Poe (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law) or have someone perform a full frontal lobotomy on you. Either approach will be needed...
-
As a proud Apollo moon lander denier and a degreed Mechanical Engineer, I have a few questions to ask those that believe in NASA's story. As you answer these questions please take a minute to ponder if you are answering the questions based on faith or based on logic and evidence. My contention is that those that believe in a globe earth universe, which includes moon landings, are operating on a basis of faith and therefore are adhering to a NASA based religion.
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
2) How did the astronauts keep cooled and heated in extreme temperatures (+/- 200F). Could 1960's technology operated in this environment? I've seen a picture of the heat transfer system supposedly used but it still needed a power supply.
3) How did the astronauts fit through a 22" docking hatch with their backpacks on when hooking back with the command module?
4) How could NASA send a rocket to the moon given the variables (as told to us by science books) of the earth's rotation (1,000 mph), the earths rotation around the sun (65,000 mph), and the moon's rotation about the earth using technology no powerful than a pocket calculator.
5) How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module? According to NASA the LM was height was 22'-11" (with legs extended) and 31 ft diameter (across extended landing gear) so LM cargo/living area was smaller.
6) What kind of camera technology could withstand +/-200 F heat and develop film so perfectly clear (and film withstand radiation twice through the Van Allen belts)?
7) How did the astronauts poop and pee during their 7 day excursion to and from the moon? Were they able to get out of their suits at all?
Neil... How on earth did you get an Engineering degree with such a complete ignorance of basic engineering principles?
-
I'm still waiting for Mythbusters to replicate the extreme temperatures on the moon...
Funny you mention that. I consulted on that show. That was contemplated as one of the experiments in the vacuum chambers, but was cut because the ones with radiant heating facilities were not available, and for other reasons. When you understand why you need a vacuum chamber and radiant heat, you'll understand why you haven't thought enough about this problem.
Again, you still wave around the layman's concept of "temperature on the Moon" without saying the temperature of what.
...while trying to take pictures without the camera being ruined.
Because every other example of film photography in space from 1945 to the digital era, undertaken by several countries, is somehow a huge lie?
Or borrow the PLSS from NASA (if it exists) and run an experiment ;)
Or just keep using the latest PLSSes, which work according to the same principles for cooling. Unlike a real engineer, you seem to think NASA is some super-secret font of all space knowledge, and that no one can possibly know anything about space without being indoctrinated into their cabal.
I've worked for 30 years in space engineering (Hughes 601HP, Boeing 701, Boeing Delta III, Orbital Antares), none of it for NASA -- all of it for the private sector. Please continue trying to tell me how my very successful career is just religious faith in NASA.
-
WOW a flat-Earther also, but I could've guessed that. ::)
This individual has been raving over on the Flat Earth Society for a few months.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=a4tsvp20lgneahn6ii4ino7411&action=profile;area=showposts;u=1046975
Do I need my tin foil hat to go there?
The site is a poe.
The person or persons who set it up aren't flat-earthers, they are jokesters who set up a site so that flat-earther's would have a place to congregate and make complete and utter fools of themselves.
The Colbert Report is a good example of a poe. There are people out there who simply don't understand that Stephen Colbert's character on that show is entirely satirical.
-
The mind is such a fragile thing...it takes so little for it to go completely wrong.
Hence why I'm not discounting it in this case. I just think it's more likely he's bluffing than that he was once an engineer. Bluffing happens more often.
Bjorkmann, Neil Baker,...
As far as these guys jumped the track, they can still talk a few concepts of engineering. And their claims are more about coverups and subterfuge than about misuse of engineering. I'm less convinced that having a major cognitive issue would simply revert someone's knowledge back to the lay vernacular of pseudo-engineering foisted by hoax claimants.
Patrick Tekeli...
Meh, I still think it was the brother.
-
That's awesome with 1960's camera technology. In addition the astronauts had the cameras fitted to the front of the suits with no view finders so I think they did a fantastic job of getting all these great and clear shots.
That's OPTICS, a subset of GEOMETRY, and has nothing to do with any kind of fanciful modern image manipulation. Really -- are you saying you know less about projective geometry than William Hogarth, working on his etchings in 1754?
Incidentally, this is the same 1960's that could create Concorde and ICBMs. I think they could manage space flight pretty well too.
From the humor department of NASA: "The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature.".
Apparently neither major metropolitan fire departments or auto accessories resellers got the joke, either. Think about it for a minute and see if you can think of any other cases of highly reflective coatings being used for thermal protection.
-
Can you give me a reasonable answer without relying on nasa? According the website on the PLSS the battery provided 279 W-hr supply for the system to keep the astronots from frying in 200F+ heat or freezing in -200F cold.
4. Sorry, Newton laws of motion doesn't cut it. NASA admits their computing power was as powerful as a handheld calculator.
What's your source for the temp range, if it's not trusting NASA and their measurements? who else has measured it? What actually varied in temp?
The onboard computers weren't the only ones in use.
-
It had one, in the form of a battery that was changed between EVAs.
11-cell silver-zinc, nonrechargeable, 16.8 volt, 240 Wh minimum (through Apollo 14), 387.5 Wh minimum (Apollo 15-17).
It is a common layman's mistake to believe the thermal control system required considerable electrical power to operate. This is sometimes true in vapor-cycle systems that require compressors, but not for sublimation systems. The heat transfer takes space via normal sublimation. The only power required is that to pump the sublimant, and to circulate air.
The sublimant (feed water) did not have to be pumped. It was forced into the sublimator by internal suit loop pressure. The coolants (air and especially water) did have to be pumped, because they were closed circuits.
Isn't it amazing what a degreed engineer can learn about Apollo with just a little research in public documents? Maybe it has to do with being a degreed electrical engineer instead of a degreed mechanical engineer. (*ducks quickly*)
-
It had one, in the form of a battery that was changed between EVAs.
11-cell silver-zinc, nonrechargeable, 16.8 volt, 240 Wh minimum (through Apollo 14), 387.5 Wh minimum (Apollo 15-17).
It is a common layman's mistake to believe the thermal control system required considerable electrical power to operate. This is sometimes true in vapor-cycle systems that require compressors, but not for sublimation systems. The heat transfer takes space via normal sublimation. The only power required is that to pump the sublimant, and to circulate air.
The sublimant (feed water) did not have to be pumped. It was forced into the sublimator by internal suit loop pressure. The coolants (air and especially water) did have to be pumped, because they were closed circuits.
Isn't it amazing what a degreed engineer can learn about Apollo with just a little research in public documents? Maybe it has to do with being a degreed electrical engineer instead of a degreed mechanical engineer. (*ducks quickly*)
His research is poor to nonexistent, when you read the whole thread
-
WOW a flat-Earther also, but I could've guessed that. ::)
This individual has been raving over on the Flat Earth Society for a few months.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=a4tsvp20lgneahn6ii4ino7411&action=profile;area=showposts;u=1046975
Awww...that's old news. I've since grown in wisdom and understanding to see the universe as much smaller and the globe earth as an impossibility.
-
the globe earth as an impossibility.
I'll probably regret this, but ... WHY?
When folks have been certain of it as a globe since, oh, Roman times, and this has persisted through all manner of civilisations and scientific communities, what makes you such a speciality?
-
WOW a flat-Earther also, but I could've guessed that. ::)
This individual has been raving over on the Flat Earth Society for a few months.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=a4tsvp20lgneahn6ii4ino7411&action=profile;area=showposts;u=1046975
Awww...that's old news. I've since grown in wisdom and understanding to see the universe as much smaller and the globe earth as an impossibility.
Why do you think it is an impossibility?
-
using the same kind of equipment they use in low Earth orbit which has the same thermal environment. Your quoted temps are the MAX and MIN temps for the surface. It takes time to heat up or cool down. They weren't there when the surface was near those temps and even then only their boots would have been in contact with it.
Although there is no heat transfer by conduction or convection between the earth or moon and a nearby spacecraft, there can be substantial radiative heat transfer. So the lunar and low earth orbit environments are actually rather different.
Solar insolation on the equatorial moon: 1.361 kW/m2 continuous for 2 weeks, absent for 2 weeks.
Solar insolation in LEO: 1.361 kW/m2 ~90 min cycle, ~50% to 100% depending on beta angle.
Deep space (dark sky): same, ~3K blackbody.
Earth albedo: ~0.37
Lunar albedo: ~0.14
Earth effective blackbody temp: 255 K
Moon blackbody temp: 100-373K
For Apollo, these differences were not as significant as they might seem because landings were always conducted in the early lunar morning when surface temperatures (and longwave IR radiation) were quite moderate. Surface temperature was not determined by thermal lag (the surface actually had a very low thermal capacity) but by the sun elevation angle, which varied only slowly. Even Apollo 17, with the longest lunar stay, was long gone by local noon.
-
Aah. Flat earthers. You know there is something is amiss with their line of thinking when even Jarrah White thinks they are fools.
-
Awww...that's old news.
No, not really. I wouldn't classify your statements here any higher than ignorant ravings.
I've since grown in wisdom and understanding to see the universe as much smaller and the globe earth as an impossibility.
Be that as it may, you haven't grown in the wisdom and understanding of the things you propose to criticize, or the basic sciences upon which they rest. You're not a guru. You're not a sage. You're about as ignorant of the real enterprise of spacefaring as one can possibly be.
-
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
The camera was using a wide angle lens.
(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif)
That's awesome with 1960's camera technology. In addition the astronauts had the cameras fitted to the front of the suits with no view finders so I think they did a fantastic job of getting all these great and clear shots.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
From the humor department of NASA: "The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature.".
You think they had "all these great and clear shots"? Really? Thank you for proving you haven't bothered to look at many of the pics yourself and are just getting your claims from hoax sites. The vast majority of the pics are off-center, out of focus, over or under exposed, etc.
-
Well so far my post has demonstrated to me that NASA space is a religion. I get mostly derogatory comments that indicate a concern of members who have their belief system questioned. I guess the same type of response from cults like the Mormons and Scientologists.
Please review this image. It is a diagram of the Saturn V Rocket that NASA says sent 3 men to the moon and back on a 6 day journey not including a 1 day stint on the moon. So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module, which is listed as 10'-7" in height and 12'-10" in diamter. The room I'm typing in now is about 11' square and about 8 ft in height. I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around. So basically for 3 days, 3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair and had eat, pee/poop somehow and dispose of their waste. In staged videos from NASA it shows the 3 astro-nots moving around the CM as if there is plenty of room.
Also step 4 on the phases of the trip it states that the CSM turns and docks with the Lunar Module. That's a neat parlor trick while moving at a fast clip around the moon.
http://www.humansinspace.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/jason_harding_dorling_kindersly_dk_space_saturn_v_rocket_apollo_spacecraft_man_on_the_moon_3d_render_visual_illustration.jpg (http://www.humansinspace.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/jason_harding_dorling_kindersly_dk_space_saturn_v_rocket_apollo_spacecraft_man_on_the_moon_3d_render_visual_illustration.jpg)
-
You provide figures for battery capacity, but you don't say how much electricity you think was needed to power the space suit.
These figures are from the same documents that give battery capacity:
Coolant water pump: 8.4 W nominal, 10.0 W max
Oxygen circulation fan: 21.8 W nominal, 32.5 W max
Communications: 10.9 W nominal, 12.8 W max
As mentioned previously, no electrical power was required to actually cool the oxygen or water because it's an open-loop system much like a terrestrial swamp cooler. The "power" to drive the feedwater into the sublimator was provided by pressure in the oxygen storage bottles.
-
So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module, which is listed as 10'-7" in height and 12'-10" in diamter. The room I'm typing in now is about 11' square and about 8 ft in height. I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around.
We've done this before.
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
Are you DAKDAK?
-
I get mostly derogatory comments that indicate a concern of members who have their belief system questioned.
You get properly criticized for your demonstrated ignorance.
I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around.
Asked and answered. The consumables except food were stored outside the habitable volume.
3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair and had eat, pee/poop somehow and dispose of their waste.
Only in your imagination.
In staged videos from NASA it shows the 3 astro-nots moving around the CM as if there is plenty of room.
If you're aware of what is purported to have transpired in the Apollo spacecraft, why have you simply invented a different story? What is your evidence that the astronauts were "strapped to a chair," etc.?
That's a neat parlor trick while moving at a fast clip around the moon.
How so? It's a straightforward example of orbital mechanics. Except you don't believe in orbital mechanics because evidently you don't believe in orbits, because you have your own private version of celestial mechanics. Because of your preconceived (if real) belief in a flat Earth, you simply declare that things contradicted by your belief cannot possibly have occurred. You are unable to discuss any actual facts. How is that not a religion?
-
Well so far my post has demonstrated to me that NASA space is a religion. I get mostly derogatory comments that indicate a concern of members who have their belief system questioned. I guess the same type of response from cults like the Mormons and Scientologists.
You got answers to every one of your questions. The derogatory parts were in calling you out for your lack of research and logical fallacies. Grow up.
Please review this image. It is a diagram of the Saturn V Rocket that NASA says sent 3 men to the moon and back on a 6 day journey not including a 1 day stint on the moon. So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module, which is listed as 10'-7" in height and 12'-10" in diamter. The room I'm typing in now is about 11' square and about 8 ft in height. I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around. So basically for 3 days, 3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair and had eat, pee/poop somehow and dispose of their waste. In staged videos from NASA it shows the 3 astro-nots moving around the CM as if there is plenty of room.
You move around the floor of your room. They could move around all parts due to weightlessness.
Also step 4 on the phases of the trip it states that the CSM turns and docks with the Lunar Module. That's a neat parlor trick while moving at a fast clip around the moon.
http://www.humansinspace.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/jason_harding_dorling_kindersly_dk_space_saturn_v_rocket_apollo_spacecraft_man_on_the_moon_3d_render_visual_illustration.jpg (http://www.humansinspace.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/jason_harding_dorling_kindersly_dk_space_saturn_v_rocket_apollo_spacecraft_man_on_the_moon_3d_render_visual_illustration.jpg)
So more argument from incredulity then? Why would it be a problem when they weren't accelerating then? They are traveling in the same direction, at the same speed, with no wind or other factors to cause any issues. Why do you think it would be a "neat parlor trick"?
-
the globe earth as an impossibility.
I'll probably regret this, but ... WHY?
When folks have been certain of it as a globe since, oh, Roman times, and this has persisted through all manner of civilisations and scientific communities, what makes you such a speciality?
Mathematically, given a 7,917 mile earth diameter and 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on. See image at http://flatearthwiki.com/images/f/fb/Bluemarb.jpg.
Basically you should not see a building across, say the chicago skyline from Grand mere state park, which is about 50 miles away. But you can see it.
Brian Mullins, profession civil engineer, has a good video talking about the mythical gravity and gravitational constant.
Earth is a globe and water adheres to a curves surface? LOL.
Basically we have been brainwashed by "scientists" to ignore our observations and BELIEVE in things we cannot see.
-
Parachutes were stored outside the habitable volume.
-
So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module, which is listed as 10'-7" in height and 12'-10" in diamter. The room I'm typing in now is about 11' square and about 8 ft in height. I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around.
We've done this before.
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
Are you DAKDAK?
No. Although I guess I will send him a PM if he is still on this forum.
-
Please review this image.
Already very familiar with it. Much more so than you are, it would seem.
I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around.
The Apollo CM was cramped. But the astronauts reported that it subjectively became a lot roomier once they were in weightlessness, as they could use its internal volume much more fully.
However, as you would know if you'd actually studied this diagram, water, fuel and parachutes were not stored inside the relatively small inhabited volume of the CM.
The parachutes were packed around the docking tunnel, outside the pressurized inhabited volume.
Water was produced as a byproduct of the three hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells. The fuel cells and reactant storage were all in the service module, not the CM. See that big cylindrical thing behind the CM? Notice how much bigger it is than the CM?
Nearly all the rocket fuel was also stored in the SM; see those huge cylindrical tanks labeled "fuel tanks"? Only the small amounts of fuel needed for attitude control during re-entry were stored in the CM, and those tanks were around the outside of the CM just above the bottom -- again, outside the pressurized, inhabited volume of the CM.
You can even see actual Apollo CMs for yourself; they have been on display in museums around the world ever since they flew. The most famous CM, that of Apollo 11, is in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington DC but there are many others.
-
His research is poor to nonexistent, when you read the whole thread
Obviously.
-
the globe earth as an impossibility.
I'll probably regret this, but ... WHY?
When folks have been certain of it as a globe since, oh, Roman times, and this has persisted through all manner of civilisations and scientific communities, what makes you such a speciality?
Mathematically, given a 7,917 mile earth diameter and 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on. See image at http://flatearthwiki.com/images/f/fb/Bluemarb.jpg.
Basically you should not see a building across, say the chicago skyline from Grand mere state park, which is about 50 miles away. But you can see it.
Quite a few Chicago buildings would still be above the curve. Refraction is often seen over water, especially cold water as seen in Lake Michigan. And you said nothing about the height of the observer.
I've stood at the water's edge in Mexico Beach, FL, at the Bay/Gulf county line and looking directly south from there, you can see the trees on Cape San Blas across the water but you can NOT see the beach or water line. This is exactly as expected with a round Earth. From that point I've then gone up to the road level about 15-20 feet up and from there you CAN see the beach and water line of Cape San Blas. Again, exactly as expected.
I've watched the sun set below the horizon while remaining the same visual size it was when directly overhead. This would not happen on a flat Earth. I watched clouds be lit from underneath during sunrises and sunsets. This would not happen on a flat Earth. I've seen how the sun sets later for higher altitudes. This would not happen on a flat Earth.
I've used RADAR and radio both from ground and airborne platforms. From the ground, range increases for both the higher the antenna is and low altitude coverage for both is lost at distance exactly as expected with a round Earth. For an airborne platform, range increases for both at exactly the rate expected with a round Earth for the altitude of the plane.
The world has been known to be round for over 2,000 years. The Greeks proved it then and their experiments still work today. No amount of recent ignorance on the internet and youtube will change that fact.
-
Basically you should not see a building across, say the chicago skyline from Grand mere state park, which is about 50 miles away. But you can see it.
How tall are the buildings in downtown Chicago?
Have you been listening recently to a certain high school dropout rap artist? There have been more than a few excellent rebuttals to that moron over the past few days, e.g.,
-
the globe earth as an impossibility.
I'll probably regret this, but ... WHY?
When folks have been certain of it as a globe since, oh, Roman times, and this has persisted through all manner of civilisations and scientific communities, what makes you such a speciality?
Mathematically, given a 7,917 mile earth diameter and 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on. See image at http://flatearthwiki.com/images/f/fb/Bluemarb.jpg.
Basically you should not see a building across, say the chicago skyline from Grand mere state park, which is about 50 miles away. But you can see it.
Brian Mullins, profession civil engineer, has a good video talking about the mythical gravity and gravitational constant.
Earth is a globe and water adheres to a curves surface? LOL.
Basically we have been brainwashed by "scientists" to ignore our observations and BELIEVE in things we cannot see.
First off, Your math is wrong because it does not includes some variables.
You forgot about:
1) Your eyes height. Your picture assumes they are at the same height as your toes.
2) Atmospheric refraction: it will rise the image of the buildings to some degrees and it is entirely weather dependant. The skyline has been reported to be seen on days with a particular weather.
3) It assumes the amount the curvature drops is the same as the amount of an object hidden by it. That is not the case.
If the earth was flat, the skyline and the shoreline should be visible but only the skyline is visible on every picture.
Assuming you are looking Chicago from the location you said and that your eyes are 6 ft above the ground, the earth curvature will hide 1470 ft of the object. If we assume our eyes are at the same height as our feet, we get 1674 ft.
Take the Willis Tower height: 1450 ft. To rise the image of the tower from 50 miles, lets say 500 ft, you would need 6 arcminutes of refraction or next to nothing.
If we assume your eyes are 30 ft above the ground, any building will need to be 1200 ft higher to be seen.
You have not given us any meaningful data about your elevation.
Gravity here is non-sequitor. The question of the shape of the earth is purely a geometrical question.
-
a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance,
lol. Love it when people claiming an engineering degree don't know what "inversely" means.
-
the globe earth as an impossibility.
I'll probably regret this, but ... WHY?
When folks have been certain of it as a globe since, oh, Roman times, and this has persisted through all manner of civilisations and scientific communities, what makes you such a speciality?
Mathematically, given a 7,917 mile earth diameter and 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on. See image at http://flatearthwiki.com/images/f/fb/Bluemarb.jpg.
Basically you should not see a building across, say the chicago skyline from Grand mere state park, which is about 50 miles away. But you can see it.
Brian Mullins, profession civil engineer, has a good video talking about the mythical gravity and gravitational constant.
Earth is a globe and water adheres to a curves surface? LOL.
Basically we have been brainwashed by "scientists" to ignore our observations and BELIEVE in things we cannot see.
Riddle me this Batman, why when a ship approaches you the top of the ship is visible first, followed by more and more of the ship from the top down? In a flat Earth the whole ship would be seen once it is inside the visual acuity of the observer.
-
Tadosaurus, I'm not as educated or as intelligent as many of the fine folk on this forum, but I can pick at a thread staring me in the face, and this one deserves a good picking: Just who benefits from a ridiculously massive conspiracy to make the people of this world believe the world is a globe? If NASA wants to send people into space, the world being flat doesn't stop them. They might have to alter things, but there's some pretty clever people over there.Surely they'd suss something out. If they want to send probes to other planets, that doesn't stop them either. I don't see any way for governments to benefit from such an elaborate conspiracy. Religious leaders can preach their views whether the world is a ball or pancake. Airlines may not send people around the world, but they can do it across. The only people I can see being put out are globe makers, and surely they don't have that much pull, do they?
So, again, I ask you, tradosaurus the claiming to be wise, who benefits?
-
I'm going to regret asking this, not least because it's off topic, but if the world isn't round, how did Juan Sebastiรกn Elcano circumnavigate it?
-
Just to add my 2 cents. I have studied Apollo inside out, upside down and around and around. Will someone please explain to me how the astronauts were suddenly teleported back in time onto the moon with 1960's technology??
-
Riddle me this Batman, why when a ship approaches you the top of the ship is visible first, followed by more and more of the ship from the top down? In a flat Earth the whole ship would be seen once it is inside the visual acuity of the observer.
Additionally, how does a flat earth explain the fact that battleships were designed to effectively fire over the horizon at targets not visible on deck? There was a reason WWI battleships were equipped with such tall masts as well as the float planes on WW2 ships, because large naval rifles were able to shoot over the curve of the earth.
-
Just who benefits from a ridiculously massive conspiracy to make the people of this world believe the world is a globe?
The airlines.
-
Well so far my post has demonstrated to me that NASA space is a religion. I get mostly derogatory comments that indicate a concern of members who have their belief system questioned. I guess the same type of response from cults like the Mormons and Scientologists.
Or that you have wandered into a specialist forum and tried to posture and pontificate from a position of near-total ignorance.
Try wandering into the Practical Machinist forum, confusing bronze with brass, then telling people all about how "obviously" you'd get cleaner cuts with lower RPMs. See how polite they are to you then!
Please review this image. It is a diagram of the Saturn V Rocket that NASA says sent 3 men to the moon and back on a 6 day journey not including a 1 day stint on the moon.
I don't need your selectively quoted source, because my understanding of the Apollo Program is based on familiarity with the equipment via a number of different sources. Any one image can be open to misinterpretation -- it can even be incorrect. NASA, like Homer, can nod. This does not reflect upon the vast correspondence between the documentation of the project and physical reality as we currently understand it.
So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module, which is listed as 10'-7" in height and 12'-10" in diamter. The room I'm typing in now is about 11' square and about 8 ft in height. I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around. So basically for 3 days, 3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair and had eat, pee/poop somehow and dispose of their waste. In staged videos from NASA it shows the 3 astro-nots moving around the CM as if there is plenty of room.
Also step 4 on the phases of the trip it states that the CSM turns and docks with the Lunar Module. That's a neat parlor trick while moving at a fast clip around the moon.
I'm going to ignore the poop obsession, and nod only in passing to the repeated error that habitable volume includes stored perishables and general supplies, to move on to a failure to understand Newton.
Let me put it to you this way. I can, sitting at this very desk, not only type and write (semi-legibly) but even thread a needle. Yet desk, myself, and my entire neighborhood is hurtling around the globe at over 1200 kilometers per hour. Which it does in very regular and methodical fashion, apparently unconcerned that at the same time the entire planet is booking around the Sun at over 100,000 kilometers per hour!
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
Wind?
-
but that would mean the winds always blow from west to east.
-
I'm going to regret asking this, not least because it's off topic, but if the world isn't round, how did Juan Sebastiรกn Elcano circumnavigate it?
The most common flat Earth model (because not all of them can even agree on the general shape) is a disc with the north pole in the center and Antarctica forming an ice wall around the rim. So they would say he just went in a big circle.
Of course this ignores the fact that in such a model there is no south pole and it is easily provable that one can see stars rotate around the south celestial pole the same as with the north. On such a flat Earth there would be infinite souths. Just one of MANY ways the flat Earth model fails.
-
Try wandering into the Practical Machinist forum, confusing bronze with brass, then telling people all about how "obviously" you'd get cleaner cuts with lower RPMs. See how polite they are to you then!
I have some funny feed-n-speed stories that sometimes result in holes in the wall, billets deposited into the hallway, and wide-eyed machinists.
But yes, tradosaurus seems to have overestimated the amount of respect he deserves. He is, by any practical measure, scientifically illiterate. Yet he is talking about a scientific achievement that requires considerable expertise to understand in all its particulars. Even still, he can't even get the simple layman's facts right. It's one thing not to now in detail how sublimators work, what requires pumps, and what can be supplied by static pressure. It's another thing not to know that the astronauts weren't confined to their space suits and strapped to their chairs for 7 days. The latter is just plain ignorance.
Tradosaurus seems to think all he has received is derogatory comments. That's not true; he has received clear, complete, and concise answers to all his objections. The derogatory responses are entirely deserved. One does not get to display such abject ignorance, put on such elitist airs, and walk away unscathed from well informed audiences. If he doesn't want to get intellectual tomatoes thrown at him, he shouldn't put on such a terrible performance.
-
As a proud Apollo moon lander denier and a degreed Mechanical Engineer, I have a few questions to ask those that believe in NASA's story.
I've read all the drivel you've posted, all the things you've ignored, and all the pathetic insults you've tried to sling, and my only recommendation to you is that you go back to wherever you claim you got this degree from, and demand a refund.
Either that or put up a copy of your diploma for proof. I haven't seen it, and I don't believe you have it, and unless you can prove it, I'll know you are some kind of dishonest shill.
-
Here's another one: Why is it that, regardless of azimuth or altitude, the shadow of the Earth on the Moon as seen during a lunar eclipse is always round. Simple experiments show that only a sphere can cast such a shadow.
(http://tinyurl.com/htpca4k)
-
tradosaurus, if you believe the earth is flat, how do you explain this facts?
1)The sun/moon setting or rising. The law of perspective says the sun and the moon must be at an infinite distance from you to even APPEAR to touch the horizon. This can also be described mathematically.
(https://i.gyazo.com/ba99d8bb5fd7cd8d8179f10f399c17d2.png)
Be it the triangle ABC. Where:
A is the observer position.
B is the point where the sun lies overhead.
C is the sun or moon.
ฮด is the angle between the sun and the horizon or namely the amount your head must tilt up to see the sun.
The side AB is the distance from you to where the sun lies overhead. BC is the altitude of the sun or 3000 miles.
To find ฮด we must know the ratios between BC and AB or tan(ฮด)=BC/AB.
Which is ฮด=arctan(BC/AB)
What happens when BA tends to infinity? It equals 0
(https://i.gyazo.com/0b02ad99053252b0c754ad8efd3ca2f6.png)
The setting or rising of the sun/moon implies the angle ฮด becomes negative which is impossible on a flat earth since it is always above the ground.
2)The moon and sun angular size. The law of perspective states an object must get smaller the farther away it is from you and vice versa. In reality, they stay almost the same size or roughly 31 arc minutes through the year when on a flat earth they should change daily. It can be described mathematically:
(https://i.gyazo.com/8dbdfac7e2daab7bcea0add52b2ce204.jpg)
The equation is ฮด= 2arctan (d/ (2D)) where D is the distance of the object from you and d is the diameter of said object.
What happens to ฮด when D tends to infinity? It becomes 0 but it can never be 0 on a flat earth since objects remain above the surface.
(https://i.gyazo.com/28097fe84a5f0830496ab8bc31bb5437.png)
Atmospheric magnification only works on magnifying the glare. Put a solar filter and the sun/moon remains at roughly 31 arc minutes through the day.
3)The apparent speed of the sun and the moon across the sky. The law of perspective states an object will appear to decelerate the farther away it moves from you and vice versa on a flat earth.
In reality, both sun and moon move at an evenly speed across the sky since the earth rotates at a constant speed as predicted on a spherical earth.
4)The sun and moon path across the sky. On a flat earth, the path of the sun would be in an arc. For example on the equinox, the movement would be a 180 degree arc above the sky on a flat earth, not a straight line like the spherical earth dictates and we see in reality.
(https://i.gyazo.com/171b0297bc2ae9aa742b0060b45caa53.png)
5)The position where the sun rises and sets on the sky. The flat earth dictates the sun will rise NE and set NW on both equinox and December solstice. When in reality, the sun rises E and sets W for everyone on the equinox or that it rises SE and sets SW for everyone even below the Capricorn line on the December solstice.
(https://i.gyazo.com/da13d33ff416560024aef018948142bc.png)
6)The longitude lines. On a flat earth they should increase below the equator and decrease above it. But in reality, they decrease in both directions. For example, the Capricorn line is the same length as the tropic of Cancer. It DOES not matter if some longitude lines increase below of the equator, you would still get a sphere but with some irregularities when on your flat earth ALL of longitude lines should increase below the equator.
7)Latitude lines. On a flat earth they will grow exponentially but instead, they are perfectly uniform as predicted on a sphere. Draw me a set of triangles whose share the same baseline and which apex angle differs by one degree in which the opposite side is uniform with every one degree. You canโt because It is impossible.
(https://i.gyazo.com/88f5e6d9be0a43cb278868ed4e3db26b.png)
8)The celestial sphere. Flat earthers claim Polaris rotates above the north pole in a clockwise fashion.
This would imply several things:
a)If you stood on the North Pole, you would look Polaris rotate in a perfect circle above you. But the farther away you move from it, the more ovaloid this circle gets.
(https://i.gyazo.com/eb9d70847c456067d2a3a148b0b74d44.png)
But instead it remains the same wherever you are be it the equator or the tropic of cancer.
(https://i.gyazo.com/be1dc57e641e44d6be1456c6f19e543e.jpg)
b)The north circumpolar stars should be seen below ALL the equator, not some places since there is no curvature in a flat earth to hide the stars. But in fact, Polaris can only be seen a degree or so of latitude below the equator since the earth curves and it is not exactly in the axis of rotation.
c)If the stars are rotating around Polaris in a north pole, all stars in the sky would appear to transverse the horizon looking due south. But you see them rotating on a central point.
(https://i.gyazo.com/48d3e98e62a1fbcde37a5beef4262bd2.png)
d)Wherever you are in the southern hemisphere, you will see stars rotate anti-clockwise on a central point looking due south. That means for someone on Australia can see the same stars looking due south as someone on South Africa or Argentina when on a flat earth, they are looking at different and even OPPOSITE directions.
e) The path of the stars on the equator would be an arc in a flat earth when in reality is a straight line as predicted by a sphere.
9)Moon distance. If the moon is 3000 miles or so above the ground in the flat earth, why do ham radios can bounce signals, calculate their return and get roughly 384.000km of distance ?
-
Even simpler, you can prove that the earth is curved merely by taking a flight in a commercial airliner. If your airliner cruises above around 35,000 feet, then so long as you have a fairly wide field of view (at least 60ยฐ) and a near cloud-free horizon, you can see the curvature of the earth for yourself.
Even better, you can see it for yourself from ground level if you live near the sea, and especially, if you live near a seaport. All you need is clear view of the sea and a pair of binoculars โ just watch ships after they leave the port and as they approach the horizon, you will see that their hulls start to disappear before their masts and other superstructure.
Ancient Greek philosopher-scientists spotted this without any optical aids, and concluded that the Earth was round. The Greek scholar, Erastosthenes of Cyrene even attempted to calculate the circumference of the Earth.....
... and he got it right within just a few percent
Now if a man who lived 2200 years ago could prove conclusively that the Earth was a sphere, one wonders why we still have idiots to this day who deny it.
-
Awww...that's old news. I've since grown in wisdom and understanding to see the universe as much smaller and the globe earth as an impossibility.
You must have come from a place of immense stupidity if what you are currently demonstrating is an improvement from a year ago. Still, at least you acknowledge that you can learn stuff. Stick around, you might learn about some of the concepts that you are so eager to trash. The same concepts that you have demonstrated abject ignorance of.
Are you DAKDAK?
No. Although I guess I will send him a PM if he is still on this forum.
I doubt if you will find him. DAK DAK was a particularly stupid member of the conspiracy theory set. He was proud of only having a very basic secondary education, which if memory serves me, he didn't complete (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=92.0). He asked questions remarkably similar to the questions (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=77.msg1326#msg1326) that you are struggling to understand (basic questions of volumes, simple engineering concepts and so on). He eventually imploded (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=164;area=showposts;start=0) when he realised that he was incapable of understanding simple ideas and then tried to delete all of his posts.
Now, when I see someone claiming to be a 50 year old mechanical engineer asking similar questions in a similar way, and displaying ignorance of very, very simple everday concepts you will, I am sure, understand why I think that you are either lying or have suffered some form of cognitive impairment.
-
i have seen the curvature from an aircraft flying extremely high. You can bluster all you want tradosaurus, but the horizon I saw was curved, not linear. Better yet, why not approach some of the students conducting high altitude balloon experiments and devise an experiment for yourself. Dont forget to let us know of the results...
-
i have seen the curvature from an aircraft flying extremely high. You can bluster all you want tradosaurus, but the horizon I saw was curved, not linear. Better yet, why not approach some of the students conducting high altitude balloon experiments and devise an experiment for yourself. Dont forget to let us know of the results...
None would be forthcoming as those results will disprove the flat Earth, rejected by tradosaurus out of hand.
-
As you answer these questions please take a minute to ponder if you are answering the questions based on faith or based on logic and evidence.
If you are asking these questions based on a logic and evidence framework, please present it.
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
Should it? How much larger? Why? This is a simple mathematical situation, so please provide the mathematics that went into your original claim that Earth 'should be much larger'.
2) How did the astronauts keep cooled and heated in extreme temperatures (+/- 200F). Could 1960's technology operated in this environment? I've seen a picture of the heat transfer system supposedly used but it still needed a power supply.
All the details of how the thermal control systems are freely available. If you have any particular issue with the specifics then present it.
3) How did the astronauts fit through a 22" docking hatch with their backpacks on when hooking back with the command module?
Carefully. 22" is big enough. If you doubt it please explain the parts of the record that actually show the astronauts getting through that hatch while suited.
4) How could NASA send a rocket to the moon given the variables (as told to us by science books) of the earth's rotation (1,000 mph), the earths rotation around the sun (65,000 mph), and the moon's rotation about the earth using technology no powerful than a pocket calculator.
Please prove that the mathematics to work with these factors (which are constant and therefore not variables) is beyond a pocket calculator or a talented mathematician. My pocket calculator is capable of many complex mathematical functions that are not necessary for calculating a path to the Moon.
5) How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module? According to NASA the LM was height was 22'-11" (with legs extended) and 31 ft diameter (across extended landing gear) so LM cargo/living area was smaller.
All the details of how everything fitted into the lunar module are freely available. If you have an issue with any specific point please present it. Just off the top of my head I can tell you that much of the fuel, along with the lunar rover and much of the equipment for use on the surface was carried in the descent stage. The living area is beside the point for those items.
6) What kind of camera technology could withstand +/-200 F heat and develop film so perfectly clear (and film withstand radiation twice through the Van Allen belts)?
Why would the film need to withstand radiation when it was stored inside a canister inside a spacecraft, which effectively presents a pretty decent amount of shielding? Also, why do you think the camera experienced those extremes of temperature, which apply to the lunar surface itself, not anything held above it in the vacuum surrounding the Moon. Please also present the model of heat transfer that shows how those temperatures could affect the film inside a camera in a vacuum.
7) How did the astronauts poop and pee during their 7 day excursion to and from the moon? Were they able to get out of their suits at all?
Again, this is freely available information.
Since you appear to have done very little research into even the basics of the Apollo program, exactly what is your conclusion that it was faked based on?
-
I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size
Why? Again, it is freely available information that stuff like fuel and water was carried in the service module, not the command module, and that the parachutes were stowed outside the habitable volume.
Also step 4 on the phases of the trip it states that the CSM turns and docks with the Lunar Module. That's a neat parlor trick while moving at a fast clip around the moon.
Speed relative to the Earth or moon is irrelevant. Speed relative to the other object you need to rendezvous with is the key. I assume you don't believe in Skylab, Salyut, Mir, the ISS, Soyuz, or indeed any space flight if you think that rendezvous is impossible?
-
Basically we have been brainwashed by "scientists" to ignore our observations and BELIEVE in things we cannot see.
Nope. I have seen the way the sky changes when I travel north or south but not east or west. I have seen how the Earth's shadow on the moon is always circular no matter where in the sky the moon is, which is impossible on a flat Earth. I have observed with my own eyes how things disappear over the horizon. I have observed enough to tell me that Earth is a globe.
-
Well so far my post has demonstrated to me that NASA space is a religion. I get mostly derogatory comments that indicate a concern of members who have their belief system questioned. I guess the same type of response from cults like the Mormons and Scientologists.
You infer that most of the members of this forum and in particular this thread are "Brain-washed" by scientists or big government.
What is apparent by your posting nonsense it is you who is "Brain-washed" by members of woo-woo tube and/or un-knowledgeable individuals in forums that foster stupidity and willful ignorance.
You really need to go back to school and learn what you missed while attending UT.
-
Basically we have been brainwashed by "scientists" to ignore our observations and BELIEVE in things we cannot see.
What a howler. So your position is one of solipsism then? Have you ever broken a bone and had an X-ray taken? Please explain how that works as we cannot see X-rays. What about radio waves?
Also, your ridiculous position on flat Earth denies all sorts of straightforward observations. Then again, it's my personal belief that believers in FE are probably just taking a contrarian position for nothing other than being contrary. Either that or they are pig-thick stupid.
-
Mathematically, given a 7,917 mile earth diameter and 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.
Anyone with some surveying equipment and access to a straight length of canal can verify the curvature of the earth for themselves. Have you tried this?
-
Wouldn't the flat earth model our OP claims to adhere to actually make it much easier to get to the moon?
-
Wouldn't the flat earth model our OP claims to adhere to actually make it much easier to get to the moon?
Exactly! So, again, I ask, tradosaurus, who benefits from your hoax? People don't usually lie for shits and giggles, certainly at this magnitude, they do it for a reason, a motive. What's the motive here? In a flat world, they could still go to the moon.
-
Even simpler, you can prove that the earth is curved merely by taking a flight in a commercial airliner. If your airliner cruises above around 35,000 feet, then so long as you have a fairly wide field of view (at least 60ยฐ) and a near cloud-free horizon, you can see the curvature of the earth for yourself.
Even better, you can see it for yourself from ground level if you live near the sea, and especially, if you live near a seaport. All you need is clear view of the sea and a pair of binoculars โ just watch ships after they leave the port and as they approach the horizon, you will see that their hulls start to disappear before their masts and other superstructure.
Ancient Greek philosopher-scientists spotted this without any optical aids, and concluded that the Earth was round. The Greek scholar, Erastosthenes of Cyrene even attempted to calculate the circumference of the Earth.....
... and he got it right within just a few percent
Now if a man who lived 2200 years ago could prove conclusively that the Earth was a sphere, one wonders why we still have idiots to this day who deny it.
The Erasthotenes experiment on a flat earth would give people near the Poles bigger values since latitude lines would grow exponentially but it is does not.
On a flat earth there would not be an horizon since parallel lines dont meet.
and so on...
Flat earth has to many holes.
Wouldn't the flat earth model our OP claims to adhere to actually make it much easier to get to the moon?
Yep, it is only 3000 miles away ;D
-
Flat earth has to many holes.
Nah...we'd all fall through them if it did..... ;D :o :o ::)
-
Flat earth has to many holes.
Nah...we'd all fall through them if it did..... ;D :o :o ::)
That's what the Grand Canyon was. I saw was, because civil engineers fixed it with the help of a legion of unemployed in the Great Depression.
-
degreed Mechanical Engineer,
NASA, astro-nots
And as if his dishonesty about his degree wasn't obvious enough from his other silly lies, our latest troll has to include to those childish nonsense...
-
Even simpler, you can prove that the earth is curved merely by taking a flight in a commercial airliner. If your airliner cruises above around 35,000 feet, then so long as you have a fairly wide field of view (at least 60ยฐ) and a near cloud-free horizon, you can see the curvature of the earth for yourself.
Even better, you can see it for yourself from ground level if you live near the sea, and especially, if you live near a seaport. All you need is clear view of the sea and a pair of binoculars โ just watch ships after they leave the port and as they approach the horizon, you will see that their hulls start to disappear before their masts and other superstructure.
Ancient Greek philosopher-scientists spotted this without any optical aids, and concluded that the Earth was round. The Greek scholar, Erastosthenes of Cyrene even attempted to calculate the circumference of the Earth.....
... and he got it right within just a few percent
Now if a man who lived 2200 years ago could prove conclusively that the Earth was a sphere, one wonders why we still have idiots to this day who deny it.
The Erasthotenes experiment on a flat earth would give people near the Poles bigger values since latitude lines would grow exponentially but it is does not.
On a flat earth there would not be an horizon since parallel lines dont meet.
and so on...
Flat earth has to many holes.
Wouldn't the flat earth model our OP claims to adhere to actually make it much easier to get to the moon?
Yep, it is only 3000 miles away ;D
Eratosthenes assumed that the earth is a globe and that the sun was far away when actuality the earth is flat and the sun is less than 5,000 miles away and much smaller.
If Eratosthenes assumed flat earth, small sun, and closer sun his experiment would have yielded the same results.
http://www.millersville.edu/physics/experiments/058/index.php
Read toward the bottom.
Sagan was an atheist with an agenda and either really believed in the globe earth fantasy or intentionally deceived.
-
Sagan was an atheist with an agenda and either really believed in the globe earth fantasy or intentionally deceived.
This is the point where we all back away slowly and avoid eye contact.
-
... Nothing of interest to quote.
Troll.
-
As a proud Apollo moon lander denier and a degreed Mechanical Engineer, I have a few questions to ask those that believe in NASA's story.
I've read all the drivel you've posted, all the things you've ignored, and all the pathetic insults you've tried to sling, and my only recommendation to you is that you go back to wherever you claim you got this degree from, and demand a refund.
Either that or put up a copy of your diploma for proof. I haven't seen it, and I don't believe you have it, and unless you can prove it, I'll know you are some kind of dishonest shill.
Well, you showed me didn't you?
Now why don't you use your brain and stop believing in the NASA religious mumbo jumbo.
-
Sagan was an atheist with an agenda and either really believed in the globe earth fantasy or intentionally deceived.
This is the point where we all back away slowly and avoid eye contact.
You obviously didn't read the article given how quickly you posted.
Again, further proving that the globe earth universe is a religious concept.
-
Sagan was an atheist
False.
-
Sagan was an atheist
False.
As is everything he has posted.
-
You obviously didn't read the article given how quickly you posted.
Again, further proving that the globe earth universe is a religious concept.
And clearly neither did you:
We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work.
-
Well so far my post has demonstrated to me that NASA space is a religion. I get mostly derogatory comments that indicate a concern of members who have their belief system questioned. I guess the same type of response from cults like the Mormons and Scientologists.
Or that you have wandered into a specialist forum and tried to posture and pontificate from a position of near-total ignorance.
Try wandering into the Practical Machinist forum, confusing bronze with brass, then telling people all about how "obviously" you'd get cleaner cuts with lower RPMs. See how polite they are to you then!
Please review this image. It is a diagram of the Saturn V Rocket that NASA says sent 3 men to the moon and back on a 6 day journey not including a 1 day stint on the moon.
I don't need your selectively quoted source, because my understanding of the Apollo Program is based on familiarity with the equipment via a number of different sources. Any one image can be open to misinterpretation -- it can even be incorrect. NASA, like Homer, can nod. This does not reflect upon the vast correspondence between the documentation of the project and physical reality as we currently understand it.
So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module, which is listed as 10'-7" in height and 12'-10" in diamter. The room I'm typing in now is about 11' square and about 8 ft in height. I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around. So basically for 3 days, 3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair and had eat, pee/poop somehow and dispose of their waste. In staged videos from NASA it shows the 3 astro-nots moving around the CM as if there is plenty of room.
Also step 4 on the phases of the trip it states that the CSM turns and docks with the Lunar Module. That's a neat parlor trick while moving at a fast clip around the moon.
I'm going to ignore the poop obsession, and nod only in passing to the repeated error that habitable volume includes stored perishables and general supplies, to move on to a failure to understand Newton.
Let me put it to you this way. I can, sitting at this very desk, not only type and write (semi-legibly) but even thread a needle. Yet desk, myself, and my entire neighborhood is hurtling around the globe at over 1200 kilometers per hour. Which it does in very regular and methodical fashion, apparently unconcerned that at the same time the entire planet is booking around the Sun at over 100,000 kilometers per hour!
I'm sorry to upset your belief system (actually, no I'm not. lol). You BELIEVE that the earth is rotating faster than the speed of sound while hurdling 60,000 miles around the sun, while the solar system is moving even faster at insane speeds with absolutely no proof whatsoever, except that NASA says so. I think I would believe that Joseph Smith found some gold tablets rather than this fiction.
-
Even simpler, you can prove that the earth is curved merely by taking a flight in a commercial airliner. If your airliner cruises above around 35,000 feet, then so long as you have a fairly wide field of view (at least 60ยฐ) and a near cloud-free horizon, you can see the curvature of the earth for yourself.
Even better, you can see it for yourself from ground level if you live near the sea, and especially, if you live near a seaport. All you need is clear view of the sea and a pair of binoculars โ just watch ships after they leave the port and as they approach the horizon, you will see that their hulls start to disappear before their masts and other superstructure.
Ancient Greek philosopher-scientists spotted this without any optical aids, and concluded that the Earth was round. The Greek scholar, Erastosthenes of Cyrene even attempted to calculate the circumference of the Earth.....
... and he got it right within just a few percent
Now if a man who lived 2200 years ago could prove conclusively that the Earth was a sphere, one wonders why we still have idiots to this day who deny it.
The Erasthotenes experiment on a flat earth would give people near the Poles bigger values since latitude lines would grow exponentially but it is does not.
On a flat earth there would not be an horizon since parallel lines dont meet.
and so on...
Flat earth has to many holes.
Wouldn't the flat earth model our OP claims to adhere to actually make it much easier to get to the moon?
Yep, it is only 3000 miles away ;D
Eratosthenes assumed that the earth is a globe and that the sun was far away when actuality the earth is flat and the sun is less than 5,000 miles away and much smaller.
If Eratosthenes assumed flat earth, small sun, and closer sun his experiment would have yielded the same results.
http://www.millersville.edu/physics/experiments/058/index.php
Read toward the bottom.
Sagan was an atheist with an agenda and either really believed in the globe earth fantasy or intentionally deceived.
Except an smaller and near sun would change drastically of size during the day and it would never set. On a flat earth people near the poles would get bigger values for the erasthotenes experiment instead of giving a constant value of 40000km and longitude lines would get bigger down the equator.
Sagan was not an atheist, he was agnostic.
-
Sagan was an atheist with an agenda and either really believed in the globe earth fantasy or intentionally deceived.
This is the point where we all back away slowly and avoid eye contact.
You obviously didn't read the article given how quickly you posted.
Again, further proving that the globe earth universe is a religious concept.
You haven't answered my question in post
Reply #68 on: January 31, 2016, 08:44:45 PM
Why? Are you afraid to admit your adolescent beliefs are full of nothing more than hot air.
-
Again, further proving that the globe earth universe is a religious concept.
Nope.
You seem to think you're having an intellectual discussion here. There is zero intellectual content in anything you've posted. You're either a teenager having a troll, or a deeply disturbed individual who needs professional help.
All your allegations of fact have been met with rebuttals that you simply dismiss via disbelief. If you want attention, you must prove yourself worthy of it.
-
Well so far my post has demonstrated to me that NASA space is a religion. I get mostly derogatory comments that indicate a concern of members who have their belief system questioned. I guess the same type of response from cults like the Mormons and Scientologists.
Or that you have wandered into a specialist forum and tried to posture and pontificate from a position of near-total ignorance.
Try wandering into the Practical Machinist forum, confusing bronze with brass, then telling people all about how "obviously" you'd get cleaner cuts with lower RPMs. See how polite they are to you then!
Please review this image. It is a diagram of the Saturn V Rocket that NASA says sent 3 men to the moon and back on a 6 day journey not including a 1 day stint on the moon.
I don't need your selectively quoted source, because my understanding of the Apollo Program is based on familiarity with the equipment via a number of different sources. Any one image can be open to misinterpretation -- it can even be incorrect. NASA, like Homer, can nod. This does not reflect upon the vast correspondence between the documentation of the project and physical reality as we currently understand it.
So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module, which is listed as 10'-7" in height and 12'-10" in diamter. The room I'm typing in now is about 11' square and about 8 ft in height. I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around. So basically for 3 days, 3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair and had eat, pee/poop somehow and dispose of their waste. In staged videos from NASA it shows the 3 astro-nots moving around the CM as if there is plenty of room.
Also step 4 on the phases of the trip it states that the CSM turns and docks with the Lunar Module. That's a neat parlor trick while moving at a fast clip around the moon.
I'm going to ignore the poop obsession, and nod only in passing to the repeated error that habitable volume includes stored perishables and general supplies, to move on to a failure to understand Newton.
Let me put it to you this way. I can, sitting at this very desk, not only type and write (semi-legibly) but even thread a needle. Yet desk, myself, and my entire neighborhood is hurtling around the globe at over 1200 kilometers per hour. Which it does in very regular and methodical fashion, apparently unconcerned that at the same time the entire planet is booking around the Sun at over 100,000 kilometers per hour!
I'm sorry to upset your belief system (actually, no I'm not. lol). You BELIEVE that the earth is rotating faster than the speed of sound while hurdling 60,000 miles around the sun, while the solar system is moving even faster at insane speeds with absolutely no proof whatsoever, except that NASA says so. I think I would believe that Joseph Smith found some gold tablets rather than this fiction.
You dont feel velocity. Travelling at 10 mph is the same as 100mph. The speed of sound is irrelevant if the air is travelling at the same velocity as you.
You are scientifically illiterate of the most basic concepts.
-
I'm sorry to upset your belief system (actually, no I'm not. lol). You BELIEVE that the earth is rotating faster than the speed of sound while hurdling 60,000 miles around the sun
Hurdling? So you think that the Earth is doing this?
(http://hurdlesfirst.com/images/joelbrown05.jpg)
My, what strange beliefs you have..... ::) ;D
.... that NASA says so
I've asked before but you ignored the question. What is "NASA"?
-
Why? Are you afraid to admit your adolescent beliefs are full of nothing more than hot air.
I'm wise enough not to validate your adolescent rant.
Not my rant, Jay :)
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
-
Why? Are you afraid to admit your adolescent beliefs are full of nothing more than hot air.
I'm wise enough not to validate your adolescent rant.
Not my rant, Jay :)
Indeed, my apologies. Original post removed.
(I was shopping for a new laptop in the other window and not paying attention to attributions.) :-\
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Because the airplane is already carrying the velocity of the earth's rotation.
-
You dont feel velocity. Travelling at 10 mph is the same as 100mph. The speed of sound is irrelevant if the air is travelling at the same velocity as you.
You are scientifically illiterate of the most basic concepts.
I'm not being mesmerized by your comments. Now if you waved a magic wand while moving a pocket watch back and forth in front of me then we might have a different outcome.
Me saying that I don't feel the insane speeds that the globe earth community is spouting is not unscientific.
-
You dont feel velocity. Travelling at 10 mph is the same as 100mph. The speed of sound is irrelevant if the air is travelling at the same velocity as you.
You are scientifically illiterate of the most basic concepts.
I'm not being mesmerized by your comments. Now if you waved a magic wand while moving a pocket watch back and forth in front of me then we might have a different outcome.
Me saying that I don't feel the insane speeds that the globe earth community is spouting is not unscientific.
Yes it is unscientific. You only feel acceleration, not constant velocity.
-
Me saying that I don't feel the insane speeds that the globe earth community is spouting is not unscientific.
It is eminently unscientific. Velocity is not perceived; acceleration is perceived. You are not being accelerated by rotation, therefore you don't feel anything. That's basic Newtonian physics.
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Because the airplane is already carrying the velocity of the earth's rotation.
So you spout the globe earth reason that the atmosphere is carried along with the rotation of the earth but we don't feel insane winds? Even though the density of air decreases (less mass) as altitude increases supposedly it all rotates the same speed and the higher you go in the atmosphere the faster it must be traveling? At what altitude does the atmosphere stop moving with the earth? Sorry but I don't buy this religious tenet of the globe earth universe.
-
Science doesn't care what you think.
Ready to admit the article you linked to completely disagrees with our trolling idiocy yet?
-
I've asked before but you ignored the question. What is "NASA"?
NASA: founded by NAZI's and continuing the NAZI tradition of lies and deception.
NASA; faking space for over 50 years. :P
Is it coincidence that the NASA logo is anagram for SATAN with the red T in middle? I think not.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9b4C9ABEn-M/hqdefault.jpg)
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Because the airplane is already carrying the velocity of the earth's rotation.
So you spout the globe earth reason that the atmosphere is carried along with the rotation of the earth but we don't feel insane winds? Even though the density of air decreases (less mass) as altitude increases supposedly it all rotates the same speed and the higher you go in the atmosphere the faster it must be traveling? At what altitude does the atmosphere stop moving with the earth? Sorry but I don't buy this religious tenet of the globe earth universe.
You would not feel insane wind if you are moving at the same speed as them. The atmosphere does not stop moving with the earth at any point, it is always moving but from your frame of reference you dont feel it.
Look, the motion of the earth is completely irrevelevant to its shape (with some exceptions in oblateness). For me, this approach Non-sequitor.
The earth can be stationary and still be an sphere.
-
Science doesn't care what you think.
Ready to admit the article you linked to completely disagrees with our trolling idiocy yet?
Please stop. I don't think I handle the use of science or Newtonian physics without getting brainwashed again.
As a Catholic (not part of the Vatican 2 church) I believe in transubstantiation, that the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ truly becomes present at the words of consecration of the priest. I can't see the change but I believe it and have faith.
The difference between this belief and the belief in the globe earth universe is I'm not making you pay taxes to fund my religion or indoctrinate school kids.
-
Science doesn't care what you think.
Ready to admit the article you linked to completely disagrees with our trolling idiocy yet?
Please stop. I don't think I handle the use of science or Newtonian physics without getting brainwashed again.
As a Catholic (not part of the Vatican 2 church) I believe in transubstantiation, that the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ truly becomes present at the words of consecration of the priest. I can't see the change but I believe it and have faith.
The difference between this belief and the belief in the globe earth universe is I'm not making you pay taxes to fund my religion or indoctrinate school kids.
I don't give a rat's ass about whatever babbling jibber-jabber you dress up for on Sunday.
I asked you a question - ready to answer it yet?
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Because the airplane is already carrying the velocity of the earth's rotation.
So you spout the globe earth reason that the atmosphere is carried along with the rotation of the earth but we don't feel insane winds? Even though the density of air decreases (less mass) as altitude increases supposedly it all rotates the same speed and the higher you go in the atmosphere the faster it must be traveling? At what altitude does the atmosphere stop moving with the earth? Sorry but I don't buy this religious tenet of the globe earth universe.
You would not feel insane wind if you are moving at the same speed as them. The atmosphere does not stop moving with the earth at any point, it is always moving but from your frame of reference you dont feel it.
Look, the motion of the earth is completely irrevelevant to its shape (with some exceptions in oblateness). For me, this approach Non-sequitor.
The earth can be stationary and still be an sphere.
Mathematically it cannot based on observational evidence that I mentioned in a previous post.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ba/7c/f1/ba7cf17e305c1547b928e3a4f3e2c496.jpg)
-
Sagan was an atheist with an agenda and either really believed in the globe earth fantasy or intentionally deceived.
This is the point where we all back away slowly and avoid eye contact.
You obviously didn't read the article given how quickly you posted.
Again, further proving that the globe earth universe is a religious concept.
You haven't answered my question in post
Reply #68 on: January 31, 2016, 08:44:45 PM
Why? Are you afraid to admit your adolescent beliefs are full of nothing more than hot air.
Is this a "When did you stop beating your wife" question?
-
Please stop. I don't think I handle the use of science or Newtonian physics without getting brainwashed again.
No. The facts don't care what you think.
As a Catholic (not part of the Vatican 2 church) I believe in...
Good for you. None of that exempts you from ridicule should you disregard facts that dispute your religion.
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Because the airplane is already carrying the velocity of the earth's rotation.
So you spout the globe earth reason that the atmosphere is carried along with the rotation of the earth but we don't feel insane winds? Even though the density of air decreases (less mass) as altitude increases supposedly it all rotates the same speed and the higher you go in the atmosphere the faster it must be traveling? At what altitude does the atmosphere stop moving with the earth? Sorry but I don't buy this religious tenet of the globe earth universe.
You would not feel insane wind if you are moving at the same speed as them. The atmosphere does not stop moving with the earth at any point, it is always moving but from your frame of reference you dont feel it.
Look, the motion of the earth is completely irrevelevant to its shape (with some exceptions in oblateness). For me, this approach Non-sequitor.
The earth can be stationary and still be an sphere.
Mathematically it cannot based on observational evidence that I mentioned in a previous post.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ba/7c/f1/ba7cf17e305c1547b928e3a4f3e2c496.jpg)
I have already explained it. Your pic is wrong.
First off, Your math is wrong because it does not includes some variables.
You forgot about:
1) Your eyes height. Your picture assumes they are at the same height as your toes.
2) Atmospheric refraction: it will rise the image of the buildings to some degrees and it is entirely weather dependant. The skyline has been reported to be seen on days with a particular weather.
3) It assumes the amount the curvature drops is the same as the amount of an object hidden by it. That is not the case.
If the earth was flat, the skyline and the shoreline should be visible but only the skyline is visible on every picture.
Assuming you are looking Chicago from the location you said and that your eyes are 6 ft above the ground, the earth curvature will hide 1470 ft of the object. If we assume our eyes are at the same height as our feet, we get 1674 ft.
Take the Willis Tower height: 1450 ft. To rise the image of the tower from 50 miles, lets say 500 ft, you would need 6 arcminutes of refraction or next to nothing.
If we assume your eyes are 30 ft above the ground, any building will need to be 1200 ft higher to be seen.
You have not given us any meaningful data about your elevation from that location.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/6f9feb69ed84c9ba402c1dd44109a2f4.gif)
Where is the shoreline?
-
Mathematically it cannot based on observational evidence that I mentioned in a previous post.
You were given a list of scientific principles that your analysis disregards. You provided no answer; you simply said that any who believed in those principles was ipso facto brainwashed.
-
You dont feel velocity. Travelling at 10 mph is the same as 100mph. The speed of sound is irrelevant if the air is travelling at the same velocity as you.
You are scientifically illiterate of the most basic concepts.
I'm not being mesmerized by your comments. Now if you waved a magic wand while moving a pocket watch back and forth in front of me then we might have a different outcome.
Me saying that I don't feel the insane speeds that the globe earth community is spouting is not unscientific.
Yes it is unscientific. You only feel acceleration, not constant velocity.
You probably need to keep up with your globe earth universe tenets. Although to be fair some pictures show a perfect circle around the Sun but NASA does state that the earth has an elliptical orbit.
Supposedly the earth is revolving around the sun in an elliptical pattern and thereby speeds up (ie. accelerates) when it gets closer to the sun. Hmmmmm....not feeling it.
http://www.cso.caltech.edu/outreach/log/NIGHT_DAY/elliptical.htm
-
You dont feel velocity. Travelling at 10 mph is the same as 100mph. The speed of sound is irrelevant if the air is travelling at the same velocity as you.
You are scientifically illiterate of the most basic concepts.
I'm not being mesmerized by your comments. Now if you waved a magic wand while moving a pocket watch back and forth in front of me then we might have a different outcome.
Me saying that I don't feel the insane speeds that the globe earth community is spouting is not unscientific.
Yes it is unscientific. You only feel acceleration, not constant velocity.
You probably need to keep up with your globe earth universe tenets. Although to be fair some pictures show a perfect circle around the Sun but NASA does state that the earth has an elliptical orbit.
Supposedly the earth is revolving around the sun in an elliptical pattern and thereby speeds up (ie. accelerates) when it gets closer to the sun. Hmmmmm....not feeling it.
http://www.cso.caltech.edu/outreach/log/NIGHT_DAY/elliptical.htm
If you are refering to "pear" shaped, you have a misundertanding. The general flattening of the earth is 1/300th because the polar radius is 30 miles larger than the equatorial radius. Look at the earth from 1 million miles away, the amount measured in angular units would be 6 arc seconds. Your eye angular resolution is at max 1 arc minutes so the different is not noticeable from space.
-
I've asked before but you ignored the question. What is "NASA"?
NASA: founded by NAZI's and continuing the NAZI tradition of lies and deception.
NASA; faking space for over 50 years. :P
Is it coincidence that the NASA logo is anagram for SATAN
Please show any reputable source that shows that NASA was founded by the National Socialist party or withdraw your claim.
NASA is also the same as NAS if you drop the "A". The link to a bunch of hard disks connected to a LAN is as relevant as it is to SATAN. Which is zero.
-
Why? Are you afraid to admit your adolescent beliefs are full of nothing more than hot air.
I'm wise enough not to validate your adolescent rant.
Not my rant, Jay :)
Indeed, my apologies. Original post removed.
(I was shopping for a new laptop in the other window and not paying attention to attributions.) :-\
NP ;D
-
Sagan was an atheist with an agenda and either really believed in the globe earth fantasy or intentionally deceived.
This is the point where we all back away slowly and avoid eye contact.
You obviously didn't read the article given how quickly you posted.
Again, further proving that the globe earth universe is a religious concept.
You haven't answered my question in post
Reply #68 on: January 31, 2016, 08:44:45 PM
Why? Are you afraid to admit your adolescent beliefs are full of nothing more than hot air.
Is this a "When did you stop beating your wife" question?
Hardly, quit stalling and answer my question.
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret.
B) A modern to-scale map of the flat-Earth world, accurately showing the relative sizes of all of the continents and the oceans.
C) What exactly satellites and the ISS are doing in a flat Earth model.
-
I have already explained it. Your pic is wrong.
First off, Your math is wrong because it does not includes some variables.
You forgot about:
1) Your eyes height. Your picture assumes they are at the same height as your toes.
2) Atmospheric refraction: it will rise the image of the buildings to some degrees and it is entirely weather dependant. The skyline has been reported to be seen on days with a particular weather.
3) It assumes the amount the curvature drops is the same as the amount of an object hidden by it. That is not the case.
If the earth was flat, the skyline and the shoreline should be visible but only the skyline is visible on every picture.
Assuming you are looking Chicago from the location you said and that your eyes are 6 ft above the ground, the earth curvature will hide 1470 ft of the object. If we assume our eyes are at the same height as our feet, we get 1674 ft.
Take the Willis Tower height: 1450 ft. To rise the image of the tower from 50 miles, lets say 500 ft, you would need 6 arcminutes of refraction or next to nothing.
If we assume your eyes are 30 ft above the ground, any building will need to be 1200 ft higher to be seen.
You have not given us any meaningful data about your elevation from that location.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/6f9feb69ed84c9ba402c1dd44109a2f4.gif)
Where is the shoreline?
(http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/03/-disappointed-GIF.gif?gs=a)
-
Supposedly the earth is revolving around the sun in an elliptical pattern and thereby speeds up (ie. accelerates) when it gets closer to the sun. Hmmmmm....not feeling it.
http://www.cso.caltech.edu/outreach/log/NIGHT_DAY/elliptical.htm
Lets see how much acceleration that implies.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 30.29
Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 29.29
Max. orbital velocity is during the Perihelion at January 3.
Min. orbital velocity is during the Aphelion at July 4.
This gives us roughly 183 days or 15811200 seconds for difference between the two points in the orbit.
The acceleration is: a=(vf-vi)/(tf-ti)
Where v is velocity, t is time and f/i is final/initial
We replace the variables with our data:
a=(30.29km/s-29.29km/s)/(15811200s-0s)=0.00000006 km/sยฒ or 0.00006 m/sยฒ of acceleration.
If you weight 80kg, the amount of force you would feel is 0.005 newtons for F=ma. In short, nothing.
-
I have already explained it. Your pic is wrong.
First off, Your math is wrong because it does not includes some variables.
You forgot about:
1) Your eyes height. Your picture assumes they are at the same height as your toes.
2) Atmospheric refraction: it will rise the image of the buildings to some degrees and it is entirely weather dependant. The skyline has been reported to be seen on days with a particular weather.
3) It assumes the amount the curvature drops is the same as the amount of an object hidden by it. That is not the case.
If the earth was flat, the skyline and the shoreline should be visible but only the skyline is visible on every picture.
Assuming you are looking Chicago from the location you said and that your eyes are 6 ft above the ground, the earth curvature will hide 1470 ft of the object. If we assume our eyes are at the same height as our feet, we get 1674 ft.
Take the Willis Tower height: 1450 ft. To rise the image of the tower from 50 miles, lets say 500 ft, you would need 6 arcminutes of refraction or next to nothing.
If we assume your eyes are 30 ft above the ground, any building will need to be 1200 ft higher to be seen.
You have not given us any meaningful data about your elevation from that location.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/6f9feb69ed84c9ba402c1dd44109a2f4.gif)
Where is the shoreline?
(http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/03/-disappointed-GIF.gif?gs=a)
Are you going to give a proper answer to the questions rised or not? Your math does not assumes the earth has an atmopshere and ignores its effects on light.
If you have some info about the skyline always be seen from that location, please share it. I dont live there so I have to rely on other sources.
-
tradosaurus is quite simply an adolescent troll with a pathological craving for attention. He is (I'm assuming male here), obviously on a fishing expedition, getting his kicks from posting spurious bollocks and intentionally not debating seriously or providing evidence to back up his laughable claims, thereby getting the rise that satisfies his cravings.
Normally, I would say, let him keep digging, while we use his stupidity and inability to engage in reasoned debate to educate the lurkers as to the dark place that people can be led to from belief in such preposterous ideas as "flat earth". However, I think he has no fear of being in a hole, its a comfortable place for him to indulge in his siege mentality.
In this case, I am no longer going to post in this thread, because doing so provides him with traction and feeds his attention-seeking pathology.
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret.
B) A modern to-scale map of the flat-Earth world, accurately showing the relative sizes of all of the continents and the oceans.
C) What exactly satellites and the ISS are doing in a flat Earth model.
A) Simple: control over you and your money.
B) Have you seen some of the supposed photos of the earth taken from space as given to us by NASA? There aren't many at all which is strange given that there are supposedly 20,000 satellites in earth orbit.
The continents depicted are not scales correctly (oopsy). And here I thought water covered 75% of the earths surface.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/618486main_earth_full.jpg
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/57000/57723/globe_east_540.jpg
C) Also as a mental exercise please google "Satellite" and see if you find actual pictures of a satellite. With 20,000+ satellites in orbit you would think we could get more than composite drawings.
Please take the opportunity to either watch the video or read the book called "200 proofs that the Earth is not a spinning ball".
-
Are you going to give a proper answer to the questions rised or not? Your math does not assumes the earth has an atmopshere and ignores its effects on light.
If you have some info about the skyline always be seen from that location, please share it. I dont live there so I have to rely on other sources.
I would give about as much credibility to atmospheric refraction as I would if you said it was due to pixie dust.
This is the tactic I've encountered among globe earth members is that at some point there is some mathematical formula or concept that others are just too stupide to understand.
God's universe is very easy to understand because our eyes tell us that the horizon is flat and the sun moves through the sky and there are no missing links to suggest millions and millions of years of evolution.
-
This forum is dedicated to discussing Apollo, not whatever crank pet lunacies that any random weirdo of the Internet holds. Let's get back to Apollo please and stop entrtaining this strange character.
Can I have that source for your claim that NASA was founded by the German National Socialist party please tradosaurus?
-
Supposedly the earth is revolving around the sun in an elliptical pattern and thereby speeds up (ie. accelerates) when it gets closer to the sun. Hmmmmm....not feeling it.
http://www.cso.caltech.edu/outreach/log/NIGHT_DAY/elliptical.htm
Lets see how much acceleration that implies.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 30.29
Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 29.29
Max. orbital velocity is during the Perihelion at January 3.
Min. orbital velocity is during the Aphelion at July 4.
This gives us roughly 183 days or 15811200 seconds for difference between the two points in the orbit.
The acceleration is: a=(vf-vi)/(tf-ti)
Where v is velocity, t is time and f/i is final/initial
We replace the variables with our data:
a=(30.29km/s-29.29km/s)/(15811200s-0s)=0.00000006 km/sยฒ or 0.00006 m/sยฒ of acceleration.
If you weight 80kg, the amount of force you would feel is 0.005 newtons for F=ma. In short, nothing.
Given that these are all numbers that are part of the fictional globe earth universe why should I be impressed? Who came up with the distances and velocities? How were these numbers tested? Sorry, not buying it.
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret.
B) A modern to-scale map of the flat-Earth world, accurately showing the relative sizes of all of the continents and the oceans.
C) What exactly satellites and the ISS are doing in a flat Earth model.
A) Simple: control over you and your money.
B) Have you seen some of the supposed photos of the earth taken from space as given to us by NASA? There aren't many at all which is strange given that there are supposedly 20,000 satellites in earth orbit.
The continents depicted are not scales correctly (oopsy). And here I thought water covered 75% of the earths surface.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/618486main_earth_full.jpg
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/57000/57723/globe_east_540.jpg
C) Also as a mental exercise please google "Satellite" and see if you find actual pictures of a satellite. With 20,000+ satellites in orbit you would think we could get more than composite drawings.
Please take the opportunity to either watch the video or read the book called "200 proofs that the Earth is not a spinning ball".
1) There are more lucrative endeavors than hiding the shape of the earth. Your conspiracy is purely religious orientated because it contradicts your beliefs.
2)It all has to do with the field of view of the lense.
Field of View of 45 degrees.
(https://i.gyazo.com/6d08ff5276e135f7ca9834dcae014748.jpg)
Field of view of 110 degrees.
(https://i.gyazo.com/e0565bd3275d1dc8be463a548634dd23.jpg)
C) You assume that all satellites are equipped with a camera facing at them to satisfy the paranoidism of a few individuals.
You can see satellites with a simple telescope and enough expertise:
Which of the 200 "proofs" from the Scientifically illiterate Eric Dubay you want to discuss here?
-
Supposedly the earth is revolving around the sun in an elliptical pattern and thereby speeds up (ie. accelerates) when it gets closer to the sun. Hmmmmm....not feeling it.
http://www.cso.caltech.edu/outreach/log/NIGHT_DAY/elliptical.htm
Lets see how much acceleration that implies.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 30.29
Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 29.29
Max. orbital velocity is during the Perihelion at January 3.
Min. orbital velocity is during the Aphelion at July 4.
This gives us roughly 183 days or 15811200 seconds for difference between the two points in the orbit.
The acceleration is: a=(vf-vi)/(tf-ti)
Where v is velocity, t is time and f/i is final/initial
We replace the variables with our data:
a=(30.29km/s-29.29km/s)/(15811200s-0s)=0.00000006 km/sยฒ or 0.00006 m/sยฒ of acceleration.
If you weight 80kg, the amount of force you would feel is 0.005 newtons for F=ma. In short, nothing.
Given that these are all numbers that are part of the fictional globe earth universe why should I be impressed? Who came up with the distances and velocities? How were these numbers tested? Sorry, not buying it.
You said you dont feel it and I gave you the answer.Are you going to give a proper answer to the questions rised or not? Your math does not assumes the earth has an atmopshere and ignores its effects on light.
If you have some info about the skyline always be seen from that location, please share it. I dont live there so I have to rely on other sources.
I would give about as much credibility to atmospheric refraction as I would if you said it was due to pixie dust.
This is the tactic I've encountered among globe earth members is that at some point there is some mathematical formula or concept that others are just too stupide to understand.
God's universe is very easy to understand because our eyes tell us that the horizon is flat and the sun moves through the sky and there are no missing links to suggest millions and millions of years of evolution.
Atmospheric refraction happens. You dont believe refraction of light happens when media density changes? Put a pencil inside a glass of water and the image will curve. The same happens with the Chicago skyline, the temperature inversion and density gradient of the atmosphere makes the light rays follow the curve.
The horizon is not flat
There is a small bump.
The sun moving through the sky does not resembles ANYTHING of what we would see if the earth was flat.
Evolution is off topic here.
-
Oh, my. Oh, this is just painful.
-
This forum is dedicated to discussing Apollo, not whatever crank pet lunacies that any random weirdo of the Internet holds. Let's get back to Apollo please and stop entrtaining this strange character.
Can I have that source for your claim that NASA was founded by the German National Socialist party please tradosaurus?
NASA was heavily influenced by the NAZI scientists brought over after WW2, with Werhner Von Braun as the lead engineer.
After WW2, Operation Paperclip brought over 1500 german scientists, engineers and technicians. Of course we know that the Germans perfected the V2 rocket.
From http://www.sott.net/article/257398-The-NAZI-origins-of-NASA
"US President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism. Said restriction would have rendered ineligible most of the scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientists Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a menace to the security of the Allied Forces.
To circumvent President Trumans anti-Nazi order, and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and rรฉgime affiliations. Once bleached of their Nazism, the US Government granted the scientists security clearance to work in the United States. Paperclip, the projects operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists new political personรฆ to their US Government Scientist JIOA personnel files. "
Wernher von Braun, a member of the German SS in WW2, was credited for inventing the V2 rocket and later the Saturn V rocket.
Von Braun continued to entertain his engineer-scientist's dream of a future world in which rockets would be used for space exploration. However, instead of risking being sacked, he now was increasingly in a position to popularize these ideas. In a few years NASA was born.
-
Even simpler, you can prove that the earth is curved merely by taking a flight in a commercial airliner. If your airliner cruises above around 35,000 feet, then so long as you have a fairly wide field of view (at least 60ยฐ) and a near cloud-free horizon, you can see the curvature of the earth for yourself.
Even better, you can see it for yourself from ground level if you live near the sea, and especially, if you live near a seaport. All you need is clear view of the sea and a pair of binoculars โ just watch ships after they leave the port and as they approach the horizon, you will see that their hulls start to disappear before their masts and other superstructure.
Ancient Greek philosopher-scientists spotted this without any optical aids, and concluded that the Earth was round. The Greek scholar, Erastosthenes of Cyrene even attempted to calculate the circumference of the Earth.....
... and he got it right within just a few percent
Now if a man who lived 2200 years ago could prove conclusively that the Earth was a sphere, one wonders why we still have idiots to this day who deny it.
The Erasthotenes experiment on a flat earth would give people near the Poles bigger values since latitude lines would grow exponentially but it is does not.
On a flat earth there would not be an horizon since parallel lines dont meet.
and so on...
Flat earth has to many holes.
Wouldn't the flat earth model our OP claims to adhere to actually make it much easier to get to the moon?
Yep, it is only 3000 miles away ;D
Eratosthenes assumed that the earth is a globe and that the sun was far away when actuality the earth is flat and the sun is less than 5,000 miles away and much smaller.
If Eratosthenes assumed flat earth, small sun, and closer sun his experiment would have yielded the same results.
If the sun was as close as you say then it would visibly change size throughout the day. It does not therefore you are wrong.
The sun on the flat Earth would never appear to set. do the math for your 3000-5000 mile up sun and you'll find that at sunset it would still be 15 degrees above the horizon. flat Earth doesn't work again.
A sun on a flat Earth would never light the clouds from underneath during a sunset or sunrise but in reality we do see that. The Earth is round whether you like it or not.
-
Atmospheric refraction happens. You dont believe refraction of light happens when media density changes? Put a pencil inside a glass of water and the image will curve. The same happens with the Chicago skyline, the temperature inversion and density gradient of the atmosphere makes the light rays follow the curve.
The horizon is not flat
There is a small bump.
The sun moving through the sky does not resembles ANYTHING of what we would see if the earth was flat.
Evolution is off topic here.
Simply, the sun is less than 4,000 miles in diameter and much closer to earth (less than 10,000 miles). The reason satellites don't see it is because satellites don't exist (google "satellite")
(https://cut2thetruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3c5b7-flat_earthqq.jpg)
-
You BELIEVE that the earth is rotating faster than the speed of sound while hurdling 60,000 miles around the sun, while the solar system is moving even faster at insane speeds with absolutely no proof whatsoever, except that NASA says so.
Why the NASA obsession? The motions of the Earth and planets where known centuries before NASA existed.
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Why would the plane magically lose the velocity it had on the ground simply by taking off? What force would cause that?
-
Atmospheric refraction happens. You dont believe refraction of light happens when media density changes? Put a pencil inside a glass of water and the image will curve. The same happens with the Chicago skyline, the temperature inversion and density gradient of the atmosphere makes the light rays follow the curve.
The horizon is not flat
There is a small bump.
The sun moving through the sky does not resembles ANYTHING of what we would see if the earth was flat.
Evolution is off topic here.
Simply, the sun is less than 4,000 miles in diameter and much closer to earth (less than 10,000 miles). The reason satellites don't see it is because satellites don't exist (google "satellite")
(https://cut2thetruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3c5b7-flat_earthqq.jpg)
I made a huge post explaining why that is not POSSIBLE that you dismissed entirely.
Satellites dont exist? How do you explain this:
-
Simply, the sun is less than 4,000 miles in diameter and much closer to earth (less than 10,000 miles). The reason satellites don't see it is because satellites don't exist (google "satellite")
(https://cut2thetruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3c5b7-flat_earthqq.jpg)
Oh OK, so my satellite dish is pointing at something 15000 miles further out than the sun yet somehow I get TV all day on it without it being blocked by something wider than the Atlantic.
-
NASA was heavily influenced by the NAZI scientists brought over after WW2, with Werhner Von Braun as the lead engineer.
After WW2, Operation Paperclip brought over 1500 german scientists, engineers and technicians. Of course we know that the Germans perfected the V2 rocket.
From http://www.sott.net/article/257398-The-NAZI-origins-of-NASA
"US President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism. Said restriction would have rendered ineligible most of the scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientists Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a menace to the security of the Allied Forces.
To circumvent President Trumans anti-Nazi order, and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and rรฉgime affiliations. Once bleached of their Nazism, the US Government granted the scientists security clearance to work in the United States. Paperclip, the projects operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists new political personรฆ to their US Government Scientist JIOA personnel files. "
Wernher von Braun, a member of the German SS in WW2, was credited for inventing the V2 rocket and later the Saturn V rocket.
Von Braun continued to entertain his engineer-scientist's dream of a future world in which rockets would be used for space exploration. However, instead of risking being sacked, he now was increasingly in a position to popularize these ideas. In a few years NASA was born.
Thank you for acknowledging the question and responding. However, you have not answered the question that I asked. I asked this:
Can I have that source for your claim that NASA was founded by the German National Socialist party please tradosaurus?
which was in response to your claim that NASA: founded by NAZI's and continuing the NAZI tradition of lies and deception.
So again, please cite a reputable source for the claim or withdraw it.
-
I would give about as much credibility to atmospheric refraction...
Reciting the things you simply decide not to believe in doesn't make you credible.
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret.
B) A modern to-scale map of the flat-Earth world, accurately showing the relative sizes of all of the continents and the oceans.
C) What exactly satellites and the ISS are doing in a flat Earth model.
A) Simple: control over you and your money.
B) Have you seen some of the supposed photos of the earth taken from space as given to us by NASA? There aren't many at all which is strange given that there are supposedly 20,000 satellites in earth orbit.
The continents depicted are not scales correctly (oopsy). And here I thought water covered 75% of the earths surface.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/618486main_earth_full.jpg
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/57000/57723/globe_east_540.jpg
C) Also as a mental exercise please google "Satellite" and see if you find actual pictures of a satellite. With 20,000+ satellites in orbit you would think we could get more than composite drawings.
Please take the opportunity to either watch the video or read the book called "200 proofs that the Earth is not a spinning ball".
You seem to have missed the request to take it to the appropriate sub-forum.
Because I'm a nice guy, I've created a thread for you:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1067.0
-
Sagan was an atheist with an agenda and either really believed in the globe earth fantasy or intentionally deceived.
That's it.
The breaking point.
Carl Sagan was one of the most brilliant scientists of our generation.
I absolutely will not sit here and deal with any two-bit moron who dares speak ill of him on a forum dedicated to science. I just won't do it.
I asked for a copy of your diploma demonstrating that you are a "degreed engineer" and I still don't see it.
Did you miss it the first time? If so, I ask again.
-
As a proud Apollo moon lander denier and a degreed Mechanical Engineer, I have a few questions to ask those that believe in NASA's story.
I've read all the drivel you've posted, all the things you've ignored, and all the pathetic insults you've tried to sling, and my only recommendation to you is that you go back to wherever you claim you got this degree from, and demand a refund.
Either that or put up a copy of your diploma for proof. I haven't seen it, and I don't believe you have it, and unless you can prove it, I'll know you are some kind of dishonest shill.
Well, you showed me didn't you?
Now why don't you use your brain and stop believing in the NASA religious mumbo jumbo.
Reported for moderation.
-
I have already explained it. Your pic is wrong.
First off, Your math is wrong because it does not includes some variables.
You forgot about:
1) Your eyes height. Your picture assumes they are at the same height as your toes.
2) Atmospheric refraction: it will rise the image of the buildings to some degrees and it is entirely weather dependant. The skyline has been reported to be seen on days with a particular weather.
3) It assumes the amount the curvature drops is the same as the amount of an object hidden by it. That is not the case.
If the earth was flat, the skyline and the shoreline should be visible but only the skyline is visible on every picture.
Assuming you are looking Chicago from the location you said and that your eyes are 6 ft above the ground, the earth curvature will hide 1470 ft of the object. If we assume our eyes are at the same height as our feet, we get 1674 ft.
Take the Willis Tower height: 1450 ft. To rise the image of the tower from 50 miles, lets say 500 ft, you would need 6 arcminutes of refraction or next to nothing.
If we assume your eyes are 30 ft above the ground, any building will need to be 1200 ft higher to be seen.
You have not given us any meaningful data about your elevation from that location.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/6f9feb69ed84c9ba402c1dd44109a2f4.gif)
Where is the shoreline?
(http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/03/-disappointed-GIF.gif?gs=a)
(http://fscdn.wcs.org/2015/09/18/57d936u9yu_Julie_Larsen_Maher_0100_California_Sea_Lion_Indy_close_up_SLP_BZ_03_08_12_hr.jpg)
-
Tradosaurus, your hand waving about 'control over you and your money' is ludicrous. Just how does a globe world conspiracy accomplish this?
As for satellites, there's websites (http://www.heavens-above.com/) where you can find the timing for pass overs for satellites at any point in the globe. You say satellites are a myth?
Well, here's your chance to test such a bold claim.
-
I asked for a copy of your diploma demonstrating that you are a "degreed engineer" and I still don't see it.
Please understand that I'm not saying that I think tradosaurus has any relevant expertise, but I can't see any value in posting a diploma. All that would prove is that he was able to get a scan of a diploma, which in the internet age isn't a particularly difficult challenge to overcome. While not being able to produce it would be equally unremarkable. My college diploma has been buried somewhere in a box in my basement from when I last moved over a decade ago; I wouldn't bother searching for it for a random internet argument.
It don't see where it proves or disproves anything either way.
-
A good point. An educated fool remains such, especially in areas outside their expertise, though there is things Tradosaurus should know if they are what they claim.
-
Earth as viewed in a sequence of images taken by Apollo 11 on the way to the moon.
Prove it isn't.
-
tradosaurus is a nothing but a troll
-
If Eratosthenes assumed flat earth, small sun, and closer sun his experiment would have yielded the same results.
Sure. But only if you use the same locations Eratosthenes used. Try it at different latitudes and the flat earther attempt to recreate Eratosthenes experiment will fail.
(http://i.imgur.com/8CmPsi1.png)
-
If Eratosthenes assumed flat earth, small sun, and closer sun his experiment would have yielded the same results.
Sure. But only if you use the same locations Eratosthenes used. Try it at different latitudes and the flat earther attempt to recreate Eratosthenes experiment will fail.
(http://i.imgur.com/8CmPsi1.png)
That's because the surface is not Euclidean and thus not flat by definition.
-
A) Simple: control over you and your money.
How much money do you have and why would anyone want to control your income?
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Why would the plane magically lose the velocity it had on the ground simply by taking off? What force would cause that?
Good question. What holds the atmosphere glued to the earth while it is rotating 1,000 mph? Magic?
-
I made a huge post explaining why that is not POSSIBLE that you dismissed entirely.
Satellites dont exist? How do you explain this:
The first two were blurry and the rest I couldn't tell you what was being filmed. I once saw the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast. Does that count?
-
Simply, the sun is less than 4,000 miles in diameter and much closer to earth (less than 10,000 miles). The reason satellites don't see it is because satellites don't exist (google "satellite")
(https://cut2thetruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3c5b7-flat_earthqq.jpg)
Oh OK, so my satellite dish is pointing at something 15000 miles further out than the sun yet somehow I get TV all day on it without it being blocked by something wider than the Atlantic.
It's called antennas. Did you know that Italian physicist and radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi succeeded in sending the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean? It's called the flat earth.
-
Simply, the sun is less than 4,000 miles in diameter and much closer to earth (less than 10,000 miles). The reason satellites don't see it is because satellites don't exist (google "satellite")
(https://cut2thetruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3c5b7-flat_earthqq.jpg)
G'day Tradosaurus and welcome to Apollohoax.
Cool picture.
Looking at it, I have some questions.
Could you please explain how the flight time from Sydney (Australia) to Santiago (Chile) is less than double the time from London to New York (14 hours to 7.5 hours)?
Do people in Argentina and the USA see opposite sides of the Moon?
Why can't people in the southern hemisphere see Polaris? Why do we see different constellations at different latitudes?
If the Sun is always above the Earth, how is it that we see it pass below the horizon?
Cheers
-
NASA was heavily influenced by the NAZI scientists brought over after WW2, with Werhner Von Braun as the lead engineer.
After WW2, Operation Paperclip brought over 1500 german scientists, engineers and technicians. Of course we know that the Germans perfected the V2 rocket.
From http://www.sott.net/article/257398-The-NAZI-origins-of-NASA
"US President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism. Said restriction would have rendered ineligible most of the scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientists Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a menace to the security of the Allied Forces.
To circumvent President Trumans anti-Nazi order, and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and rรฉgime affiliations. Once bleached of their Nazism, the US Government granted the scientists security clearance to work in the United States. Paperclip, the projects operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists new political personรฆ to their US Government Scientist JIOA personnel files. "
Wernher von Braun, a member of the German SS in WW2, was credited for inventing the V2 rocket and later the Saturn V rocket.
Von Braun continued to entertain his engineer-scientist's dream of a future world in which rockets would be used for space exploration. However, instead of risking being sacked, he now was increasingly in a position to popularize these ideas. In a few years NASA was born.
Thank you for acknowledging the question and responding. However, you have not answered the question that I asked. I asked this:
Can I have that source for your claim that NASA was founded by the German National Socialist party please tradosaurus?
which was in response to your claim that NASA: founded by NAZI's and continuing the NAZI tradition of lies and deception.
So again, please cite a reputable source for the claim or withdraw it.
This is my personal conclusion although it is not a singulary held belief. I'm just connecting the dots.
-
Simply, the sun is less than 4,000 miles in diameter and much closer to earth (less than 10,000 miles). The reason satellites don't see it is because satellites don't exist (google "satellite")
(https://cut2thetruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3c5b7-flat_earthqq.jpg)
Oh OK, so my satellite dish is pointing at something 15000 miles further out than the sun yet somehow I get TV all day on it without it being blocked by something wider than the Atlantic.
It's called antennas. Did you know that Italian physicist and radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi succeeded in sending the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean? It's called the flat earth.
Yeah, his antenna is pointed at something in geostationary orbit. It only works when pointed there. It has NOTHING to do with the ignorant and false flat Earth.
Marconi sent radio across the Atlantic using long wavelengths that bounce off the ionosphere. The frequencies used in satellite antennas do NOT bounce off the ionosphere. You are wrong again.
-
NASA was heavily influenced by the NAZI scientists brought over after WW2, with Werhner Von Braun as the lead engineer.
After WW2, Operation Paperclip brought over 1500 german scientists, engineers and technicians. Of course we know that the Germans perfected the V2 rocket.
From http://www.sott.net/article/257398-The-NAZI-origins-of-NASA
"US President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism. Said restriction would have rendered ineligible most of the scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientists Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a menace to the security of the Allied Forces.
To circumvent President Trumans anti-Nazi order, and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and rรฉgime affiliations. Once bleached of their Nazism, the US Government granted the scientists security clearance to work in the United States. Paperclip, the projects operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists new political personรฆ to their US Government Scientist JIOA personnel files. "
Wernher von Braun, a member of the German SS in WW2, was credited for inventing the V2 rocket and later the Saturn V rocket.
Von Braun continued to entertain his engineer-scientist's dream of a future world in which rockets would be used for space exploration. However, instead of risking being sacked, he now was increasingly in a position to popularize these ideas. In a few years NASA was born.
Thank you for acknowledging the question and responding. However, you have not answered the question that I asked. I asked this:
Can I have that source for your claim that NASA was founded by the German National Socialist party please tradosaurus?
which was in response to your claim that NASA: founded by NAZI's and continuing the NAZI tradition of lies and deception.
So again, please cite a reputable source for the claim or withdraw it.
This is my personal conclusion although it is not a singulary held belief. I'm just connecting the dots.
He didn't ask you to connect the dots, he asked for a credible source for your claim. If you cannot provide one, you really need to withdraw your claim. Nazism is nothing to be flippant about.
-
Good question. What holds the atmosphere glued to the earth while it is rotating 1,000 mph? Magic?
Why don't you tell us all the centrifugal force at the equator caused by the Earth rotating at 1000 mph?
-
I'm sorry to upset your belief system (actually, no I'm not. lol). You BELIEVE that the earth is rotating faster than the speed of sound while hurdling 60,000 miles around the sun, while the solar system is moving even faster at insane speeds with absolutely no proof whatsoever, except that NASA says so. I think I would believe that Joseph Smith found some gold tablets rather than this fiction.
Just out of interest, do you realise that NASA is not the only space agency in the world? The space agencies of other countries, from North Korea to Israel, all accept that the Earth is a sphere.
For that matter, do you realise that the Catholic Church accepts the roundness of the Earth, and did so even before Vatican 2? But, you know, I'm sure you'd be happy to tell the Pope he's wrong...
-
Good question. What holds the atmosphere glued to the earth while it is rotating 1,000 mph? Magic?
Gravity.
-
This is my personal conclusion although it is not a singulary held belief.
So your "religious" belief, then. Got it.
I'm just connecting the dots.
You were asked to supply facts, not to foist a conclusion.
-
Now that you mention it the main reason I know NASA is a fraud and has bilked billions from taxpayers to fund their fantasy expeditions is the observable and tested facts that the earth is flat. But I digress ;)
Do you think NASA has some sort of influence over the scientific and engineering communities of countries other than the USA? Do you think they somehow fooled the scientists and engineers in the USSR during the Cold War? Do you think they're somehow fooling the scientists and engineers in Iran or North Korea at the moment?
-
I asked for a copy of your diploma demonstrating that you are a "degreed engineer" and I still don't see it.
Please understand that I'm not saying that I think tradosaurus has any relevant expertise, but I can't see any value in posting a diploma. All that would prove is that he was able to get a scan of a diploma, which in the internet age isn't a particularly difficult challenge to overcome. While not being able to produce it would be equally unremarkable. My college diploma has been buried somewhere in a box in my basement from when I last moved over a decade ago; I wouldn't bother searching for it for a random internet argument.
It don't see where it proves or disproves anything either way.
Exactly which is why I wouldn't post it. Although i could probably fake a PhD document as well as NASA. ;o)
-
Now that you mention it the main reason I know NASA is a fraud and has bilked billions from taxpayers to fund their fantasy expeditions is the observable and tested facts that the earth is flat. But I digress ;)
Do you think NASA has some sort of influence over the scientific and engineering communities of countries other than the USA? Do you think they somehow fooled the scientists and engineers in the USSR during the Cold War? Do you think they're somehow fooling the scientists and engineers in Iran or North Korea at the moment?
Given the fact that kids are indoctrinated with the globe earth and NASA has to know about the flat earth, yes I would say they are fooling quite a few scientists (at least the ones that aren't in on it like Neil Tyson and Bill Nye). Look how easy it was to fool so many people about 9/11.
-
tradosaurus is a nothing but a troll
I find that people who are uncomfortable in their belief system or have their belief system shaken resort to this word.
Just let go of the ego and recognize what your senses tell you about the earth. I had to and it wasn't easy.
-
I find that people who are uncomfortable in their belief system...
Definitely a troll.
-
Simply, the sun is less than 4,000 miles in diameter and much closer to earth (less than 10,000 miles). The reason satellites don't see it is because satellites don't exist (google "satellite")
(https://cut2thetruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3c5b7-flat_earthqq.jpg)
G'day Tradosaurus and welcome to Apollohoax.
Cool picture.
Looking at it, I have some questions.
Could you please explain how the flight time from Sydney (Australia) to Santiago (Chile) is less than double the time from London to New York (14 hours to 7.5 hours)?
Do people in Argentina and the USA see opposite sides of the Moon?
Why can't people in the southern hemisphere see Polaris? Why do we see different constellations at different latitudes?
If the Sun is always above the Earth, how is it that we see it pass below the horizon?
Cheers
Would you mind looking at the document called "200 Proofs the Earth is not Spinning ball" at http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html)?
You can also watch it on youtube. It answers those questions and has pictures to better explain it.
-
Would you mind looking...
Sure, as soon as you post here the details about what you did to confirm each of the 200 claims. "Go watch this video," or "Go read what someone else has said," is not an argument. You might just as well say "This is the stuff I read and uncritically accepted to form my beliefs." Or, since you're so fond of Mormon references, it's equivalent to someone telling you to go read the Book of Mormon when asked for proof that the Book of Mormon is true.
Sorry, you don't get to bog your critics down in lengthy presentations you're not willing to summarize or support here.
-
tradosaurus is a nothing but a troll
I find that people who are uncomfortable in their belief system or have their belief system shaken resort to this word.
Just let go of the ego and recognize what your senses tell you about the earth. I had to and it wasn't easy.
My senses and multiple repeatable experiments tell me the same thing the Greeks proved over 2,000 years ago. The world is round and no amount of recent ignorance on the Internet will change that fact.
-
Would you mind looking at the document called "200 Proofs the Earth is not Spinning ball" at http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html)?
You can also watch it on youtube. It answers those questions and has pictures to better explain it.
I've looked at it before and found it hard to get through as it is filled with ignorance and lies. Could you say in your own words what you found compelling?
-
Would you mind looking...
Sure, as soon as you post here the details about what you did to confirm each of the 200 claims. "Go watch this video," or "Go read what someone else has said," is not an argument. You might just as well say "This is the stuff I read and uncritically accepted to form my beliefs." Or, since you're so fond of Mormon references, it's equivalent to someone telling you to go read the Book of Mormon when asked for proof that the Book of Mormon is true.
Sorry, you don't get to bog your critics down in lengthy presentations you're not willing to summarize or support here.
As a famous president said "Facts are a stubborn thing". ;o)
Well this document I reference is not as length as the Book of Mormon and even has pictures. The reason I posted the link is so others with the same or other questions can have a reference guide. Much easier than me trying to educate everyone on this forum. lol
-
I want a new term. This is like a Gish Shoulder Roll -- a gallop that goes off in some orthogonal direction.
-
Well this document I reference is not as length as the Book of Mormon and even has pictures. The reason I posted the link is so others with the same or other questions can have a reference guide. Much easier than me trying to educate everyone on this forum. lol
Bolding mine.
Most of the forum-ites are capable of handling math. Somehow, it always seems to be the conspiracy believers and anti-science nuts who are only able to communicate in silly GIFs and YouTube links.
Adults can handle arguments of logic and substance.
-
tradosaurus is a nothing but a troll
I find that people who are uncomfortable in their belief system or have their belief system shaken resort to this word.
Just let go of the ego and recognize what your senses tell you about the earth. I had to and it wasn't easy.
Stick with Apollo, cat has set up a thread for your FE belief, but you are still a troll
-
You were asked to provide a reputable source for your claim that NASA was founded by the Nazi party. Post the source or withdraw the claim
Connecting the dots is not acceptable.
-
As a famous president said "Facts are a stubborn thing"
And you were presented with the facts that dispute your belief. You answered them simply with disbelief.
Well this document I reference is not as length as the Book of Mormon and even has pictures.
Irrelevant. If you are unwilling to summarize first what you found compelling about it, you may not require your critics to read it as a condition of debate with you.
-
I want a new term. This is like a Gish Shoulder Roll -- a gallop that goes off in some orthogonal direction.
As was the case with another recent sublimator-denier, I suspect his real cause is not Apollo. Apollo is just the proxy for his real crusade.
-
I want a new term. This is like a Gish Shoulder Roll -- a gallop that goes off in some orthogonal direction.
As was the case with another recent sublimator-denier, I suspect his real cause is not Apollo. Apollo is just the proxy for his real crusade.
I tend to agree with your analysis.
-
Oh, my. Oh, this is just painful.
This.
And if this thread has skipped away from Apollo completely could it be moved into 'other conspiracies' so it can be ignored....
-
Side note, I'm pretty sure he's deleting posts, since I see responses to ones that are missing when I read the page.
-
Side note, I'm pretty sure he's deleting posts, since I see responses to ones that are missing when I read the page.
Ooh! Someone tell Lunar Orbit! :o That ain't cricket!
-
I just read this thread.
Tradosaurus, I am a space systems engineer, and amateur astronomer, and I've worked for guys who made Apollo happen - who were, in fact, part of NASA's forerunner agency. Nothing you have said betrays even the slightest familiarity with the Apollo record, nor understanding of spaceflight or astronomy in general, nor engineering, nor even with the most basic principles of Newtonian physics.
Please don't continue to claim you're a mechanical engineer; it's not nice to lie to us, and it's not in accordance with the principles of the Chrisitianity you profess. And I have worked with UT aerospace engineers, and even though I went to an old SWC rival, I will stand up for them against your fumbling attempt to attach your incompetence to that institution.
Also, please don't blame your determined ignorance on Catholicism. I'm Catholic, and the Church, whatever its faults, doesn't subscribe to the nonsense you're peddling.
But this is all moot anyway, because frankly I think you're just trolling - and not very imaginatively at that.
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Why would the plane magically lose the velocity it had on the ground simply by taking off? What force would cause that?
Good question. What holds the atmosphere glued to the earth while it is rotating 1,000 mph? Magic?
Friction.
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
-
Simply, the sun is less than 4,000 miles in diameter and much closer to earth (less than 10,000 miles). The reason satellites don't see it is because satellites don't exist (google "satellite")
(https://cut2thetruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3c5b7-flat_earthqq.jpg)
G'day Tradosaurus and welcome to Apollohoax.
Cool picture.
Looking at it, I have some questions.
Could you please explain how the flight time from Sydney (Australia) to Santiago (Chile) is less than double the time from London to New York (14 hours to 7.5 hours)?
Do people in Argentina and the USA see opposite sides of the Moon?
Why can't people in the southern hemisphere see Polaris? Why do we see different constellations at different latitudes?
If the Sun is always above the Earth, how is it that we see it pass below the horizon?
Cheers
Would you mind looking at the document called "200 Proofs the Earth is not Spinning ball" at http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html)?
You can also watch it on youtube. It answers those questions and has pictures to better explain it.
Could you please list the point numbers which cover my questions. I don't have time to search through 200 points to find your answers for you.
Thank you.
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
OMG, why have I never made the Underpants Gnome connection, it all makes perfect sense now!
I am so stealing this, lol!
-
Guys,
Can we please stop feeding tradosaurus's personal obsession about FE? This thread is about Apollo. To me, it's clear that tradosaurus is using moon denial as a "gateway drug" to his main obsession which is whacko ideas about the shape of the Earth. Its crank magnetism and personally I think he is doing this to troll and for shits'n'giggles. A separate thread has been created where he can go indulge his main delusion if he so wishes.
Tradosaurus, to bring this back on track, I am waiting for you to back up your claim that NASA was created by the National Socialist party. I have asked this before (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1064.msg36549#msg36549) and I'm not sure that you have answered it. Please provide reputable evidence or have that claim thrown out.
I've also got a couple of other points that need clarification. You asked earlier:How did the astronauts fit through a 22" docking hatch with their backpacks on when hooking back with the command module?
You have been asked to show where in the mission profile that they passed through the tunnel fully suited and with PLSS backbacks on. You have been told that you had the tunnel dimensions incorrect (some research, eh?) Do you still maintain that the astronauts passed through the docking tunnel, fully suited with PLSS backbacks after docking with the CM? Otherwise please withdraw the claim.
You also showed your ignorance when you claimed that :
I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around. So basically for 3 days, 3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair and had eat, pee/poop somehow and dispose of their waste. In staged videos from NASA it shows the 3 astro-nots moving around the CM as if there is plenty of room.
Now I'm going to ignore your childish use of "astro-nots" and your obsession with bodily functions (for now), but I do want you to clarify why you think that the CM had "water, fuel, parachute" inside the habitable space. Is that still your thinking or have you realised that you were incorrect about that too? The hilarious part is that you linked to a cutaway illustration that showed exactly where the fuel was located and you still managed to get it wrong! When submitting your answer can you also show where you think the parachutes and their mortars were stowed (here's a hint, if the parachutes were stowed in the habitable space, then how were they deployed? Did they open a window and throw them out? ::))
There's plenty more, but let's ease ourselves back into this, shall we?
-
I owe tradosaurus an apology- he did answer the question that NASA was founded by the Nazi party. I missed it as I was trying to avoid the Flat Earth turds that he was dropping all over the place. This is what he said:
This is my personal conclusion although it is not a singulary held belief. I'm just connecting the dots.
Which means that his claim is nothing more than opinion. Probably born of his paranoia and clear hatred of things that he cannot understand. A less ambiguous, less weasely phrase than "connecting the dots" would have been "I made it up to support my twisted world view". A moments research would show you, tradosaurus, that the NAZI party had nothing to do with the founding of NASA and that it was founded by President Eisenhower. You might have heard of Dwight D. Eisenhower- he spent years of his life contributing to the defeat of Nazism. I think that you are doing a massive dishonour to the memory of a man that had more bravery and courage in his big toenail than you have in your whole body, and who achieved more in his time on this (spherical!) planet than you will ever dream of.
As to whether your belief is singularly held, I don't care two hoots if your crackpot belief is held just by you or by a number of other people. Relying on argumentum ad populum gets you nowhere. Though I am certain that that such a belief is anything but a popularly held opinion. No, it's the domain of paranoid conspiracy theory nuts like you tradosaurus.
So, now you have been shown that you are happy to peddle hatred and lies to support your own twisted and erroneous world view and, importantly, you have admitted doing so (albeit using weasel words). I hope that you see this as a cathartic moment, though I wouldn't bet on it. Lets see you face up to your other outlandish claims, starting with the points that I posted above.
-
I owe tradosaurus an apology- he did answer the question that NASA was founded by the Nazi party. I missed it as I was trying to avoid the Flat Earth turds that he was dropping all over the place. This is what he said:
This is my personal conclusion although it is not a singulary held belief. I'm just connecting the dots.
Which means that his claim is nothing more than opinion. Probably born of his paranoia and clear hatred of things that he cannot understand. A less ambiguous, less weasely phrase than "connecting the dots" would have been "I made it up to support my twisted world view". A moments research would show you, tradosaurus, that the NAZI party had nothing to do with the founding of NASA and that it was founded by President Eisenhower. You might have heard of Dwight D. Eisenhower- he spent years of his life contributing to the defeat of Nazism. I think that you are doing a massive dishonour to the memory of a man that had more bravery and courage in his big toenail than you have in your whole body, and who achieved more in his time on this (spherical!) planet than you will ever dream of.
As to whether your belief is singularly held, I don't care two hoots if your crackpot belief is held just by you or by a number of other people. Relying on argumentum ad populum gets you nowhere. Though I am certain that that such a belief is anything but a popularly held opinion. No, it's the domain of paranoid conspiracy theory nuts like you tradosaurus.
So, now you have been shown that you are happy to peddle hatred and lies to support your own twisted and erroneous world view and, importantly, you have admitted doing so (albeit using weasel words). I hope that you see this as a cathartic moment, though I wouldn't bet on it. Lets see you face up to your other outlandish claims, starting with the points that I posted above.
Actually I disagree that he answered or that you need to apologise. He claimed that NASA was founded by the Nazi party. It was not, it happened to employ some people who used to be members of it, just as the Soviets did in their program. Not everyone in operation paperclip ended up at NASA, and not everyone was a goose-stepping murderer.
NASA was founded by the US Government. The rest is his spin.
-
Actually I disagree that he answered or that you need to apologise. He claimed that NASA was founded by the Nazi party. It was not, it happened to employ some people who used to be members of it, just as the Soviets did in their program. Not everyone in operation paperclip ended up at NASA, and not everyone was a goose-stepping murderer.
I took it as his best and final answer. He was asked a number of times and that was the response that he gave. I missed the response in my post of earlier today.
Its clear to me, and I presume to the vast majority of people that have read his weasel words, that he just made it up, or just repeated someone else's nonsense without bothering his lazy arse to check.
-
...
Its clear to me, and I presume to the vast majority of people that have read his weasel words, that he just made it up, or just repeated someone else's nonsense without bothering his lazy arse to check.
His behavior in this thread proves that statement.
-
Side note, I'm pretty sure he's deleting posts, since I see responses to ones that are missing when I read the page.
Yes, I delete part of posts that I am replying, to condense the entire reply. Can you not just go back to the original post to read the entire part? Does it change the fact that NASA is a bunch of liars and thieves and the universe is much smaller than we were brainwashed to believe?
-
I just read this thread.
Tradosaurus, I am a space systems engineer, and amateur astronomer, and I've worked for guys who made Apollo happen - who were, in fact, part of NASA's forerunner agency. Nothing you have said betrays even the slightest familiarity with the Apollo record, nor understanding of spaceflight or astronomy in general, nor engineering, nor even with the most basic principles of Newtonian physics.
Please don't continue to claim you're a mechanical engineer; it's not nice to lie to us, and it's not in accordance with the principles of the Chrisitianity you profess. And I have worked with UT aerospace engineers, and even though I went to an old SWC rival, I will stand up for them against your fumbling attempt to attach your incompetence to that institution.
Also, please don't blame your determined ignorance on Catholicism. I'm Catholic, and the Church, whatever its faults, doesn't subscribe to the nonsense you're peddling.
But this is all moot anyway, because frankly I think you're just trolling - and not very imaginatively at that.
Well you are wrong on two accounts which isn't surprising given that you have worked with NASA, the peddler of many lies. We could have a separate discussion of why the Vatican 2 church is not Catholic but an anti-church and how that fulfills prophecy that Jesus predicted, that the eternal sacrifice will cease (ie. there will be no mass) in the end times.
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Why would the plane magically lose the velocity it had on the ground simply by taking off? What force would cause that?
Good question. What holds the atmosphere glued to the earth while it is rotating 1,000 mph? Magic?
Friction.
I was always taught to ignore friction in problems in classes such as Dynamics and Fluid Dynamics. I was robbed!
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I don't know but maybe Step 2 is to sell lots of globes and maps? :D
-
Guys,
Can we please stop feeding tradosaurus's personal obsession about FE? This thread is about Apollo. To me, it's clear that tradosaurus is using moon denial as a "gateway drug" to his main obsession which is whacko ideas about the shape of the Earth. Its crank magnetism and personally I think he is doing this to troll and for shits'n'giggles. A separate thread has been created where he can go indulge his main delusion if he so wishes.
Tradosaurus, to bring this back on track, I am waiting for you to back up your claim that NASA was created by the National Socialist party. I have asked this before (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1064.msg36549#msg36549) and I'm not sure that you have answered it. Please provide reputable evidence or have that claim thrown out.
I've also got a couple of other points that need clarification. You asked earlier:How did the astronauts fit through a 22" docking hatch with their backpacks on when hooking back with the command module?
You have been asked to show where in the mission profile that they passed through the tunnel fully suited and with PLSS backbacks on. You have been told that you had the tunnel dimensions incorrect (some research, eh?) Do you still maintain that the astronauts passed through the docking tunnel, fully suited with PLSS backbacks after docking with the CM? Otherwise please withdraw the claim.
You also showed your ignorance when you claimed that :
I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around. So basically for 3 days, 3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair and had eat, pee/poop somehow and dispose of their waste. In staged videos from NASA it shows the 3 astro-nots moving around the CM as if there is plenty of room.
Now I'm going to ignore your childish use of "astro-nots" and your obsession with bodily functions (for now), but I do want you to clarify why you think that the CM had "water, fuel, parachute" inside the habitable space. Is that still your thinking or have you realised that you were incorrect about that too? The hilarious part is that you linked to a cutaway illustration that showed exactly where the fuel was located and you still managed to get it wrong! When submitting your answer can you also show where you think the parachutes and their mortars were stowed (here's a hint, if the parachutes were stowed in the habitable space, then how were they deployed? Did they open a window and throw them out? ::))
There's plenty more, but let's ease ourselves back into this, shall we?
1. Strawman. I've said before that it is my opinion that NASA has NAZI origins as the U.S. brought 1500 German scientists and engineers and Werhner Von Braun conceptualized the idea of space travel in the early 50's and within a few short years NASA was born. I'm just connecting the dots.
2. If I am wrong on the tunnel dimension please show me the true dimensions of the tunnel entrance to the command module. My shoulders are 24 inches from end to end and with a "space" suit on it would be much larger so hopefully your dimensions will be at least 42" or bigger.
3. Here is a picture of the Command module. Pay attention to the dimensions and then imagine the 3 parachutes with a lot of cord and all the other equipment plus 3 men fitting in this small space for 6 days of travel. According to NASA, 3 crew members spent 3 days to the moon and 3 days back to earth IN THE CM. One of the videos where Neil Armstrong manipulated the camera to show a "ball earth" it shows the astro-nots with plenty of room. They should have been in the CM. Now look at the picture. Can you imagine being strapped to the chair with 2 guys with no room to stand up? Also the parachutes were stored in the top of the CM so how was it stored so that the astro-nots still had room to make it thru the access tunnel? I think NASA's Hollywood department should have done a better job.
(http://www.aulis.com/images_cm/CM-3.jpg)
-
tradosaurus, a thread has been created for you, please use it for FE ranting's. Use this thread for discussing your Apollo mis-understands.
Your original questions have been answered many times and yet you continue to ignore them and/or refuse to answer questions. Hand waving and misdirecting is a normal behavior for conspirators start answering the questions.
-
1. Strawman. I've said before that it is my opinion that NASA has NAZI origins as the U.S. brought 1500 German scientists and engineers and Werhner Von Braun conceptualized the idea of space travel in the early 50's and within a few short years NASA was born. I'm just connecting the dots.
2. If I am wrong on the tunnel dimension please show me the true dimensions of the tunnel entrance to the command module. My shoulders are 24 inches from end to end and with a "space" suit on it would be much larger so hopefully your dimensions will be at least 42" or bigger.
3. Here is a picture of the Command module. Pay attention to the dimensions and then imagine the 3 parachutes with a lot of cord and all the other equipment plus 3 men fitting in this small space for 6 days of travel. According to NASA, 3 crew members spent 3 days to the moon and 3 days back to earth IN THE CM. One of the videos where Neil Armstrong manipulated the camera to show a "ball earth" it shows the astro-nots with plenty of room. They should have been in the CM. Now look at the picture. Can you imagine being strapped to the chair with 2 guys with no room to stand up? Also the parachutes were stored in the top of the CM so how was it stored so that the astro-nots still had room to make it thru the access tunnel? I think NASA's Hollywood department should have done a better job.
(http://www.aulis.com/images_cm/CM-3.jpg)
This was pointed out to you a few times, but you display a lazy behavior to investigate your claims. Here is a link that will show you the docking tunnel hatch was 30"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
Also it has been pointed out to you the parachutes were packed around the docking tunnel, NOT in the living space.
If you viewed any of the videos you should notice that without gravity the spacecraft was much roomier, although not as large as a bedroom. How do you think two men rode Gemini 7 for 14 days with much less room to move around. Now that was a cramped condition, much more than Apollo.
The astronauts were not strapped in their seats for the duration of the mission. Get over it Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I don't know but maybe Step 2 is to sell lots of globes and maps? :D
??
And why wouldn't maps sell if everyone accepted we lived on a Flat Earth?
Or, to put it another way, NASA is getting control over people by selling them...maps and globes?
Seriously, what's the point of this conspiracy again?
-
2. If I am wrong on the tunnel dimension please show me the true dimensions of the tunnel entrance to the command module. My shoulders are 24 inches from end to end and with a "space" suit on it would be much larger so hopefully your dimensions will be at least 42" or bigger.
Because the astronauts never had to pass through the tunnel wearing suits or PLSS backpacks.
3. Here is a picture of the Command module. Pay attention to the dimensions and then imagine the 3 parachutes with a lot of cord and all the other equipment plus 3 men fitting in this small space for 6 days of travel.
Your questions have already been answered, several times. You're not paying attention, are you?
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I don't know but maybe Step 2 is to sell lots of globes and maps? :D
Here's a clue showing that the Earth is not flat. There is not a single flat map that does not have some distortion. This is because the Earth is round. EVERY flat map is a projection from a globe and HAS TO have some distortion. If the Earth was flat then flat Earthers should be able to come up with an accurate map easily but they never do.
-
Now that you mention it the main reason I know NASA is a fraud and has bilked billions from taxpayers to fund their fantasy expeditions is the observable and tested facts that the earth is flat. But I digress ;)
Do you think NASA has some sort of influence over the scientific and engineering communities of countries other than the USA? Do you think they somehow fooled the scientists and engineers in the USSR during the Cold War? Do you think they're somehow fooling the scientists and engineers in Iran or North Korea at the moment?
Given the fact that kids are indoctrinated with the globe earth and NASA has to know about the flat earth, yes I would say they are fooling quite a few scientists (at least the ones that aren't in on it like Neil Tyson and Bill Nye). Look how easy it was to fool so many people about 9/11.
Come on, please explain this. Please explain how NASA fools scientists and engineers in countries other than the USA, including countries hostile to the USA. Or, if they know and are going along with the conspiracy, what do the Iranian or North Korean governments (or, earlier, the Soviet government) gain by going along with it?
And seeing as NASA didn't exist before 1958, who was doing the fooling in all the centuries - the millennia - prior to then?
-
1. Strawman. I've said before that it is my opinion that NASA has NAZI origins as the U.S. brought 1500 German scientists and engineers and Werhner Von Braun conceptualized the idea of space travel in the early 50's and within a few short years NASA was born. I'm just connecting the dots.
Your dot connecting is a child's scrawl. Your opinion counts for nothing. Even if it were true, please tell us how political opinion influences the law of physics.
2. If I am wrong on the tunnel dimension please show me the true dimensions of the tunnel entrance to the command module. My shoulders are 24 inches from end to end and with a "space" suit on it would be much larger so hopefully your dimensions will be at least 42" or bigger.
That information has been provided. You're wrong. They did not wear a space suit when moving between the CSM and LM.
3. Here is a picture of the Command module. Pay attention to the dimensions and then imagine the 3 parachutes with a lot of cord and all the other equipment plus 3 men fitting in this small space for 6 days of travel. According to NASA, 3 crew members spent 3 days to the moon and 3 days back to earth IN THE CM. One of the videos where Neil Armstrong manipulated the camera to show a "ball earth" it shows the astro-nots with plenty of room. They should have been in the CM. Now look at the picture. Can you imagine being strapped to the chair with 2 guys with no room to stand up? Also the parachutes were stored in the top of the CM so how was it stored so that the astro-nots still had room to make it thru the access tunnel? I think NASA's Hollywood department should have done a better job.
Here is a picture of a CM. See if you can work out where the parachutes were stored.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Ap8-S68-56310.jpg
When Armstrong moved the TV camera to show the Earth it also showed a hurricane that only existed in that form on that day. I have an original wire photo of that image taken from the TV coverage. It matches the satellite imagery from that day. I'm not interested in the fact that you don't believe in satellites, you just need to know how badly your argument fails thanks to the piles of evidence that prove it wrong.
-
I was always taught to ignore friction in problems in classes such as Dynamics and Fluid Dynamics.
Then you missed the point of the classes. The interaction between fluids and solids is governed entirely by friction. While friction is often ignored in first-year dynamics, practical dynamics requires it and is part of the licensing exam.
I was robbed!
No, you're just lying.
-
If the earth is flat, where are those 1,250,000,000 km2? An sphere of r=6371km only has 500,000,000 km2...
-
I'd also like to point out the massive irony of tradosaurus constructing a huge strawman and then accusing someone else of using a strawman to demolish his strawman.
-
If I am wrong on the tunnel dimension...
Asked and answered. Your error is not the dimensions of the tunnel, but in your mistaken belief that the astronauts were expected to go through it wearing their space suits. Your other claims reveal that you seem to think the crew wore their space suits and PLSSes the entire time. You are being asked to substantiate that belief, because that's not part of the mission. The flight plans are easily available, so you should be able to document whether NASA claims the space suits were worn constantly. Instead you seem to be making stuff up and trying to pin it on NASA.
Pay attention to the dimensions and then imagine the 3 parachutes with a lot of cord and all the other equipment...
Asked and answered. Most of the equipment, including the parachutes, was not stored in the habitable volume.
You might be interested in the work of Scott Sullivan. Unlike you, Mr Sullivan is an actual engineer with proper training and demonstrable experience. Using only the documents provided by NASA, Sullivan was able to recreate the designs in 3D modeling software used by relevant engineers today. He is a civilian, with no ties to NASA. If someone like that is able to "make it all fit" using only what's publicly available, then what stock should be put in your vague handwaving claims?
Also the parachutes were stored in the top of the CM so how was it stored so that the astro-nots still had room to make it thru the access tunnel?
The same way the aerospace industry has been packing 'chutes for automatic deployment since the 1940s. They're actually very tightly compressed by a hydraulic press, then deployed by an explosive charge that unfurls them. When packed, they take up only a small amount of space due to the extreme compression. While many laymen aren't aware this is done, it's not as if it's a miraculous process. It's no different than trying to compress your vacation souvenirs into your luggage for the trip home. Engineers do the same, just with hydraulics.
You keep implying that all the things NASA has done are mysteries. In fact they're well-known techniques in the industry. You're simply unaware of them, and you want to parlay that ignorance into an argument for your own superiority and erudition. What's worse, even though these are, in some cases, specialized techniques in an industry known for innovation, in Apollo's case they are eminently discoverable because of the length and depth to which the program was documented. It is not an exaggeration to say that it was the most meticulously and thoroughly documented civil engineering project in history. Even the lay members of the forum here are easily able to locate the proper references and, in most cases, understand them enough to answer hoax claimant's questions.
You need to ask yourself why, in the midst of easily discovered information, you think you can continue banking on ignorance.
-
Please review this image....
So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module ...
So basically for 3 days, 3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair ...
Also step 4 on the phases of the trip it states that the CSM turns and docks with the Lunar Module. That's a neat parlor trick while moving at a fast clip around the moon.
Please review this video, introduced by a UK TV presenter, which shows how the middle couch swings out of the the way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93
Since you're obsessed with toilet functions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xny8
When the Lunar Module was docked to the Command Module, they could move between them as well
"most likely" - You mean you're just speculating, and haven't researched what actually happened?
Step 4 was accomplished before they reached the moon, but - specifically, what do you see as the difficulty? There's no weather, atmosphere, turbulence, gravity to contend with, so it should be real easy, shouldn't it?
-
1. Strawman. I've said before that it is my opinion that NASA has NAZI origins as the U.S. brought 1500 German scientists and engineers and Werhner Von Braun conceptualized the idea of space travel in the early 50's
Wernher von Braun did not conceptualise space travel in the 1950s. Look up Hermann Oberth and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky for starters. When your opinions are based on this much ignorance they don't have much weight.
2. If I am wrong on the tunnel dimension please show me the true dimensions of the tunnel entrance to the command module. My shoulders are 24 inches from end to end and with a "space" suit on it would be much larger so hopefully your dimensions will be at least 42" or bigger.
The astronauts never traversed the tunnel in space suits, and if your shoulders are 24" across I would venture to say you are probably larger than the maximum restriction for being an astronaut. Your dimensions are irrelevant.
3. Here is a picture of the Command module. Pay attention to the dimensions and then imagine the 3 parachutes with a lot of cord and all the other equipment plus 3 men fitting in this small space for 6 days of travel.
One of the main features of patrachutes is that they are huge when unfurled but fold and compress into remarkably small volumes. This is not uncommon. Ever seen the difference in size between a packed and inflated aircraft escape slide?
Can you imagine being strapped to the chair with 2 guys with no room to stand up?
The astronauts were not strapped to the chair, and it is not hard to find out that the centre couch folded away in flight to allow access to the lower equipment bay. In zero gravity, plenty of room has a different meaning to your everyday conception of it. In zero gravity there is no dead volume that you cannot occupy for starters. Imagine how much more room you'd feel you had in your car if you could float freely inside all the volume of it.
Also the parachutes were stored in the top of the CM so how was it stored so that the astro-nots still had room to make it thru the access tunnel?
Really? You can't conceive of things being packed around the outside of the tunnel?
I have one question for you. Have you ever actually seen an Apollo command module? Not a diagram but the actual thing? I have, and I have no trouble believing three men could occupy that space, as cramped as it might be.
-
Well you are wrong on two accounts which isn't surprising given that you have worked with NASA, the peddler of many lies.
You claim to be a degreed mechanical engineer, with a degree date that would make you close to 50 years old. Yet you have no grasp whatsoever of elementary Newtonian dynamics, let alone fluid dynamics, your research skills are nonexistent, and your writing style is that of a bored adolescent.
No, you're no engineer, and repeating this transparent lie does not make it any more convincing. You should have paid a little more attention to the composition of the regular membership here; you're far from the first poseur who thought he could bluff about his qualifications here.
You really have no clue about the relationship of NASA to the rest of the aerospace world. It's typical of the clueless conspiracy crackpot to assume that the U.S. civil space agency can somehow hide the true nature of the world, when the Greeks figured out the size of the spherical Earth more than twenty centuries ago with little more than their feet and some sticks.
Moreover. I've also worked on defense projects, and purely commercial projects that had nothing at all to do with NASA. The same principles apply to all, and many tens of billions of dollars of commerce annually rely on the observed nature of the Earth. But you're oblivious to all of that; you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
We could have a separate discussion of why the Vatican 2 church is not Catholic but an anti-church and how that fulfills prophecy that Jesus predicted, that the eternal sacrifice will cease (ie. there will be no mass) in the end times.
No, we couldn't. In the first place, I'm not interested in your theological beliefs. In the second place, the idea that the Church endorsed the idea of a flat Earth prior to Vatican 2 is hilariously, spectacularly, wrong. Never mind the science and technology you don't understand; you can't even get the most basic facts right.
But really, though, I think you're just a troll, so I don't really see any point in continuing to try to educate you.
-
Step 4 was accomplished before they reached the moon, but - specifically, what do you see as the difficulty? There's no weather, atmosphere, turbulence, gravity to contend with, so it should be real easy, shouldn't it?
Why does he see the difficulty? Nothing more than argument from incredulity. He doesn't understand it so he assumes nobody else does either.
-
My contention is that those that believe in a globe earth universe, which includes moon landings, are operating on a basis of faith and therefore are adhering to a NASA based religion.
The Romans had figured out that the Earth was round, and used latitude and longitude in their navigation, many years before NASA was even a twinkling in someone's eye. So it can't be 'NASA-based'
-
1. Strawman. I've said before that it is my opinion that NASA has NAZI origins as the U.S. brought 1500 German scientists and engineers and Werhner Von Braun conceptualized the idea of space travel in the early 50's and within a few short years NASA was born. I'm just connecting the dots.
I don't care about your opinion. You said this "NASA: founded by NAZI's and continuing the NAZI tradition of lies and deception". Note you did not say "Its my opinion that..." or "I think that...", you said it as a statement of fact. You are flat-out wrong.
In addition, I find your comments puerile and in extremely bad taste. The Nazis were responsible for horrendous crimes against mankind, genocide, torture and a World War that cost the lives of 60 million people. You are associating NASA- a civilian body with many thousands of decent people, with monsters. To me, this shows the perversity of your thinking and your juvenile nature. It shows that you are incapable of adult conversation and I find your desperate attempt to link decent hard-working people to monsters. I am adding my name to the list of people calling for you to act like an adult and to stop using this offensive term. Continue to use it and I will call for your posts to be moderated until you can frame your ideas civilly.
2. If I am wrong on the tunnel dimension please show me the true dimensions of the tunnel entrance to the command module. My shoulders are 24 inches from end to end and with a "space" suit on it would be much larger so hopefully your dimensions will be at least 42" or bigger.
No "If" about it- you are flat out wrong. Go and do your own research on the dimensions- I'm not sure why you think that it's suddenly my job to educate you. You made the claim- back it up.
Secondly, you have been asked to show where in the mission profile that the astronauts went through the tunnel wearing spacesuits and PLSS backpacks. Where is this information? Again, your claim-you show the evidence.
3. Here is a picture of the Command module. Pay attention to the dimensions and then imagine the 3 parachutes with a lot of cord and all the other equipment plus 3 men fitting in this small space for 6 days of travel.
Again, flat out incorrect. You have been told on a number of occasions that they parachutes were not stored in the habitable space within the CM. What's so hard to understand about this?
Secondly, as others have said the 'chutes were stored, compressed, in mortar tubes. Hydraulic rams were used to compress the 'chutes when they were packed in the plant at Downey, to the point where they had the density of hardwood (the final packing density was 678Kg/m3). I wonder if you also think that skydivers are fake too...after all, they pack two large chutes into a briefcase-sized pack weighing a few pounds.
No doubt you will claim that this video is fake or some such BS (I bet that this is the first time that you will have seen this...). You can see the packers using hydraulic rams to stow the 'chutes.
Go and work out where the packed 'chutes were located. Your claim- you show your evidence.
Now look at the picture. Can you imagine being strapped to the chair with 2 guys with no room to stand up? Also the parachutes were stored in the top of the CM so how was it stored so that the astro-nots still had room to make it thru the access tunnel? I think NASA's Hollywood department should have done a better job.
(http://www.aulis.com/images_cm/CM-3.jpg)
This is where people like you go wrong, time after time. You use phrases like "can you imagine". You really don't get it that the limitations of your imagination has nothing to do with what actually happened. Again, go and do your own research.Then you won't have to rely on your infantile imagination.
In summary, you are making yourself appear as a pretty distasteful individual that is too lazy to bother to do a modicum of research. Even when people have explained things to you a number of times you still keep trotting out the same old rubbish, mixed in with some offensive name-calling. You claim to be 50- then please act like a grown man, not a whining little attention-seeking brat.
-
Can you imagine being strapped to the chair with 2 guys with no room to stand up?
Stand up? Bwahahaha!
Weightlessness. How does it work?
-
Well, even if they couldn't -- even if his worst description was true -- that doesn't make the missions impossible. Mercury and Gemini capsules were worse, the Soviets worse yet on some of their missions, and poor Ham had to spent his entire flight strapped down. Then think of not just deep ocean explorers packed into tiny bathyscaphes (or their military counterparts, the nadir being somewhere between Civil War era submersibles and the Kaiten employed by the Imperial Japanese Navy), but construction and salvage divers who work long shifts in incredibly cramped and claustrophobic conditions.
-
No one ever said space travel was conducted in a lap of luxury.
-
Sorry, everyone, for being so late to this thread. I've been very busy.
Now that you mention it the main reason I know NASA is a fraud and has bilked billions from taxpayers to fund their fantasy expeditions is the observable and tested facts that the earth is flat. But I digress ;)
This tells me that you're either a troll or incredibly stupid. I can tolerate a certain amount of stupidity as long as you show a willingness to learn, but I have far less tolerance for trolls than I used to.
I haven't finished reading this thread yet, so I hope for your sake that you haven't made more trollish claims.
-
tradosaurus, a thread has been created for you, please use it for FE ranting's. Use this thread for discussing your Apollo mis-understands.
Your original questions have been answered many times and yet you continue to ignore them and/or refuse to answer questions. Hand waving and misdirecting is a normal behavior for conspirators start answering the questions.
I have been given answers, but that's about it. And the only misdirection is on your part by demanding answers to nasa's nazi origin.
-
Could 1960's technology operated in this environment?
Such a feast of trollish ignorance! One crumb that has not been picked over is the above statement.
Of course it could. So could 1950s technology, Several spacecraft orbited the Earth and some flew to the Moon more than a decade before Apollo.
In the 1960s Earth orbiting satellites were also built by France, UK, Italy, Australia, and West Germany. US and Soviet spacecraft orbited and landed on the Moon and flew to Mars and Venus. China and Japan launched satellites in the 70s, a period which saw spacecraft land on Mars and Venus and reach Jupiter, Saturn and Mercury. West Germany built a satellite that orbited the Sun closer than Mercury in the 70s.
There is nothing remarkable about 60s technology putting people on the Moon (or building supersonic airliners).
-
This was pointed out to you a few times, but you display a lazy behavior to investigate your claims. Here is a link that will show you the docking tunnel hatch was 30"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
Also it has been pointed out to you the parachutes were packed around the docking tunnel, NOT in the living space.
If you viewed any of the videos you should notice that without gravity the spacecraft was much roomier, although not as large as a bedroom. How do you think two men rode Gemini 7 for 14 days with much less room to move around. Now that was a cramped condition, much more than Apollo.
The astronauts were not strapped in their seats for the duration of the mission. Get over it Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.
Sorry, not taking nasa word for it. 30" hmmmm? I wonder how they fit through this size of hole with a space suit? Try this; draw a 30" line on your driveway (in chalk) and just imagine trying to fit through this diameter.
But given that this was all faked in a studio somewhere I guess it doesn't really matter now does it? And anyone looking at the pictures of the 3 men strapped to their seat can see there is hardly any room to move around.
Fortunately nasa didn't fake it for 6 men like the photo below or it would have been really hard to believe.
(http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/6manapollo1.gif)
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I don't know but maybe Step 2 is to sell lots of globes and maps? :D
??
And why wouldn't maps sell if everyone accepted we lived on a Flat Earth?
Or, to put it another way, NASA is getting control over people by selling them...maps and globes?
Seriously, what's the point of this conspiracy again?
If you have to ask you would never get it. But if you can brainwash people to accept a reality that doesn't exist then how hard would it be to brainwash them to accept 9/11, sandy hoax and other fabricated events?
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I don't know but maybe Step 2 is to sell lots of globes and maps? :D
Here's a clue showing that the Earth is not flat. There is not a single flat map that does not have some distortion. This is because the Earth is round. EVERY flat map is a projection from a globe and HAS TO have some distortion. If the Earth was flat then flat Earthers should be able to come up with an accurate map easily but they never do.
Because we all know that water adheres to a curved surface. ::)
-
I've since grown in wisdom and understanding to see the universe as much smaller and the globe earth as an impossibility.
And yet every planet or moon we observe through telescopes is in the shape of a globe and not a flat disc. Why is the Earth flat and the other planets are not?
-
Well you are wrong on two accounts which isn't surprising given that you have worked with NASA, the peddler of many lies.
You claim to be a degreed mechanical engineer, with a degree date that would make you close to 50 years old. Yet you have no grasp whatsoever of elementary Newtonian dynamics, let alone fluid dynamics, your research skills are nonexistent, and your writing style is that of a bored adolescent.
No, you're no engineer, and repeating this transparent lie does not make it any more convincing. You should have paid a little more attention to the composition of the regular membership here; you're far from the first poseur who thought he could bluff about his qualifications here.
You really have no clue about the relationship of NASA to the rest of the aerospace world. It's typical of the clueless conspiracy crackpot to assume that the U.S. civil space agency can somehow hide the true nature of the world, when the Greeks figured out the size of the spherical Earth more than twenty centuries ago with little more than their feet and some sticks.
Moreover. I've also worked on defense projects, and purely commercial projects that had nothing at all to do with NASA. The same principles apply to all, and many tens of billions of dollars of commerce annually rely on the observed nature of the Earth. But you're oblivious to all of that; you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
We could have a separate discussion of why the Vatican 2 church is not Catholic but an anti-church and how that fulfills prophecy that Jesus predicted, that the eternal sacrifice will cease (ie. there will be no mass) in the end times.
No, we couldn't. In the first place, I'm not interested in your theological beliefs. In the second place, the idea that the Church endorsed the idea of a flat Earth prior to Vatican 2 is hilariously, spectacularly, wrong. Never mind the science and technology you don't understand; you can't even get the most basic facts right.
But really, though, I think you're just a troll, so I don't really see any point in continuing to try to educate you.
Uh oh, you used the magic word; Newtonian mechanics. Now you have mesmerized me and I can't defend myself. ::)
I really could care less whether you believe I'm an engineer or not. My diploma says otherwise. But I've listened to many educated idiots such as Neil Tyson and believe me I'm not impressed. Scientists today are nothing more than modern day magicians and shamans who weave their spells with high level math that only they can understand.
The globe earth is your religion and the scientists are your priests. You believe in stuff that doesn't exist.
-
This was pointed out to you a few times, but you display a lazy behavior to investigate your claims. Here is a link that will show you the docking tunnel hatch was 30"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
Also it has been pointed out to you the parachutes were packed around the docking tunnel, NOT in the living space.
If you viewed any of the videos you should notice that without gravity the spacecraft was much roomier, although not as large as a bedroom. How do you think two men rode Gemini 7 for 14 days with much less room to move around. Now that was a cramped condition, much more than Apollo.
The astronauts were not strapped in their seats for the duration of the mission. Get over it Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.
Sorry, not taking NASA word for it. 30" hmmmm? I wonder how they fit through this size of hole with a space suit?
What part of they weren't wearing the suit when they went through do you not understand? You've been told this multiple times. You're either deliberately ignoring it or trolling at this point.
-
Could 1960's technology operated in this environment?
Such a feast of trollish ignorance! One crumb that has not been picked over is the above statement.
Of course it could. So could 1950s technology, Several spacecraft orbited the Earth and some flew to the Moon more than a decade before Apollo.
In the 1960s Earth orbiting satellites were also built by France, UK, Italy, Australia, and West Germany. US and Soviet spacecraft orbited and landed on the Moon and flew to Mars and Venus. China and Japan launched satellites in the 70s, a period which saw spacecraft land on Mars and Venus and reach Jupiter, Saturn and Mercury. West Germany built a satellite that orbited the Sun closer than Mercury in the 70s.
There is nothing remarkable about 60s technology putting people on the Moon (or building supersonic airliners).
How do you know? Are you taking it on faith from NASA?
Please think about this carefully. Do you know that YOU can't prove the following?
1) The earth is round
2) The earth rotates
3) The sun is 93,000,000 miles away
4) Water adheres to a curved surface
5) Gravity exists
And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated.
Good luck!
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I don't know but maybe Step 2 is to sell lots of globes and maps? :D
??
And why wouldn't maps sell if everyone accepted we lived on a Flat Earth?
Or, to put it another way, NASA is getting control over people by selling them...maps and globes?
Seriously, what's the point of this conspiracy again?
If you have to ask you would never get it. But if you can brainwash people to accept a reality that doesn't exist then how hard would it be to brainwash them to accept 9/11, sandy hoax and other fabricated events?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have crank magnetism.
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I don't know but maybe Step 2 is to sell lots of globes and maps? :D
Here's a clue showing that the Earth is not flat. There is not a single flat map that does not have some distortion. This is because the Earth is round. EVERY flat map is a projection from a globe and HAS TO have some distortion. If the Earth was flat then flat Earthers should be able to come up with an accurate map easily but they never do.
Because we all know that water adheres to a curved surface. ::)
oftentimes, yes, especially with gravity.
-
Could 1960's technology operated in this environment?
Such a feast of trollish ignorance! One crumb that has not been picked over is the above statement.
Of course it could. So could 1950s technology, Several spacecraft orbited the Earth and some flew to the Moon more than a decade before Apollo.
In the 1960s Earth orbiting satellites were also built by France, UK, Italy, Australia, and West Germany. US and Soviet spacecraft orbited and landed on the Moon and flew to Mars and Venus. China and Japan launched satellites in the 70s, a period which saw spacecraft land on Mars and Venus and reach Jupiter, Saturn and Mercury. West Germany built a satellite that orbited the Sun closer than Mercury in the 70s.
There is nothing remarkable about 60s technology putting people on the Moon (or building supersonic airliners).
How do you know? Are you taking it on faith from NASA?
Please think about this carefully. Do you know that YOU can't prove the following?
1) The earth is round
Proven by the Greeks over 2000 years ago and many times since. Navigation in the Southern hemisphere proves that lines of longitude converge the further South you get from the equator. The fact that the sun lights up the bottoms of clouds during sunrises and sunsets proves the world is round. The fact that RADAR and radio range increases with altitude proves the world is round.
2) The earth rotates
coriolis, foucault's pendulum, gyroscopic compasses
3) The sun is 93,000,000 miles away
Again, done by the Greeks first over 2000 years ago though Aristarchus doesn't usually get the credit. Cassini also did it in the 1600s as have many since. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.
http://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun.html
4) Water adheres to a curved surface
you've never seen a ball get wet? Are they perpetually dry? See next item.
5) Gravity exists
Cavendish
And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated.
Good luck!
And what would that prove? Satellites are very small and hundreds of miles away. How would you expect someone on the ground to get a picture you would recognize? Strawman much?
-
This was pointed out to you a few times, but you display a lazy behavior to investigate your claims. Here is a link that will show you the docking tunnel hatch was 30"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
Also it has been pointed out to you the parachutes were packed around the docking tunnel, NOT in the living space.
If you viewed any of the videos you should notice that without gravity the spacecraft was much roomier, although not as large as a bedroom. How do you think two men rode Gemini 7 for 14 days with much less room to move around. Now that was a cramped condition, much more than Apollo.
The astronauts were not strapped in their seats for the duration of the mission. Get over it Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.
Sorry, not taking NASA word for it. 30" hmmmm? I wonder how they fit through this size of hole with a space suit?
What part of they weren't wearing the suit when they went through do you not understand? You've been told this multiple times. You're either deliberately ignoring it or trolling at this point.
(http://static.hsw.com.br/gif/spaceship-apollo-8.jpg)
Maybe you can have Mythbusters to replicate the cramped space of the command module, sit 3 guys fully dressed in space suits and then asked them to undress. LOL.
I don't care what NASA says since they are liars and thieves. I'm asking you and others to do some critical thinking so maybe you can stop being brainwashed.
The command module is just one of many discrepancies of the moon landing hoax. Simple thought experiments that question the ability of 1960's technology to make the trip and back, no blast craters or dust under the lunar module, the ability of the astro-nots to do any fine motor skills with the pressurized gloves, etc. Is it any wonder the U.S is a joke outside of this country?
-
Could 1960's technology operated in this environment?
Such a feast of trollish ignorance! One crumb that has not been picked over is the above statement.
Of course it could. So could 1950s technology, Several spacecraft orbited the Earth and some flew to the Moon more than a decade before Apollo.
In the 1960s Earth orbiting satellites were also built by France, UK, Italy, Australia, and West Germany. US and Soviet spacecraft orbited and landed on the Moon and flew to Mars and Venus. China and Japan launched satellites in the 70s, a period which saw spacecraft land on Mars and Venus and reach Jupiter, Saturn and Mercury. West Germany built a satellite that orbited the Sun closer than Mercury in the 70s.
There is nothing remarkable about 60s technology putting people on the Moon (or building supersonic airliners).
How do you know? Are you taking it on faith from NASA?
Please think about this carefully. Do you know that YOU can't prove the following?
1) The earth is round
Proven by the Greeks over 2000 years ago and many times since. Navigation in the Southern hemisphere proves that lines of longitude converge the further South you get from the equator. The fact that the sun lights up the bottoms of clouds during sunrises and sunsets proves the world is round. The fact that RADAR and radio range increases with altitude proves the world is round.
2) The earth rotates
coriolis, foucault's pendulum, gyroscopic compasses
3) The sun is 93,000,000 miles away
Again, done by the Greeks first over 2000 years ago though Aristarchus doesn't usually get the credit. Cassini also did it in the 1600s as have many since. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.
http://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun.html
4) Water adheres to a curved surface
you've never seen a ball get wet? Are they perpetually dry? See next item.
5) Gravity exists
Cavendish
And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated.
Good luck!
And what would that prove? Satellites are very small and hundreds of miles away. How would you expect someone on the ground to get a picture you would recognize? Strawman much?
Thanks. You proved my point. You personally can't prove any of it but you have faith in the globe earth religion. And try adhering water to a spinning ball at 1,000 mph. LOL
-
This was pointed out to you a few times, but you display a lazy behavior to investigate your claims. Here is a link that will show you the docking tunnel hatch was 30"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
Also it has been pointed out to you the parachutes were packed around the docking tunnel, NOT in the living space.
If you viewed any of the videos you should notice that without gravity the spacecraft was much roomier, although not as large as a bedroom. How do you think two men rode Gemini 7 for 14 days with much less room to move around. Now that was a cramped condition, much more than Apollo.
The astronauts were not strapped in their seats for the duration of the mission. Get over it Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.
Sorry, not taking NASA word for it. 30" hmmmm? I wonder how they fit through this size of hole with a space suit?
What part of they weren't wearing the suit when they went through do you not understand? You've been told this multiple times. You're either deliberately ignoring it or trolling at this point.
(http://static.hsw.com.br/gif/spaceship-apollo-8.jpg)
Maybe you can have Mythbusters to replicate the cramped space of the command module, sit 3 guys fully dressed in space suits and then asked them to undress. LOL.
I don't care what NASA says since they are liars and thieves. I'm asking you and others to do some critical thinking so maybe you can stop being brainwashed.
How hilarious, you think that because they wore suits during launch that they had to be wearing them the entire time. Try some critical thinking yourself.
The command module is just one of many discrepancies of the moon landing hoax. Simple thought experiments that question the ability of 1960's technology to make the trip and back, no blast craters or dust under the lunar module, the ability of the astronauts to do any fine motor skills with the pressurized gloves, etc. Is it any wonder the U.S is a joke outside of this country?
Not a single one of your "discrepancies" stand up to scrutiny. Try some research outside of hoax sites for once.
There is nothing about 1960's tech that couldn't get them there and back.
There is no reason they should have had a blast crater. The engine was throttle down for landing and had far less thrust than a helicopter or harrier. They don't dig crater when they land.
You are correct, there was a lack of dust under the module. The engine scoured the loose dust from the surface beneath the LM but it wasn't enough to dig a crater. No problem there.
As for the gloves, what "fine motor skills" are you proposing they needed to do? Let me guess, you saw somebody pressurize a gardening glove and you assumed that was an accurate approximation of a space suit glove? Engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are. They can design things that can move under pressure.
Citation needed for your last statment. Not holding my breath that you'll actually produce one though.
-
I'm sorry to upset your belief system (actually, no I'm not. lol).
Classic troll behaviour. Thanks for admitting it.
Here is the rule against trolling in this forum:
8. Trolling
Trolling is not tolerated for very long on this forum, so if you make a claim or accusation you better be prepared to defend it.
The definition of trolling on this forum is:
a) repeatedly making statements with the intention of provoking a negative response (ie. anger);
b) repeatedly making the same claim or accusation while ignoring responses that dispute it.
c) repeatedly making claims while ignoring requests to either support or withdraw them
d) making unfounded accusations against members of the forum (ie. accusing people of being government disinfo agents). If you can't prove it then don't make the accusation.
e) repeatedly deleting (or heavily modifying) posts in order to cover up past statements. If you can't stand behind your own statements then don't make them in the first place.
f) pretending to hold a controversial belief (ie. that the moon landings were faked) in order to waste our time responding to you, or to anger us for your own entertainment. The best way to avoid being wrongfully accused of this behavior is to defend your claims or retract them.
I have been very busy with my day job lately, and I really don't have time to deal with trolls. So for the next 24 hours I'm going to consider whether I should just go ahead and jump to the most likely outcome and ban you. I'll inform everyone of my decision tomorrow.
-
This was pointed out to you a few times, but you display a lazy behavior to investigate your claims. Here is a link that will show you the docking tunnel hatch was 30"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
Also it has been pointed out to you the parachutes were packed around the docking tunnel, NOT in the living space.
If you viewed any of the videos you should notice that without gravity the spacecraft was much roomier, although not as large as a bedroom. How do you think two men rode Gemini 7 for 14 days with much less room to move around. Now that was a cramped condition, much more than Apollo.
The astronauts were not strapped in their seats for the duration of the mission. Get over it Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.
Sorry, not taking NASA word for it. 30" hmmmm? I wonder how they fit through this size of hole with a space suit? Try this; draw a 30" line on your driveway (in chalk) and just imagine trying to fit through this diameter.
Just watch this video and you can see how wide the tunnel is:
But given that this was all faked in a studio somewhere I guess it doesn't really matter now does it? And anyone looking at the pictures of the 3 men strapped to their seat can see there is hardly any room to move around.
Just in case you'd missed other comments by other posters, the astronauts weren't strapped into their seats for the whole mission. And, as others have pointed out, in zero gravity the entire volume of the spacecraft is available, which increases its roominess.
Oh, and if it was faked in a studio, how were the extended periods of weightlessness created?
-
Could 1960's technology operated in this environment?
Such a feast of trollish ignorance! One crumb that has not been picked over is the above statement.
Of course it could. So could 1950s technology, Several spacecraft orbited the Earth and some flew to the Moon more than a decade before Apollo.
In the 1960s Earth orbiting satellites were also built by France, UK, Italy, Australia, and West Germany. US and Soviet spacecraft orbited and landed on the Moon and flew to Mars and Venus. China and Japan launched satellites in the 70s, a period which saw spacecraft land on Mars and Venus and reach Jupiter, Saturn and Mercury. West Germany built a satellite that orbited the Sun closer than Mercury in the 70s.
There is nothing remarkable about 60s technology putting people on the Moon (or building supersonic airliners).
How do you know? Are you taking it on faith from NASA?
Please think about this carefully. Do you know that YOU can't prove the following?
1) The earth is round
Proven by the Greeks over 2000 years ago and many times since. Navigation in the Southern hemisphere proves that lines of longitude converge the further South you get from the equator. The fact that the sun lights up the bottoms of clouds during sunrises and sunsets proves the world is round. The fact that RADAR and radio range increases with altitude proves the world is round.
2) The earth rotates
coriolis, foucault's pendulum, gyroscopic compasses
3) The sun is 93,000,000 miles away
Again, done by the Greeks first over 2000 years ago though Aristarchus doesn't usually get the credit. Cassini also did it in the 1600s as have many since. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.
http://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun.html
4) Water adheres to a curved surface
you've never seen a ball get wet? Are they perpetually dry? See next item.
5) Gravity exists
Cavendish
And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated.
Good luck!
And what would that prove? Satellites are very small and hundreds of miles away. How would you expect someone on the ground to get a picture you would recognize? Strawman much?
Thanks. You proved my point. You personally can't prove any of it but you have faith in the globe earth religion. And try adhering water to a spinning ball at 1,000 mph. LOL
Wrong. I've personally repeated Eratosthenes experiment proving the world is round. I've worked with both RADAR and radio and I've seen sunsets. Gee, that's most of #1
For #2, I've seen Foucault pendulums and worked with gyroscopic compasses.
#3 is repeatable. You don't have to take it on faith. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't work.
#4 and #5 are also repeatable.
Stop lying.
-
So tradasaurus, care to go start a topic in "Other Conspiracies" covering:
A) Why in the world everyone who knew the Earth was flat would want to keep it secret...
A) Simple: control over you and your money...
This must be something like the Underpants Gnomes out of South Park for whom Step 1 was to steal all the underpants and Step 3 was profit, with Step 2 remaining undefined.
In Tradasaurus's case it appears to go: Step 1: Convince people the world is round; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Take control of you and your money.
However, Tradasaurus, if you can fill in the details of Step 2 I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I don't know but maybe Step 2 is to sell lots of globes and maps? :D
??
And why wouldn't maps sell if everyone accepted we lived on a Flat Earth?
Or, to put it another way, NASA is getting control over people by selling them...maps and globes?
Seriously, what's the point of this conspiracy again?
If you have to ask you would never get it. But if you can brainwash people to accept a reality that doesn't exist then how hard would it be to brainwash them to accept 9/11, sandy hoax and other fabricated events?
No, I'm sorry, you don't get to evade giving an answer. The "if you have to ask you wouldn't understand it" excuse is, in my experience, only used by people who either don't know how to explain whatever it is they're avoiding explaining, or know they have no serious explanation.
Please explain (a) why it was ever necessary to convince people the Earth is a sphere if it's actually flat, and (b) how this was done in the centuries before NASA existed.
-
...Scientists today are nothing more than modern day magicians and shamans who weave their spells with high level math that only they can understand.
Well, you're entitled to your view of scientists. Of course, these are the people responsible for developing the concepts which lie behind the technology you're using to post here. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, I'll thank scientists for developing the antibiotics that saved my life a few years ago, and for developing the cochlear implants my son wears.
The globe earth is your religion and the scientists are your priests. You believe in stuff that doesn't exist.
You do realise, don't you, that the people who came to the conclusion that the Earth was a globe were people like sailors and philosophers? Not scientists.
If you're going to accuse people of coming up with ideas you don't like, you might as well accuse the right people.
-
Sorry, not taking NASA word for it. 30" hmmmm? I wonder how they fit through this size of hole with a space suit? Try this; draw a 30" line on your driveway (in chalk) and just imagine trying to fit through this diameter.
But given that this was all faked in a studio somewhere I guess it doesn't really matter now does it? And anyone looking at the pictures of the 3 men strapped to their seat can see there is hardly any room to move around.
This has been pointed out to you several times, the astronauts were NOT wearing SPACE SUITS while in the CSM, LM docked configuration, just flight suits. Look up live video feed depicting them travelling into the LM from the CSM
-
tradosaurus, a thread has been created for you, please use it for FE ranting's. Use this thread for discussing your Apollo mis-understands.
Your original questions have been answered many times and yet you continue to ignore them and/or refuse to answer questions. Hand waving and misdirecting is a normal behavior for conspirators start answering the questions.
I have been given answers, but that's about it. And the only misdirection is on your part by demanding answers to NASA's nazi origin.
What more could a reasonable person want? Answers, that you refuse to accept for your silly questions.
-
How do you know? Are you taking it on faith from NASA?
Please think about this carefully. Do you know that YOU can't prove the following?
1) The earth is round
2) The earth rotates
3) The sun is 93,000,000 miles away
4) Water adheres to a curved surface
5) Gravity exists
And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated.
Good luck!
We don't need to rely on NASA. For the umpteenth time, NASA is not the only space agency in the world.
Would you accept the word of the Soviets? They had no reason to do any favours to the USA in the 1960s, but it seems they agreed with NASA on the roundness of the Earth:
-
Could 1960's technology operated in this environment?
Such a feast of trollish ignorance! One crumb that has not been picked over is the above statement.
Of course it could. So could 1950s technology, Several spacecraft orbited the Earth and some flew to the Moon more than a decade before Apollo.
In the 1960s Earth orbiting satellites were also built by France, UK, Italy, Australia, and West Germany. US and Soviet spacecraft orbited and landed on the Moon and flew to Mars and Venus. China and Japan launched satellites in the 70s, a period which saw spacecraft land on Mars and Venus and reach Jupiter, Saturn and Mercury. West Germany built a satellite that orbited the Sun closer than Mercury in the 70s.
There is nothing remarkable about 60s technology putting people on the Moon (or building supersonic airliners).
How do you know? Are you taking it on faith from NASA?
Please think about this carefully. Do you know that YOU can't prove the following?
1) The earth is round
Proven by the Greeks over 2000 years ago and many times since. Navigation in the Southern hemisphere proves that lines of longitude converge the further South you get from the equator. The fact that the sun lights up the bottoms of clouds during sunrises and sunsets proves the world is round. The fact that RADAR and radio range increases with altitude proves the world is round.
2) The earth rotates
coriolis, foucault's pendulum, gyroscopic compasses
3) The sun is 93,000,000 miles away
Again, done by the Greeks first over 2000 years ago though Aristarchus doesn't usually get the credit. Cassini also did it in the 1600s as have many since. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.
http://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun.html
4) Water adheres to a curved surface
you've never seen a ball get wet? Are they perpetually dry? See next item.
5) Gravity exists
Cavendish
And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated.
Good luck!
And what would that prove? Satellites are very small and hundreds of miles away. How would you expect someone on the ground to get a picture you would recognize? Strawman much?
Thanks. You proved my point. You personally can't prove any of it but you have faith in the globe earth religion. And try adhering water to a spinning ball at 1,000 mph. LOL
The ISS is visible to the naked eye, better with a bit of magnification.
-
I don't care what NASA says since they are liars and thieves.
Not exactly. You cherry-pick what NASA says. If it's something you think you can use against them, then it's a question that needs an answer. But if NASA supplies the answer, then they're liars and thieves and believing it -- no matter how substantive -- constitutes brainwashing.
I'm asking you and others to do some critical thinking so maybe you can stop being brainwashed.
Actually everyone around you is doing critical thinking. What you're asking is that everyone just agree with you because you say so.
The command module is just one of many discrepancies of the moon landing hoax.
Not really. The world's engineers accept the Apollo command module as a valid spacecraft. The world's scientists, and other relevant qualified professionals also accept it. The only way you can pretend there's any substance to your (likely insincere) beliefs is to claim everyone is brainwashed except for you. It really doesn't get much more trollish than that.
...no blast craters or dust under the lunar module...
Yep, the same old long-debunked nonsense. Under the guise of being critical you're just letting other people do your thinking for you. It's the same sad hoax-claimant story.
-
Simply, the sun is less than 4,000 miles in diameter and much closer to earth (less than 10,000 miles). The reason satellites don't see it is because satellites don't exist (google "satellite")
(https://cut2thetruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3c5b7-flat_earthqq.jpg)
Oh OK, so my satellite dish is pointing at something 15000 miles further out than the sun yet somehow I get TV all day on it without it being blocked by something wider than the Atlantic.
It's called antennas. Did you know that Italian physicist and radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi succeeded in sending the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean? It's called the flat earth.
Do you know why Marconi used a kite as his antenna? Do you know why the CN Tower in Toronto (basically a large radio antenna) is so tall? The answer to both questions is because the Earth is round, and the height of the kite and CN Tower extends the range beyond what a shorter antenna could achieve due to the curvature of the Earth.
-
(http://static.hsw.com.br/gif/spaceship-apollo-8.jpg)
Can I just confirm that you realised you posted a photograph, not a video. The point being that a photo shows an instant of time and gives no indication of what happened in the following seconds, minutes or hours.
Maybe you can have Mythbusters to replicate the cramped space of the command module, sit 3 guys fully dressed in space suits and then asked them to undress. LOL.
Why should anyone care about your incredulity?
I don't care what NASA says since they are liars and thieves.
Ouch. Strong words. Now show us some evidence, please.
I'm asking you and others to do some critical thinking so maybe you can stop being brainwashed.
The command module is just one of many discrepancies of the moon landing hoax. Simple thought experiments that question the ability of 1960's technology to make the trip and back, no blast craters or dust under the lunar module, the ability of the astronauts to do any fine motor skills with the pressurized gloves, etc. Is it any wonder the U.S is a joke outside of this country?
Well, not only have I done some critical thinking, I've looked at the evidence and done some thought experiments and actual experiments of my own. Everything about Apollo hangs together.
In particular, as you seem to need constant reminding that NASA is not the only space agency in the world, I've compared the Apollo evidence with evidence from the space programs of other countries. It all hangs together.
The USA might not be a popular country around the world, but it's not because of NASA.
In any case, if all the other countries in the world are going along with NASA in promoting a round-earthiness hoax, why should NASA be unpopular at all? Your conspiracy now makes even less sense.
-
Well you are wrong on two accounts which isn't surprising given that you have worked with NASA, the peddler of many lies.
You claim to be a degreed mechanical engineer, with a degree date that would make you close to 50 years old. Yet you have no grasp whatsoever of elementary Newtonian dynamics, let alone fluid dynamics, your research skills are nonexistent, and your writing style is that of a bored adolescent.
No, you're no engineer, and repeating this transparent lie does not make it any more convincing. You should have paid a little more attention to the composition of the regular membership here; you're far from the first poseur who thought he could bluff about his qualifications here.
You really have no clue about the relationship of NASA to the rest of the aerospace world. It's typical of the clueless conspiracy crackpot to assume that the U.S. civil space agency can somehow hide the true nature of the world, when the Greeks figured out the size of the spherical Earth more than twenty centuries ago with little more than their feet and some sticks.
Moreover. I've also worked on defense projects, and purely commercial projects that had nothing at all to do with NASA. The same principles apply to all, and many tens of billions of dollars of commerce annually rely on the observed nature of the Earth. But you're oblivious to all of that; you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
We could have a separate discussion of why the Vatican 2 church is not Catholic but an anti-church and how that fulfills prophecy that Jesus predicted, that the eternal sacrifice will cease (ie. there will be no mass) in the end times.
No, we couldn't. In the first place, I'm not interested in your theological beliefs. In the second place, the idea that the Church endorsed the idea of a flat Earth prior to Vatican 2 is hilariously, spectacularly, wrong. Never mind the science and technology you don't understand; you can't even get the most basic facts right.
But really, though, I think you're just a troll, so I don't really see any point in continuing to try to educate you.
Uh oh, you used the magic word; Newtonian mechanics. Now you have mesmerized me and I can't defend myself. ::)
I really could care less whether you believe I'm an engineer or not. My diploma says otherwise. But I've listened to many educated idiots such as Neil Tyson and believe me I'm not impressed. Scientists today are nothing more than modern day magicians and shamans who weave their spells with high level math that only they can understand.
The globe earth is your religion and the scientists are your priests. You believe in stuff that doesn't exist.
Again I ask you to quit posting FE comments in this Apollo thread. Ther has bee another thread created for such discussions for you in "Other Conspiracy Theories
-
tradosaurus, a thread has been created for you, please use it for FE ranting's. Use this thread for discussing your Apollo mis-understands.
Your original questions have been answered many times and yet you continue to ignore them and/or refuse to answer questions. Hand waving and misdirecting is a normal behavior for conspirators start answering the questions.
I have been given answers, but that's about it. And the only misdirection is on your part by demanding answers to NASA's nazi origin.
Oh noes!!!11! I asked questions and all I got was answers!
/sarcasm
Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?
-
Side note, I'm pretty sure he's deleting posts, since I see responses to ones that are missing when I read the page.
I don't think so. All deleted posts go to a "recycle bin" and there is only one by him. He could be editing them, but only within a short timeframe.
-
Can we please stop feeding tradosaurus's personal obsession about FE? This thread is about Apollo.
Although my first instinct was to moderate the flat Earth discussion for being off topic, I'm willing to allow it due to the tenuous connection to Apollo (being that Apollo would be impossible in a flat Earth scenario, according to Tradosaurus).
-
I really could care less whether you believe I'm an engineer or not.
Now, when it's obvious your bluff isn't working.
The problem is, you led with it. Before you said anything else, you wanted people to understand that you were a degreed engineer. Everything you said thereafter was supposed to be taken as the engineer's expert opinion. That perception was important when you thought your frantic Googling and your perusal of Apollo hoax web sites would keep up the illusion. But now that you realize there's much more to space engineering than you imagine, and you're in over your head, you have to downplay that original claim.
Scientists today are nothing more than modern day magicians...
So which college did you flunk out of?
-
Can we please stop feeding tradosaurus's personal obsession about FE? This thread is about Apollo.
Although my first instinct was to moderate the flat Earth discussion for being off topic, I'm willing to allow it due to the tenuous connection to Apollo (being that Apollo would be impossible in a flat Earth scenario, according to Tradosaurus).
Well cat created a thread foe him to post his nonsense FE claims and some of us guilty also of hijacking are trying to get the comments back to Apollo.
-
I really could care less whether you believe I'm an engineer or not. My diploma says otherwise. But I've listened to many educated idiots such as Neil Tyson and believe me I'm not impressed. Scientists today are nothing more than modern day magicians and shamans who weave their spells with high level math that only they can understand.
I can understand it, and I'm a liberal arts major. Not saying it is easy, but trust me they aren't all chanting "abracababra." It is real math, and if you struggle through it, the sums come out the same for you as they do for them.
The globe earth is your religion and the scientists are your priests. You believe in stuff that doesn't exist.
Liberal arts major. I trust in the Greeks, in early explorers, in Eratosthenes of Cyrene and Lรฉon Foucault, in Galileo and Newton and Kepler. And if you are going to give up the early scientist-philosophers, then you aren't even in the right millennium.
-
You can see the packers using hydraulic rams to stow the 'chutes.
Go and work out where the packed 'chutes were located. Your claim- you show your evidence.
I have always been fascinated with the chutes, how they were designed, how they were packed, what caused them to stay reefed until a certain time, and then unfurl the way they did...
Are there any explanatory documents out there that describe how they figured all of that out? I am really interested in learning how you keep a chute that size reefed until a specific altitude, and then have it open without shredding itself.
There has to be something that explains this, without it being a graduate-level course in chute-engineering...
-
Auto-reefed drag and braking chutes were old hat by 1969. Previous aircraft required them. The reefing settings were worked out ahead of time and operated by open-loop control from the pitot pressure (airspeed).
-
Auto-reefed drag and braking chutes were old hat by 1969. Previous aircraft required them. The reefing settings were worked out ahead of time and operated by open-loop control from the pitot pressure (airspeed).
Yes, Jay... I knew that already. What I don't know is, how were these things designed/assembled/packed/created so that they operated the way that they did.
What I'm obliquely referencing is some documentary I may or may not correctly recall seeing when I was a pre-teen, lo those many years ago. Something that specifically dealt with recovery systems, and how the future shuttle would not need them. I'd like to have my memory refreshed, but 35 years is a long time.
Are there any websites or documents available to the layman that describe the processes to which you referred?
-
Side note, I'm pretty sure he's deleting posts, since I see responses to ones that are missing when I read the page.
I don't think so. All deleted posts go to a "recycle bin" and there is only one by him. He could be editing them, but only within a short timeframe.
Thank you. My mistake.
Tradosaurus, do you mean satellites in orbit? Because a whole lot of us have seen them on Earth--as I've said, I have seen them on Earth. If you mean in orbit, I've seen that, too. Every summer, when I'm watching the Perseids, I see satellites cross the sky as I'm waiting to see meteors. If what I'm seeing isn't satellites, what are they?
-
And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated.
Good luck!
Well, thanks; but no luck needed. Nor Googling; that's for pretend engineers [population: you].
The first one is a satellite I helped build, integrate, test, and operate on three separate missions.
The second is me aboard one of the vehicles that gave it a ride to and from orbit, during preflight integration tests.
The third is a picture taken by our satellite of another such vehicle, which was also a satellite at that point.
-
Tradosaurus, do you mean satellites in orbit? Because a whole lot of us have seen them on Earth--as I've said, I have seen them on Earth. If you mean in orbit, I've seen that, too. Every summer, when I'm watching the Perseids, I see satellites cross the sky as I'm waiting to see meteors. If what I'm seeing isn't satellites, what are they?
I already provided a link to Heaven's Above where he can find a time for his location for flyovers for many different satellites, including the ISS, but he's too much of an intellectual coward to follow up on it, I'd bet.
-
Of course, Thierry Legault's work is just tremendous. All of us have seen satellites in orbit. M. Legault has photographed astronauts in orbit. (http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html) Of course, I'm just posting this for the enjoyment of the regulars, but our current Visting Chair in Pretend Engineering is also welcome.
-
It is not an exaggeration to say that it was the most meticulously and thoroughly documented civil engineering project in history.
...thoroughly documented engineering project, period. Every branch of engineering and many of science were represented in Apollo in some way. Even the nuclear engineers (radioisotope heaters and RTGs; switch tip illuminators; radiological safety equipment).
-
Fortunately NASA didn't fake it for 6 men like the photo below or it would have been really hard to believe.
(http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/6manapollo1.gif)
I hate to correct such a highly educated engineer, but that doesn't look like a photo to me.
-
...
Well, thanks; but no luck needed. Nor Googling; that's for pretend engineers [population: you].
The first one is a satellite I helped build, integrate, test, and operate on three separate missions.
The second is me aboard one of the vehicles that gave it a ride to and from orbit, during preflight integration tests.
The third is a picture taken by our satellite of another such vehicle, which was also a satellite at that point.
Cool images... what was the satellite?
Nice to see that even in threads as awful as this one a few good things come out.
-
The globe earth is your religion
We're waiting, all agog, for your proof that it isn't.
Photo of the edge? Documented proof of trips to the edge?
If the Antarctic is that 'ice wall' defended by the military, then please tell us how long that wall is, and how many bases you think would be needed to defend it, and what the distance between each would be. Where are the photos of those bases? Where are the stories of service personnel who return from their tour of duty 'on the wall' ?
-
The command module is just one of many discrepancies of the moon landing hoax. Simple thought experiments that question the ability of 1960's technology to make the trip and back, no blast craters or dust under the lunar module, the ability of the astronauts to do any fine motor skills with the pressurized gloves, etc. Is it any wonder the U.S is a joke outside of this country?
The middle couch in the CM folded away.
Why would you expect a 'blast crater' under the LM from such a low-powered engine in a vacuum?
Here's a challenge for your engineering - the exhaust nozzle was just over 1 metre across. The weight of the LM was approx. 2500 lbs at landing. What's the output of the engine per square cm, or per square inch? (yes, I mixed metric and imperial units deliberately)
-
try adhering water to a spinning ball at 1,000 mph.
What about a spinning ball that spins at one revolution every 24 hours? For that's the same as the Earth, isn't it?
Oh, no - you don't believe in that. So you want to disprove it by spinning a ball at "1000 mph", but you don't believe it's actually spinning, so ..... what does that do to your proof?
EDIT - Oops, sorry, just seen the request to stop feeding FE to him, which came after the quote above.
-
What about a spinning ball that spins at one revolution every 24 hours?
Right up there with putting a cup of tea on the table in a train going 120 km/h. At that fantastic speed, the cup would slide right off the table. Right? Well, no, because all that stuff was uniformly accelerated to that speed. The action/reaction forces happened earlier. If you look at how accretion works for a rotating body, there's no initial acceleration or sheer. All the material that will be eventually spinning starts out spinning.
All tradosaurus can manage is, "Ooooh everyone look at these big scary numbers I posted and use your imagination." But there are some people whose imagination works on the abstract nature of the forces and effects those numbers measure and figures out the quantitative interplay among them. The units you measure things in are irrelevant to the relationships they represent. And when you can think that way, you begin to figure out how the universe works without being frightened by big numbers.
Oh wait, that's science.
-
And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated.
Good luck!
Well, thanks; but no luck needed. Nor Googling; that's for pretend engineers [population: you].
The first one is a satellite I helped build, integrate, test, and operate on three separate missions.
The second is me aboard one of the vehicles that gave it a ride to and from orbit, during preflight integration tests.
The third is a picture taken by our satellite of another such vehicle, which was also a satellite at that point.
The first one looks CGI.
The second one means nothing
The third one is blurry and means nothing.
I've got a better one; This is me floating in space enjoying some sun. No, really it is me because I'm providing a "picture" and I wouldn't lie. ;)
(http://www.dcfilmdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/gravity4.jpg)
-
The first one looks CGI.
Prove it is, then. You're choosing simply to disbelieve any and all evidence of any kind that disputes your preconceptions. How is that not simply a religion -- and a bad one at that?
-
try adhering water to a spinning ball at 1,000 mph.
What about a spinning ball that spins at one revolution every 24 hours? For that's the same as the Earth, isn't it?
Oh, no - you don't believe in that. So you want to disprove it by spinning a ball at "1000 mph", but you don't believe it's actually spinning, so ..... what does that do to your proof?
EDIT - Oops, sorry, just seen the request to stop feeding FE to him, which came after the quote above.
So the earth spinning at 1,000 mph (faster than the speed of sound) is not the same as spinning a basketball at 1,000 mph? The speeds are the same.
Also how does the fact if one moved north or south of the equator on the fictitious rotating globe his speed would decrease until it reached zero at the north or south pole? Why doesn't that person feel the change in speed? Hint; he doesn't because we experience a flat and unmoving earth.
-
The first one looks CGI.
Prove it is, then. You're choosing simply to disbelieve any and all evidence of any kind that disputes your preconceptions. How is that not simply a religion -- and a bad one at that?
Prove my picture is CGI. I posted it and said it was real. I would feel offended if you didn't believe me. ;)
Good luck.
-
The first one looks CGI.
Prove it is, then. You're choosing simply to disbelieve any and all evidence of any kind that disputes your preconceptions. How is that not simply a religion -- and a bad one at that?
Prove my picture is CGI. I posted it and said it was real. I would feel offended if you didn't believe me. ;)
Good luck.
Simple, I found it here (http://www.warnerbros.com/gravity) (scroll once on the horizontal row of images). The fact the image file is called 'gravity' and you hotlinked it, without permission no doubt, from a website called www.dcfilmdom.com is also a big damn hint. Here's the review (http://www.dcfilmdom.com/2013/10/gravity/) with the same frame on the same website.
-
Prove my picture is CGI. I posted it and said it was real. I would feel offended if you didn't believe me. ;)
Good luck.
On the one hand, I doubt anyone cares if you're offended by our disbelief. You're the one making the claim that it's you, it's up to you to prove it.
On the other hand, the picture you posted shows both a curved horizon and a spacecraft in space, both of which you claim is impossible. So you're clearly not telling the truth about something.
-
So the earth spinning at 1,000 mph (faster than the speed of sound) is not the same as spinning a basketball at 1,000 mph?
[David Attenborough voice] And here we see the pure unbridled stupidity of the typical flat earther. With absolutely no spatial cognitive skills to speak of, they quickly succumb to the most feeble-minded arguments imaginable.
-
So the earth spinning at 1,000 mph (faster than the speed of sound) is not the same as spinning a basketball at 1,000 mph? The speeds are the same.
Also how does the fact if one moved north or south of the equator on the fictitious rotating globe his speed would decrease until it reached zero at the north or south pole? Why doesn't that person feel the change in speed? Hint; he doesn't because we experience a flat and unmoving earth.
I'll post a reply at the Flat Earth thread.
-
try adhering water to a spinning ball at 1,000 mph.
What about a spinning ball that spins at one revolution every 24 hours? For that's the same as the Earth, isn't it?
Oh, no - you don't believe in that. So you want to disprove it by spinning a ball at "1000 mph", but you don't believe it's actually spinning, so ..... what does that do to your proof?
EDIT - Oops, sorry, just seen the request to stop feeding FE to him, which came after the quote above.
So the earth spinning at 1,000 mph (faster than the speed of sound) is not the same as spinning a basketball at 1,000 mph? The speeds are the same.
No it is not. What is significant is the rate of rotation, not the speed. The rate is 1 revolution per 24 hours.
Also how does the fact if one moved north or south of the equator on the fictitious rotating globe his speed would decrease until it reached zero at the north or south pole? Why doesn't that person feel the change in speed? Hint; he doesn't because we experience a flat and unmoving earth.
From a max of 1 revolution per day to zero. not much of a change. Or if you prefer centrifugal force, it is a max of 0.23% to zero. Still not much of a change.
-
Yes, Jay... I knew that already.
Yes, I figured you did. Sorry for the non-answer; I was winding down for the night.
What I don't know is, how were these things designed/assembled/packed/created so that they operated the way that they did.
I can't give you specifics about how I learned about parachute design. It's one of those things that's too far back to remember specific sources, although I like to think I retained all the knowledge. That said, the Preliminary Mission Report for Apollo 15 might prove helpful. As you may recall, one of their parachutes collapsed because the RCS safing procedure cut one of the reefing lines. Because the RCS fuel is toxic, as much of it as possible is burned off during the descent once it's no longer useful for control. This requires burning all the jets until the fuel is exhausted, leaving only a residue. One of the jets impinged on a reefing line and cut it.
As an aside, this is a great example of failure in integration engineering and testing. The RCS and Earth Landing System were considered "orthogonal" systems in that one had nothing to do with the other -- supposedly. The team that designed the ELS is thinking about aerodynamics and structural mechanics. Aerodynamics because the center of drag is computed by knowing the attach points for the suspension lines. The parachute exerts its drag at those points, and that in turn determines how the spacecraft will orient itself under the drag load. Conversely the drag has to be communicated safely to the structure via those attach points. They aren't thinking about RCS, because that's not the part of the mission they deal with. They just sit patiently until the last ten minutes.
Similarly, the RCS team is thinking about optimal jet placement. But most importantly, when the CM drogue deploys, their job is done. They aren't nominally responsible for anything that happens beyond that point. The integration engineers and testing team are supposed to think at a higher level and investigate the interactions between systems that are well designed individually to work. That's one of several examples from space engineering that I use when I teach workshops on design engineering and project management.
But I digress. The report has a brief description of the Apollo mechanism.
The science of parachutes is pretty straightforward. You need materials with considerable and predictable tensile strength and low mass, and methods of reliably distributing tension to the rim. Those distribution networks incidentally offer the advantage of stopping rips. Another way of mitigating the tension is the ribboning method, which cuts holes or slits in the canopy to let some of the air through. Materials science governs most of what we consider innovative in parachute design.
The idea of variations in the canopy aperture producing different degrees of drag is as old as parachuting itself. In the early 1900s practitioners were able to measure its effect also on canopy tension. That was when the bright idea emerged that variable-drag parachutes might be a useful thing. I can only remember two types of reefing mechanisms off the top of my head: the ring method and the skirt method.
The ring method uses a frangible or detachable ring around the suspenders near the aperture. This forms an apex far above the risers or hoist point and keeps the aperture closed. Via various release mechanisms, the ring is detached at the right time and the parachute opens fully.
The skirt method is far more common. Rather than attach the suspenders at a single point on the canopy rim, you run it through an eyelet and then along several adjacent eyelets and then back down to the hoist point. Interleaving this arrangement around the rim allows you vary the circumference of the aperture by taking in or paying out suspenders. The modern variation on that method separates reefing lines from suspenders so that you don't have the drag tension on the reefing lines. To mimic the one-time reef-open behavior of the ring method, the reefing lines are initially regulated to a short fixed length by a frangible or pyrotechnic restraint. At the appropriate time this restraint is fired and the line pays out to longer fixed length.
In practice, any automatic method of reeling will serve as the actuator for a controllable reef. The rest becomes straightforward control-system design. Any number of inputs (ram air pressure, barometric altitude, radar altitude, timers, manual control) can be translated into commands to an addressable winch. These days such things are quite sophisticated and very reliable. For safety nets in fall applications we actually use a constant-tension digitally addressable winch. It will pay out line under load in order to maintain a constant tension. Control systems can be as simple as relay-based combinatorial logic (i.e., the reef cutter signal is just a combination of sensor outputs), or as sophisticated as a full PID controller (equivalent to full-fledged airplane flight control).
Packing the chute is an art. Which is to say, there's a science to it, but also great skill in executing it. The big problem, as you've probably guessed, is avoiding everything getting all tangled up during deployment. The basic element of the art is the accordion pleat. Rather than coiled, the lines are laid out side-by-side on the ground, then carefully serpentined so as to produce a bulk of cord that can be pulled from one end without a loop forming around the standing mass of line. Similarly for the canopy fabric. At the very end is the pilot chute, which pulls at the top of the canopy and unfolds it from the package. This method appeals to common sense, but was worked out through trial and (sometimes fatal) error.
The secondary problem is going instantly from fully confined to fully free. You don't want everything to have to come through an opening in the packaging such that some of it might get hung up. Engineering has a whole bunch of methods for instantly and simultaneously "failing" all the seams in a container.
As you can guess, the skill required to pack parachutes and the need (in the military) to provide braking chutes for each flight of some aircraft led to the notion of componentized parachute packages. As part of preparing the aircraft for flight, the ground crew installs a pre-packaged parachute assembly. After use, the assemblies are removed and sent to a specialized shop for repacking.
Wind tunnel testing has been the mainstay of investigating behavior in parachutes. As with much engineering, you learn a lot just by trying it and seeing how it behaves.
What I'm obliquely referencing is some documentary I may or may not correctly recall seeing when I was a pre-teen...
I sympathize. I saw a film when I was young called Pack Your Own Chute. (It's searchable on YouTube.) While it got me interested in parachutes and how they work, the film itself tells very little of the story.
Something that specifically dealt with recovery systems, and how the future shuttle would not need them. I'd like to have my memory refreshed, but 35 years is a long time.
If it's specifically about the shuttle, I can help you look around. Because of the STS's high landing speed, runway braking isn't generally sufficient. Large airframes stretch our skill at brake design. We use multiple friction layers and so forth, but the problem is often literally where the rubber meets the road. Early in the shuttle program they experimented with different tire designs and different runway surfacing methods to provide enough grip without risking shredding the tires. While especially acute for STS, it was a problem all through the early jet age for high-performance military jets. They just couldn't get enough grip on the runway to slow down. Modern airliners, as you've seen, not only use reversible thrust but they deploy their spoilers automatically to allow the full weight of the airframe to ride on the wheels and also provide additional down force.
I think the most exciting thing (at least for space) is the combination parachute and retro rocket method. This requires less reefing from the parachute because it allows a faster descent rate until just before landing, when rockets at the riser ring fire at the very last second to apply a smooth terminal deceleration.
Here is the Apollo 15 mission report. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/ap15mr.pdf The relevant section begins on PDF page 187.
This is the Apollo Experience Report on the Earth Landing System, including the parachutes. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740003586.pdf It goes into substantial detail about Apollo's parachutes. And in general, the AERs are a very good source of technical information on all aspects of Apollo design and operation.
-
Prove my picture is CGI. I posted it and said it was real. I would feel offended if you didn't believe me. ;)
Offense isn't a factor. You're simply making claims you refuse to substantiate, yet somehow expecting everyone to take you seriously. We're not offended; we're laughing at you.
-
So the earth spinning at 1,000 mph (faster than the speed of sound) is not the same as spinning a basketball at 1,000 mph? The speeds are the same.
No they aren't. Since you don't believe in Newtonian dynamics I won't attempt to explain to you the difference between angular velocity and linear velocity. I doubt you're smart enough to understand it anyway. Suffice it to say, those concepts literally govern everything in your observable world and they don't care whether you believe in them or not.
-
So the earth spinning at 1,000 mph (faster than the speed of sound) is not the same as spinning a basketball at 1,000 mph? The speeds are the same.
No they aren't. Since you don't believe in Newtonian dynamics I won't attempt to explain to you the difference between angular velocity and linear velocity. I doubt you're smart enough to understand it anyway. Suffice it to say, those concepts literally govern everything in your observable world and they don't care whether you believe in them or not.
Additionally his adolescent understanding of dynamics, more or less prove to me he either didn't graduate with a degree OR he passed with very high curve.
-
The first one looks CGI.
Tell us all, then, how you distinguish CGI from a conventional digital photo that would come from a domestic camera?
I'm sure the author of the post with the photo can tell us what kind of camera it was taken on. How would you distinguish a digital photo from that camera from CGI?
-
Sorry, not taking NASA word for it. 30" hmmmm? I wonder how they fit through this size of hole with a space suit? Try this; draw a 30" line on your driveway (in chalk) and just imagine trying to fit through this diameter.
But given that this was all faked in a studio somewhere I guess it doesn't really matter now does it?
Your argument here is truly absurd. Even if it WAS all faked in a studio, the actors STILL would have needed to have physically fit through the openings.
-
I really could care less whether you believe I'm an engineer or not. My diploma says otherwise. But I've listened to many educated idiots such as Neil Tyson and believe me I'm not impressed. Scientists today are nothing more than modern day magicians and shamans who weave their spells with high level math that only they can understand.
Whoa there bucko. I said it was unreasonable for people to ask to see your diploma, but if YOU want anyone to give any credit to your education, that's on YOU to prove. There's ample evidence you are not an engineer, such as characterizing science and math that's at a high school level as "high level math that only they can understand".
Indeed, were I to actually take everything you say as being honest and reflective of critical thinking on your part, I would have to assume that you are mostly likely a somewhat clever bot that replies in an ELIZA like fashion to statements, as you seem literally completely ignorant of basic observable properties of the physical world.
-
I really could care less whether you believe I'm an engineer or not. My diploma says otherwise. But I've listened to many educated idiots such as Neil Tyson and believe me I'm not impressed. Scientists today are nothing more than modern day magicians and shamans who weave their spells with high level math that only they can understand.
Whoa there bucko. I said it was unreasonable for people to ask to see your diploma, but if YOU want anyone to give any credit to your education, that's on YOU to prove. There's ample evidence you are not an engineer, such as characterizing science and math that's at a high school level as "high level math that only they can understand".
Indeed, were I to actually take everything you say as being honest and reflective of critical thinking on your part, I would have to assume that you are mostly likely a somewhat clever bot that replies in an ELIZA like fashion to statements, as you seem literally completely ignorant of basic observable properties of the physical world.
What's worse is that I'm not an engineer (I'm sure I've made the pros like Jay and STS wince a few times), just a flight instructor and professional manager with a degree in psychology and I understand the math and principles involved. It's not that hard, really.
-
Another question that flat earthers can't seem to answer: why does a flight from Frankfurt to Singapore take 12.5 hours, when a flight from Singapore to Frankfurt, flying over the exact same trajectory takes 13.5 hours?
The real question should be why doesn't the flight against the supposed rotation of the earth ( take less than a few hours since the plane would be flying against 1,000 to 700 mph rotation (depending upon what latitude you were at)?
Why would the plane magically lose the velocity it had on the ground simply by taking off? What force would cause that?
Good question. What holds the atmosphere glued to the earth while it is rotating 1,000 mph? Magic?
Friction.
I was always taught to ignore friction in problems in classes such as Dynamics and Fluid Dynamics. I was robbed!
Riddle me this: why do I have to teach my students that the wind generally changes direction by about 30 degrees to the right (north of the equator) as they climb above 1,000 or so feet above the surface?
-
The first one looks CGI.
Nope. I can tell you when it was taken, and where, and I could probably tell you who took it. But I am not retained to supply your deficiencies; do your own work for a change, or at least don't be such a boring troll.
The second one means nothing
It means I don't need Google; I've actually worked on the satellites you said don't exist.
The third one is blurry and means nothing.
It's a picture of one satellite taken by another. The vehicle I personally helped assemble, integrate, test, and operate took that picture in response to commands I personally sent.
I've got a better one; This is me floating in space enjoying some sun. No, really it is me because I'm providing a "picture" and I wouldn't lie....
Sure you would. You keep telling us you're an engineer, when you literally (as Jay pointed out) don't know the difference between linear velocity and angular velocity.
Now, it's amusing and all to listen to you bluster and say ridiculous things, and to point out your various ineptitudes, but only for a little while. You're not a very innovative troll; to keep us amused, you need to put a little more effort into it. For example, pretend to acknowledge a couple of your more glaring errors, then circle around and try a fringe reset in a couple of days. Your schtick has gone flat; your service life as a cat toy has expired. No more attention for you unless you put some effort into your trolling.
-
It's a picture of one satellite taken by another. The vehicle I personally helped assemble, integrate, test, and operate took that picture in response to commands I personally sent.
You'll have to excuse me a moment, but ... COOL!
All in a day's work to you, but... got any more photos to share?
-
...
The third one is blurry and means nothing.
It's a picture of one satellite taken by another. The vehicle I personally helped assemble, integrate, test, and operate took that picture in response to commands I personally sent.
...
It is not blurry to me and I'm way older than tradosaurus. Which Shuttle is it?
-
Endeavor. I'll get around to some other pictures eventually.
I should point out that at least three other folks here that come immediately to mind have hands-on spacecraft/launch vehicle experience, and many others have done an immense amount of really first-rate engineering and imagery analysis. A few pretty pictures are nice, but those folks do the heavy lifting around here.
-
And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated.
Good luck!
Well, thanks; but no luck needed. Nor Googling; that's for pretend engineers [population: you].
The first one is a satellite I helped build, integrate, test, and operate on three separate missions.
The second is me aboard one of the vehicles that gave it a ride to and from orbit, during preflight integration tests.
The third is a picture taken by our satellite of another such vehicle, which was also a satellite at that point.
The first one looks CGI.
The second one means nothing
The third one is blurry and means nothing.
I've got a better one; This is me floating in space enjoying some sun. No, really it is me because I'm providing a "picture" and I wouldn't lie. ;)
(http://www.dcfilmdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/gravity4.jpg)
Is this really the level of post people here consider worth a response?
LunarOrbit: I've been mostly inactive for a couple years, here, but I think this is the point at which you can pull the plug. Please inactivate my account. I see no advantage for me, and the response I've just backspaced over to type this would earn me your ire.
If anyone wants to contact me I'm still at International Skeptics, now known as Jrrarglblarg.
-
The first one looks CGI.
The second one means nothing
The third one is blurry and means nothing.
Amazing isn't it? The one that storms in insulting people left right and centre and accusing people of blindly following religious beliefs not only happily talks of being a Catholic, but then also denies any and all evidence put in front of his myopic eyes. Truly, the definition of religion is the denial of observation and evidence in order that belief be maintained.
Ever heard of irony, tradosaurus? Or, indeed of psychological projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)?
I think that I am pretty much done with this thread too. There's no point in further engagement with this individual as far as I can see. Personally, I take this as further evidence that the whole Apollo conspiracy theory thing is pretty much a spent force. There used to be at least a few that at least made an effort to study the record and try to assemble a somewhat cogent argument. All we see now are the blatantly idiotic that display the temper tantrums of a child, or those the crank magnets that use the Apollo hoax as a vehicle to air their other obsessions. Baker used the subliminator bit as a proxy to engage in spittle-flecked rant about anti-Semitism and 9/11- this loon uses it as a vehicle for FE ranting, with a side order of 9/11 and Sandy Hook.
The Moon hoax thing is a spent force IMHO.
-
(http://static.hsw.com.br/gif/spaceship-apollo-8.jpg)
Maybe you can have Mythbusters to replicate the cramped space of the command module, sit 3 guys fully dressed in space suits and then asked them to undress. LOL.
I don't care what NASA says since they are liars and thieves. I'm asking you and others to do some critical thinking so maybe you can stop being brainwashed.
Have a look at this video:
In particular, watch the sections from 27:00 to 28:30 and 33:30 to 34:20. Note that the astronauts are weightless and not wearing spacesuits. Please explain how this could be faked.
The command module is just one of many discrepancies of the moon landing hoax. Simple thought experiments that question the ability of 1960's technology to make the trip and back, no blast craters or dust under the lunar module, the ability of the astronauts to do any fine motor skills with the pressurized gloves, etc. Is it any wonder the U.S is a joke outside of this country?
Fine motor skills? Yes, it was hard working against the gloves, but not impossible. The astronauts' activities were designed around what they could do. So most of the time they were holding poles or handles with a diameter of a couple of centimetres, or flicking switches and pressing buttons which didn't require any fine motor skills. It's not as though, for example, anyone claims they were writing letters in copperplate or screwing together Meccano sets while wearing pressurised suits.
-
Fine motor skills? Yes, it was hard working against the gloves, but not impossible. The astronauts' activities were designed around what they could do. So most of the time they were holding poles or handles with a diameter of a couple of centimetres, or flicking switches and pressing buttons which didn't require any fine motor skills. It's not as though, for example, anyone claims they were writing letters in copperplate or screwing together Meccano sets while wearing pressurised suits.
Indeed and the A17 crew complained of skin abrasions of their hands working those tools and rocks etc.
-
The ISS is visible to the naked eye, better with a bit of magnification.
I have an app on my smartphone that tells me exactly where the ISS is, and it warns me of upcoming visible passes. I got an alarm at 6:21 pm local time tonight, informing me that there was a nearly overhead pass in two minutes, but I went outside and couldn't see it. I guess that means it doesn't exist. My wife was very angry that I tracked mud all through the kitchen as I came back inside, soaking wet from the heavy rain that was in the area, but I don't understand why she was so mad. I was trying to make some scientific observations.
-
Yes, Jay... I knew that already.
Yes, I figured you did. Sorry for the non-answer; I was winding down for the night.
I thought as much. Believe me, I am well aware that it does take a shift in thought processes when going from a hoax believer to someone at least reasonably well-versed in science.
What I don't know is, how were these things designed/assembled/packed/created so that they operated the way that they did.
As you may recall, one of their parachutes collapsed because the RCS safing procedure cut one of the reefing lines.
The very thing that caused me to ask about this. I remember reading something where Dave Scott had mentioned their speed at impact with the ocean was much higher than the other missions, and it was a pretty obvious jolt inside the CM. That's what got me thinking about this, and when the vid clip of the packing came up, well... you guys know by now how my mind works.
Packing the chute is an art. Which is to say, there's a science to it, but also great skill in executing it.
You're telling me. I played with model rockets as a kid. They usually lasted almost one flight. I could never get those stinking little plastic parachutes to fold up enough to fit inside that tube, or come out in a way that wasn't a plastic ball because everything was tangled. I can't imagine the skill it would take to fold up an 80+ foot parachute and have it open correctly.
And in general, the AERs are a very good source of technical information on all aspects of Apollo design and operation.
Thanks for the detailed response. I always knew a great deal of documentation from Apollo existed, but of late, I'm getting a much better appreciation of just how much documentation there really is. If the hoaxers only knew.
-
What I don't know is, how were these things designed/assembled/packed/created so that they operated the way that they did.
I can't give you specifics about how I learned about parachute design. It's one of those things that's too far back to remember specific sources, although I like to think I retained all the knowledge. That said, the Preliminary Mission Report for Apollo 15 might prove helpful. As you may recall, one of their parachutes collapsed because the RCS safing procedure cut one of the reefing lines. Because the RCS fuel is toxic, as much of it as possible is burned off during the descent once it's no longer useful for control. This requires burning all the jets until the fuel is exhausted, leaving only a residue. One of the jets impinged on a reefing line and cut it.
As an aside, this is a great example of failure in integration engineering and testing. The RCS and Earth Landing System were considered "orthogonal" systems in that one had nothing to do with the other -- supposedly. The team that designed the ELS is thinking about aerodynamics and structural mechanics. Aerodynamics because the center of drag is computed by knowing the attach points for the suspension lines. The parachute exerts its drag at those points, and that in turn determines how the spacecraft will orient itself under the drag load. Conversely the drag has to be communicated safely to the structure via those attach points. They aren't thinking about RCS, because that's not the part of the mission they deal with. They just sit patiently until the last ten minutes.
Similarly, the RCS team is thinking about optimal jet placement. But most importantly, when the CM drogue deploys, their job is done. They aren't nominally responsible for anything that happens beyond that point. The integration engineers and testing team are supposed to think at a higher level and investigate the interactions between systems that are well designed individually to work. That's one of several examples from space engineering that I use when I teach workshops on design engineering and project management.
Out of interest, Jay, does this mean that what happened on Apollo 15 could have happened on any earlier mission?
And does it mean that the problem could have occurred with two or three parachutes instead of just the one?
-
Out of interest, Jay, does this mean that what happened on Apollo 15 could have happened on any earlier mission?
Yes.
And does it mean that the problem could have occurred with two or three parachutes instead of just the one?
Probably not. Not all the main parachute risers were near RCS jets.
-
Yes, Jay... I knew that already.
Yes, I figured you did. Sorry for the non-answer; I was winding down for the night.
What I don't know is, how were these things designed/assembled/packed/created so that they operated the way that they did.
I can't give you specifics about how I learned about parachute design. It's one of those things that's too far back to remember specific sources, although I like to think I retained all the knowledge. That said, the Preliminary Mission Report for Apollo 15 might prove helpful. As you may recall, one of their parachutes collapsed because the RCS safing procedure cut one of the reefing lines. Because the RCS fuel is toxic, as much of it as possible is burned off during the descent once it's no longer useful for control. This requires burning all the jets until the fuel is exhausted, leaving only a residue. One of the jets impinged on a reefing line and cut it.
As an aside, this is a great example of failure in integration engineering and testing. The RCS and Earth Landing System were considered "orthogonal" systems in that one had nothing to do with the other -- supposedly. The team that designed the ELS is thinking about aerodynamics and structural mechanics. Aerodynamics because the center of drag is computed by knowing the attach points for the suspension lines. The parachute exerts its drag at those points, and that in turn determines how the spacecraft will orient itself under the drag load. Conversely the drag has to be communicated safely to the structure via those attach points. They aren't thinking about RCS, because that's not the part of the mission they deal with. They just sit patiently until the last ten minutes.
Similarly, the RCS team is thinking about optimal jet placement. But most importantly, when the CM drogue deploys, their job is done. They aren't nominally responsible for anything that happens beyond that point. The integration engineers and testing team are supposed to think at a higher level and investigate the interactions between systems that are well designed individually to work. That's one of several examples from space engineering that I use when I teach workshops on design engineering and project management.
But I digress. The report has a brief description of the Apollo mechanism.
The science of parachutes is pretty straightforward. You need materials with considerable and predictable tensile strength and low mass, and methods of reliably distributing tension to the rim. Those distribution networks incidentally offer the advantage of stopping rips. Another way of mitigating the tension is the ribboning method, which cuts holes or slits in the canopy to let some of the air through. Materials science governs most of what we consider innovative in parachute design.
The idea of variations in the canopy aperture producing different degrees of drag is as old as parachuting itself. In the early 1900s practitioners were able to measure its effect also on canopy tension. That was when the bright idea emerged that variable-drag parachutes might be a useful thing. I can only remember two types of reefing mechanisms off the top of my head: the ring method and the skirt method.
The ring method uses a frangible or detachable ring around the suspenders near the aperture. This forms an apex far above the risers or hoist point and keeps the aperture closed. Via various release mechanisms, the ring is detached at the right time and the parachute opens fully.
The skirt method is far more common. Rather than attach the suspenders at a single point on the canopy rim, you run it through an eyelet and then along several adjacent eyelets and then back down to the hoist point. Interleaving this arrangement around the rim allows you vary the circumference of the aperture by taking in or paying out suspenders. The modern variation on that method separates reefing lines from suspenders so that you don't have the drag tension on the reefing lines. To mimic the one-time reef-open behavior of the ring method, the reefing lines are initially regulated to a short fixed length by a frangible or pyrotechnic restraint. At the appropriate time this restraint is fired and the line pays out to longer fixed length.
In practice, any automatic method of reeling will serve as the actuator for a controllable reef. The rest becomes straightforward control-system design. Any number of inputs (ram air pressure, barometric altitude, radar altitude, timers, manual control) can be translated into commands to an addressable winch. These days such things are quite sophisticated and very reliable. For safety nets in fall applications we actually use a constant-tension digitally addressable winch. It will pay out line under load in order to maintain a constant tension. Control systems can be as simple as relay-based combinatorial logic (i.e., the reef cutter signal is just a combination of sensor outputs), or as sophisticated as a full PID controller (equivalent to full-fledged airplane flight control).
Packing the chute is an art. Which is to say, there's a science to it, but also great skill in executing it. The big problem, as you've probably guessed, is avoiding everything getting all tangled up during deployment. The basic element of the art is the accordion pleat. Rather than coiled, the lines are laid out side-by-side on the ground, then carefully serpentined so as to produce a bulk of cord that can be pulled from one end without a loop forming around the standing mass of line. Similarly for the canopy fabric. At the very end is the pilot chute, which pulls at the top of the canopy and unfolds it from the package. This method appeals to common sense, but was worked out through trial and (sometimes fatal) error.
The secondary problem is going instantly from fully confined to fully free. You don't want everything to have to come through an opening in the packaging such that some of it might get hung up. Engineering has a whole bunch of methods for instantly and simultaneously "failing" all the seams in a container.
As you can guess, the skill required to pack parachutes and the need (in the military) to provide braking chutes for each flight of some aircraft led to the notion of componentized parachute packages. As part of preparing the aircraft for flight, the ground crew installs a pre-packaged parachute assembly. After use, the assemblies are removed and sent to a specialized shop for repacking.
Wind tunnel testing has been the mainstay of investigating behavior in parachutes. As with much engineering, you learn a lot just by trying it and seeing how it behaves.
What I'm obliquely referencing is some documentary I may or may not correctly recall seeing when I was a pre-teen...
I sympathize. I saw a film when I was young called Pack Your Own Chute. (It's searchable on YouTube.) While it got me interested in parachutes and how they work, the film itself tells very little of the story.
Something that specifically dealt with recovery systems, and how the future shuttle would not need them. I'd like to have my memory refreshed, but 35 years is a long time.
If it's specifically about the shuttle, I can help you look around. Because of the STS's high landing speed, runway braking isn't generally sufficient. Large airframes stretch our skill at brake design. We use multiple friction layers and so forth, but the problem is often literally where the rubber meets the road. Early in the shuttle program they experimented with different tire designs and different runway surfacing methods to provide enough grip without risking shredding the tires. While especially acute for STS, it was a problem all through the early jet age for high-performance military jets. They just couldn't get enough grip on the runway to slow down. Modern airliners, as you've seen, not only use reversible thrust but they deploy their spoilers automatically to allow the full weight of the airframe to ride on the wheels and also provide additional down force.
I think the most exciting thing (at least for space) is the combination parachute and retro rocket method. This requires less reefing from the parachute because it allows a faster descent rate until just before landing, when rockets at the riser ring fire at the very last second to apply a smooth terminal deceleration.
Here is the Apollo 15 mission report. http://history.NASA.gov/alsj/a15/ap15mr.pdf The relevant section begins on PDF page 187.
This is the Apollo Experience Report on the Earth Landing System, including the parachutes. http://ntrs.NASA.gov/archive/NASA/casi.ntrs.NASA.gov/19740003586.pdf It goes into substantial detail about Apollo's parachutes. And in general, the AERs are a very good source of technical information on all aspects of Apollo design and operation.
IIRC during a 40th anniversary of the mission Al Worden seeing the fuel/oxidizer create holes in that chute, of course that description was of a 40 year old event.
-
IIRC during a 40th anniversary of the mission Al Worden described the fuel/oxidizer create holes in that chute, of course that description was of a 40 year old event.
He may have confused an earlier test where the oxidizer burned the lines and part of the canopy. In an earlier version of the safing procedure I described, the fuel was exhausted before the oxidizer, which then just spewed out unreacted from the RCS. The oxidizer is extremely reactive and reacted with the material of the parachutes and rigging. To solve this problem they short-loaded the oxidizer -- essentially paying more attention to the mixture ratios. This ensured the oxidizer ran out before the fuel. The fuel is unreactive in any way that harms the parachutes.
-
IIRC during a 40th anniversary of the mission Al Worden described the fuel/oxidizer create holes in that chute, of course that description was of a 40 year old event.
He may have confused an earlier test where the oxidizer burned the lines and part of the canopy. In an earlier version of the safing procedure I described, the fuel was exhausted before the oxidizer, which then just spewed out unreacted from the RCS. The oxidizer is extremely reactive and reacted with the material of the parachutes and rigging. To solve this problem they short-loaded the oxidizer -- essentially paying more attention to the mixture ratios. This ensured the oxidizer ran out before the fuel. The fuel is unreactive in any way that harms the parachutes.
I didn't remember whether he said fuel or oxidizer that is why I put it that way. Yes it is possible we all tend to faulty memories when it is that long ago, your turn is coming up! ;)
ETA link to 40th anniversary video for any that would care to watch.
-
Now, it's amusing and all to listen to you bluster and say ridiculous things, and to point out your various ineptitudes, but only for a little while. You're not a very innovative troll; to keep us amused, you need to put a little more effort into it. For example, pretend to acknowledge a couple of your more glaring errors, then circle around and try a fringe reset in a couple of days. Your schtick has gone flat; your service life as a cat toy has expired. No more attention for you unless you put some effort into your trolling.
Personally, I'm not so sure about tradosoupus needing to put in some effort. What I've been hoping for from him ever since he arrived here, is just a teeny bit of intelligence.
Y'know, the type of intelligence that we're used to seeing here over and over from real engineers. Not the type of childish drivel put forth by hoax-believers and pretend-engineers, and with the complete lack of evidence for their claims.
So come on, trado, show us what you're really capable of. We've had more than enough of all the things you can't do and you're becoming really tiresome on that count. Or have we already seen the maximum brilliance you're capable of? During your studies for your engineering degree, did they not teach you a thing about presenting evidence and proof?
Just one little question about your many claims. I watched Sputnik 1 pass over when it was first visible from my part of New Zealand on the night of Wednesday 9 October 1957 at 8:06 pm NZST. And I followed the American side of the space race including Ranger, Surveyor, Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. There was never much news from the Soviets -- only brief reports when they had a success and nothing at all about their failures. They were the complete opposite of the Americans.
Anyway, IIRC you've claimed that NASA influenced and brainwashed those of us who followed the space race and moon-landings, but NASA didn't even exist during the first few Sputnik flights, and I've never been directly contacted by NASA.
So how did NASA do those things to me, and to all the other New Zealanders who followed the same things that I did? And our Australian neighbours?
-
Now, it's amusing and all to listen to you bluster and say ridiculous things, and to point out your various ineptitudes, but only for a little while. You're not a very innovative troll; to keep us amused, you need to put a little more effort into it. For example, pretend to acknowledge a couple of your more glaring errors, then circle around and try a fringe reset in a couple of days. Your schtick has gone flat; your service life as a cat toy has expired. No more attention for you unless you put some effort into your trolling.
Personally, I'm not so sure about tradosoupus needing to put in some effort. What I've been hoping for from him ever since he arrived here, is just a teeny bit of intelligence.
Y'know, the type of intelligence that we're used to seeing here over and over from real engineers. Not the type of childish drivel put forth by hoax-believers and pretend-engineers, and with the complete lack of evidence for their claims.
So come on, trado, show us what you're really capable of. We've had more than enough of all the things you can't do and you're becoming really tiresome on that count. Or have we already seen the maximum brilliance you're capable of? During your studies for your engineering degree, did they not teach you a thing about presenting evidence and proof?
Just one little question about your many claims. I watched Sputnik 1 pass over when it was first visible from my part of New Zealand on the night of Wednesday 9 October 1957 at 8:06 pm NZST. And I followed the American side of the space race including Ranger, Surveyor, Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. There was never much news from the Soviets -- only brief reports when they had a success and nothing at all about their failures. They were the complete opposite of the Americans.
Anyway, IIRC you've claimed that NASA influenced and brainwashed those of us who followed the space race and moon-landings, but NASA didn't even exist during the first few Sputnik flights, and I've never been directly contacted by NASA.
So how did NASA do those things to me, and to all the other New Zealanders who followed the same things that I did? And our Australian neighbours?
Yes, NASA was formed after the hysteria created by Sputnik, along with Eisenhower's determination to have a civilian agency controlling the US space activities. This in part was to prevent the Soviets from overreacting to any of our launches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA
-
Of course, Thierry Legault's work is just tremendous. All of us have seen satellites in orbit. M. Legault has photographed astronauts in orbit. (http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html) Of course, I'm just posting this for the enjoyment of the regulars, but our current Visting Chair in Pretend Engineering is also welcome.
Not to mention Ralf Vanderburgh:
http://www.space.com/13774-skywatcher-photos-russian-phobos-grunt-probe.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralf_Vandebergh
Or Rob Bullen
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.VrNSuFnKNZg
Or Paulo Contini:
http://astrob.in/65817/0/
Or, indeed, all these amateur astronomers from all over the world:
Click Me (http://www.astrobin.com/search/?search_type=0&integration_min=&license=0&license=1&license=2&license=3&license=4&license=5&license=6&end_date=&integration_max=&solar_system_main_subject=&pixel_size_min=&q=ISS&pixel_size_max=&camera_type=5&camera_type=4&camera_type=3&camera_type=2&camera_type=1&camera_type=0&camera_type=any&start_date=&aperture_max=&aperture_min=&moon_phase_min=&telescope_type=22&telescope_type=21&telescope_type=20&telescope_type=19&telescope_type=18&telescope_type=17&telescope_type=16&telescope_type=15&telescope_type=14&telescope_type=13&telescope_type=12&telescope_type=11&telescope_type=10&telescope_type=9&telescope_type=8&telescope_type=7&telescope_type=6&telescope_type=5&telescope_type=4&telescope_type=3&telescope_type=2&telescope_type=1&telescope_type=0&telescope_type=any&moon_phase_max=&page=4#page_anchor)
All of whom use computerised telescope mounts to locate and track fast moving objects like the ISS. Which can only work if the Earth is a globe and the solar system works as described. Bear in mind that many of the control software is written by dedicated amateurs who rely on publicly available timings (such as J2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_%28astronomy%29#Julian_years_and_J2000), which can only work if the Universe moves as described.
I'd love to hear a FE* believer try and describe how that all works......
*not really ::)
-
Of course, Thierry Legault's work is just tremendous. All of us have seen satellites in orbit. M. Legault has photographed astronauts in orbit. (http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html) Of course, I'm just posting this for the enjoyment of the regulars, but our current Visting Chair in Pretend Engineering is also welcome.
Not to mention Ralf Vanderburgh:
http://www.space.com/13774-skywatcher-photos-russian-phobos-grunt-probe.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralf_Vandebergh
Or Rob Bullen
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.VrNSuFnKNZg
Or Paulo Contini:
http://astrob.in/65817/0/
Or, indeed, all these amateur astronomers from all over the world:
Click Me (http://www.astrobin.com/search/?search_type=0&integration_min=&license=0&license=1&license=2&license=3&license=4&license=5&license=6&end_date=&integration_max=&solar_system_main_subject=&pixel_size_min=&q=ISS&pixel_size_max=&camera_type=5&camera_type=4&camera_type=3&camera_type=2&camera_type=1&camera_type=0&camera_type=any&start_date=&aperture_max=&aperture_min=&moon_phase_min=&telescope_type=22&telescope_type=21&telescope_type=20&telescope_type=19&telescope_type=18&telescope_type=17&telescope_type=16&telescope_type=15&telescope_type=14&telescope_type=13&telescope_type=12&telescope_type=11&telescope_type=10&telescope_type=9&telescope_type=8&telescope_type=7&telescope_type=6&telescope_type=5&telescope_type=4&telescope_type=3&telescope_type=2&telescope_type=1&telescope_type=0&telescope_type=any&moon_phase_max=&page=4#page_anchor)
All of whom use computerised telescope mounts to locate and track fast moving objects like the ISS. Which can only work if the Earth is a globe and the solar system works as described. Bear in mind that many of the control software is written by dedicated amateurs who rely on publicly available timings (such as J2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_%28astronomy%29#Julian_years_and_J2000), which can only work if the Universe moves as described.
I'd love to hear a FE* believer try and describe how that all works......
*not really ::)
Of course he will claim they are all CGI, like before. The stupid burns brightly in this one.
-
Of course he will claim they are all CGI, like before. The stupid burns brightly in this one.
Any fool can claim anything that they like. It counts for nothing. To get more than a milisecond's notice the claim has to be shown that it is the case.
I can go out now and switch my observatory on. I can open a a few different planetarium programs (Cartes du Ciel (https://www.ap-i.net/skychart/en/start), Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/en_GB/)), both of which were written by amateurs in different parts of the world and are free (so no money involved). The programs can then connect to a SiTech controller (http://www.siderealtechnology.com/) (made in America) which controls my Mesu200 (http://www.mesu-optics.nl/mesu200_en.html) telescope mount (which is made in the Netherlands). All these systems talk to one another via an open-source application called ASCOM (http://ascom-standards.org/) which is developed and distributed free-of-charge by developers dotted all over the world. I can then click on any star/planet/satellite in the planetarium and the mount will slew and track those objects.
All of this would only work if the Universe works as described. It would be impossible for so many elements, from so many different people and from so many parts of the world to be operating as part of a conspiracy. Only a complete moron would think otherwise.
So, as I said, any fool can claim anything that they like. Heck, they can even believe it. They might even be able to show a YouTube video as evidence of their crackpottery. But unless they can show it to be true and that it works in the real world, then they are talking through their rectum.
-
Is this really the level of post people here consider worth a response?
LunarOrbit: I've been mostly inactive for a couple years, here, but I think this is the point at which you can pull the plug. Please inactivate my account. I see no advantage for me, and the response I've just backspaced over to type this would earn me your ire.
If anyone wants to contact me I'm still at International Skeptics, now known as Jrrarglblarg.
No! Don't go!
Besides, if you think we're easily trolled here....
-
Is this really the level of post people here consider worth a response?
LunarOrbit: I've been mostly inactive for a couple years, here, but I think this is the point at which you can pull the plug. Please inactivate my account. I see no advantage for me, and the response I've just backspaced over to type this would earn me your ire.
If anyone wants to contact me I'm still at International Skeptics, now known as Jrrarglblarg.
We're on a hiding to nothing really. If we take people like this seriously and tackle their arguments they can brag about how they've stirred us up and forced us to leap to the defence of our religion.
If we ignore them, they can go away and crow about how we had no response to their claims.
Personally, I've never been a believer in 'no platform for...whatever'. I think stupidity and bigotry should be aired and confronted, no matter how ridiculous the claim.
-
We're on a hiding to nothing really. If we take people like this seriously and tackle their arguments they can brag about how they've stirred us up and forced us to leap to the defence of our religion.
If we ignore them, they can go away and crow about how we had no response to their claims.
The only mistaken notion is to believe one can prevail against such stupidity in the way we define winning. Troll or nut-job, not a one of them will ever back down. However, if you confront the claims at face value, the other side of the story is on the table and available for others to see. The best cure for bad speech is better speech.
That said, there arrives a point of diminishing returns when a claimant's approach is manifestly irrational. Tradosaurus hit that point a few days ago.
-
Is this really the level of post people here consider worth a response?
LunarOrbit: I've been mostly inactive for a couple years, here, but I think this is the point at which you can pull the plug. Please inactivate my account. I see no advantage for me, and the response I've just backspaced over to type this would earn me your ire.
If anyone wants to contact me I'm still at International Skeptics, now known as Jrrarglblarg.
We're on a hiding to nothing really. If we take people like this seriously and tackle their arguments they can brag about how they've stirred us up and forced us to leap to the defence of our religion.
If we ignore them, they can go away and crow about how we had no response to their claims.
Personally, I've never been a believer in 'no platform for...whatever'. I think stupidity and bigotry should be aired and confronted, no matter how ridiculous the claim.
Ignore the drama also, he doesn't need LRO to inactivate his account, just select the un-notify on any/all threads and go quietly into the night.
-
The posts from the astronomers, professional and amateur, in this thread lead me to ask for some assistance, something that I'm embarrassed to ask for here, because it's probably pretty simple once you understand it.
I know that an astronomer (and navigator with a sextant) can point a telescope at a star or other object in space using coordinates. Declination I get - so many degrees above or below the ecliptic. What I have never, ever figured out is Right Ascension. Even when I was young and my parents indulged me with a refractor telescope with an Equatorial mount, I could not, for the life of me, reverse engineer, after pointing at known star (say, Pullox) and figure out how I could just take the coordinates off the chart and point at another star.
It's embarrassing because I can navigate superbly using earth-based systems to within 60 seconds of my ETA after traveling hundreds of miles, I love astronomy, and I can find answers that no one else can in hundreds of thousands of rows of meta-data that our company stores.
Help a 16 year old trapped in a 60 year old body find peace in this lifetime...
-
It would be a shame for an extremely knowledgeable contributor such as ApolloGnomon to be driven away by trolling of a self-proclaimed messiah.
Our new friend isn't the first poster to wander in to this forum (and others) and proclaim their genius only to be revealed very quickly as intellectual midgets with no knowledge of the subject at all. Constantly battling against the tide of human stupidity is wearing, but they should never be given the impression that they can win simply by barking loudly for long enough and we get sick of them.
-
It would be a shame for an extremely knowledgeable contributor such as ApolloGnomon to be driven away by trolling of a self-proclaimed messiah.
Our new friend isn't the first poster to wander in to this forum (and others) and proclaim their genius only to be revealed very quickly as intellectual midgets with no knowledge of the subject at all. Constantly battling against the tide of human stupidity is wearing, but they should never be given the impression that they can win simply by barking loudly for long enough and we get sick of them.
Here, here! Well said!
-
It would be a shame for an extremely knowledgeable contributor such as ApolloGnomon to be driven away by trolling of a self-proclaimed messiah.
Our new friend isn't the first poster to wander in to this forum (and others) and proclaim their genius only to be revealed very quickly as intellectual midgets with no knowledge of the subject at all. Constantly battling against the tide of human stupidity is wearing, but they should never be given the impression that they can win simply by barking loudly for long enough and we get sick of them.
As I like to say, lies fester in the dark. Tradosaurus came here, so he can gird himself like a man. For we shall question him and he shall answer, to paraphrase the Book of Job.
-
I think the fact that we get few real challengers these days shows that sites such as this have been very successful. The Moon Hoax concept has been exposed so often and so persuasively that no knowledgeable person seriously entertains it.
Which, I suppose, leaves us to be entertained by supposed engineering graduates who don't know how gravity affects buoyancy in water, and seem to believe there is an "up" and a "down" in space.
-
I think the fact that we get few real challengers these days shows that sites such as this have been very successful. The Moon Hoax concept has been exposed so often and so persuasively that no knowledgeable person seriously entertains it.
Which, I suppose, leaves us to be entertained by supposed engineering graduates who don't know how gravity affects buoyancy in water, and seem to believe there is an "up" and a "down" in space.
For forums such as this, you are correct. YT on the other hand is chock full of all sorts of conspiratorial BS. I believe many of those folks gravitated to them, because no accountability of accuracy of information is required, it is surely the lazy way out.
-
Declination I get - so many degrees above or below the ecliptic.
Declination is above or below the equator, not the ecliptic.
What I have never, ever figured out is Right Ascension. Even when I was young and my parents indulged me with a refractor telescope with an Equatorial mount, I could not, for the life of me, reverse engineer, after pointing at known star (say, Pullox) and figure out how I could just take the coordinates off the chart and point at another star.
You mean point at, say, a star that is 3 hours RA east of Pollux, why can't you rotate your equatorial mount 3 hours RA to the east and center on that star?
-
Declination I get - so many degrees above or below the ecliptic.
Declination is above or below the equator, not the ecliptic.
What I have never, ever figured out is Right Ascension. Even when I was young and my parents indulged me with a refractor telescope with an Equatorial mount, I could not, for the life of me, reverse engineer, after pointing at known star (say, Pullox) and figure out how I could just take the coordinates off the chart and point at another star.
You mean point at, say, a star that is 3 hours RA east of Pollux, why can't you rotate your equatorial mount 3 hours RA to the east and center on that star?
Couldn't remember if it was the [celestial] equator or ecliptic (I typed equator and then over-thought it).
What I'm getting at is taking the coordinates, say, of M31, and then knowing how to set up the mount, based on GMT, etc., to point right at it (well, in the neighborhood, anyway), without having to go to a pointer star.
My point (no pun) about Pollux was that even though I could point at it, I haven't been able to do get the answer in a formulaic way. I don't know where I'm making the mistake, but it's got to be something simple that once I see it, I'll make the flat spot on my forehead that much larger when I slap my hand there.
-
I think the fact that we get few real challengers these days shows that sites such as this have been very successful. The Moon Hoax concept has been exposed so often and so persuasively that no knowledgeable person seriously entertains it.
Which, I suppose, leaves us to be entertained by supposed engineering graduates who don't know how gravity affects buoyancy in water, and seem to believe there is an "up" and a "down" in space.
For forums such as this, you are correct. YT on the other hand is chock full of all sorts of conspiratorial BS. I believe many of those folks gravitated to them, because no accountability of accuracy of information is required, it is surely the lazy way out.
There will always be crackpots. However, I think the likelihood of some sensible but uniformed person going, "Hey, I heard that the Apollo landings were hoaxed, and it sounded vaguely plausible" are lower now than they were even a few years ago. It's dropped out of the mainstream.
Unfortunately it's been replaced with some other topics of conspiranoia that I think are more harmful, but even some of those are receding once knowledgeable people started speaking out - anti-vaccination articles are now much rarer, and the mainstream is no longer treating the two sides as if they had equal evidence.
-
Help a 16 year old trapped in a 60 year old body find peace in this lifetime...
This should help:
http://astro-tom.com/telescopes/setting_circles.htm
If your mount has setting circles, then these can be used. This guide shows how to use them, though the setting circles on most smallish mounts are pretty useless:
http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/feature/how-guide/how-master-setting-circles
GOTO computerised mounts have made a lot of this redundant. Align your mount (some don't even require aligning (http://www.celestron.com/university/astronomy/starsense-technology)) and the select the target and GOTO it.
In the last few years the software available to the amateur astronomer has come on in leaps and bounds. Plate-solving is now available free of charge (http://sourceforge.net/p/astrotortilla/home/Home/). This software slews the scope to any part of the sky, uses the imaging camera to take an image of a section of the sky and then identifies the stars in the image. The star centroids are calculated and then matched to the software's database. From that, the software then calculates exactly where in the sky the scope is pointing, and it updates the users planetarium program. Some applications go a bit further- for example I use Sequence Generator Pro (http://www.mainsequencesoftware.com/Products/SGPro). It can take an image off the 'Net, or from a previous night's session which it then plate-solves to identify where in the sky the image is. It then slews the scope to the approximate region of the sky, takes an image, plate solves that and then finesses the scope's position to exactly centre it to the original image. All completely automatically. Applications such as this make finding targets very easy- switch the mount on, take a quick picture of the sky and then slew straight to the target.
My mount goes one further- it will slew all over the sky and take a large number of images (30+). These will all be automatically plate-solved and the mount will then build a sky model which will take into account flexure within the mount itself, flexure and movement within the 'scope & focuser and the refractive index of the air. It's possible to also hook up a barometer, temperature probe and humidity sensor to allow it to accurately calculate the changing refractive index of the atmosphere based on those variables.
It's a measure of how fast this stuff is progressing. Tools like plate-solving and automated sky-models were the domain of professional observatories only a few years ago.
Of course, all of the people designing and buying this kit are secret members of the shadowy New World Order that keeps the idea of a flat Earth hidden from the sheeple......it's only plucky heroes like tradosaurus that are willing to risk life and limb by lifting the curtain on such nefarious schemes.... ::) ::)
-
YT on the other hand is chock full of all sorts of conspiratorial BS. I believe many of those folks gravitated to them, because no accountability of accuracy of information is required, it is surely the lazy way out.
Its also much easier for the loons to control the conversation as they can delete comments. They can control the stage unlike pesky places like here. Plus the audience is a lot more transient and less likely to be critical.
-
Help a 16 year old trapped in a 60 year old body find peace in this lifetime...
This should help:
http://astro-tom.com/telescopes/setting_circles.htm
[snip]
I really appreciate your and Chew's effort, and I get how setting circles would be a practical way to do this. What I'm getting at, though, is I know that if it's "X" time GMT, on "Y" date, I should be able to spin the setting circle to "Z" and the swing the scope to the coordinates. Or am I missing something?
None of this is of practical value, btw. I haven't owned anything more than a telephoto lens or a pair of 7x50's for years. I just remember being extremely frustrated as a freshman in high school on cold winter nights trying to figure this stuff out...
-
Two quick questions, Sus_pilot:
1.) Does your telescope have an equatorial mount?
B.) Does your telescope have a clock drive, or is it unpowered?
-
Two quick questions, Sus_pilot:
1.) Does your telescope have an equatorial mount?
B.) Does your telescope have a clock drive, or is it unpowered?
Niether, sadly. As noted, I don't own a telescope these days. These are intellectual questions now.
When I did own one, a kajillion years ago, it was a manual Equatorial mount...
-
What I'm getting at, though, is I know that if it's "X" time GMT, on "Y" date, I should be able to spin the setting circle to "Z" and the swing the scope to the coordinates. Or am I missing something?
I think you're missing the fact that the Sun and the stars revolve at different rates. A solar day is 24 hours; a sidereal day is 23h 56m 04s.
-
No, I knew and know that (anything else would mean that the Earth wasn't orbiting the Sun and the sky wouldn't change with the seasons, something else for Trad to ponder). That's why I'm trying to see if there's a straightforward formula that I never found or figured out.
-
No, I knew and know that (anything else would mean that the Earth wasn't orbiting the Sun and the sky wouldn't change with the seasons, something else for Trad to ponder). That's why I'm trying to see if there's a straightforward formula that I never found or figured out.
RA hour zero is where the ecliptic crosses the celestial equator (just south of Pisces). As you rotate eastward (in the northern hemisphere), the RA hour increases. Once you know this, and the declination angle, you should be able to locate anything in the sky.
-
That said, there arrives a point of diminishing returns when a claimant's approach is manifestly irrational. Tradosaurus hit that point a few days ago.
IMHO that point was clear once our "degreed Mechanical Engineer" spouted this nonsense...
5) How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module?
-
That said, there arrives a point of diminishing returns when a claimant's approach is manifestly irrational. Tradosaurus hit that point a few days ago.
IMHO that point was clear once our "degreed Mechanical Engineer" spouted this nonsense...
5) How did all consumables including fuel (and a lunar rover) needed for a 7 day trip for 3 men fit in the lunar module?
I thought "we've got a real numpty here" when he spouted this pearl of wisdom...
As a proud Apollo moon lander denier and a degreed Mechanical Engineer
And my thoughts were confirmed with this spectacular piece of critical thinking...
Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
If a 6 year old asked a question like that, then fine. For a 50 year old to ask it I'm like:
(http://www.imagesbuddy.com/images/83/2013/08/wtf-lol-graphic.png)
-
I thought "we've got a real numpty here" when he spouted this pearl of wisdom...
Indeed, the typical pattern is that someone with almost no correct working knowledge stumbles across a few of the hoax books or web sites and wrongly believes the stuff in them is correct science. Then they get up on the stump with those links at the ready and, again wrongly, believe they can pretend to be an expert without getting badly beaten up.
-
Indeed, the typical pattern is that someone with almost no correct working knowledge stumbles across a few of the hoax books or web sites and wrongly believes the stuff in them is correct science. Then they get up on the stump with those links at the ready and, again wrongly, believe they can pretend to be an expert without getting badly beaten up.
The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/02/the-dunning-kruger-effect-are-the-stupid-too-stupid-to-realize-theyre-stupid/
"the incompetent.....overestimate their own skill level and they lack the metacognition to realize their error. In other words, they were too incompetent to recognize their own incompetence."
The only bit that doesn't apply to the likes of tradosaurus is that their mind's are so closed that they rarely increase their skills so the effect of "Improving their metacognitive skills drove down their self-assessment scores as they became better evaluators of their own limitations". Tradosaurus is so emotionally and religiously wedded to his beliefs that he almost certainly will not become a better judge of his own incompetence.
-
Indeed, the typical pattern is that someone with almost no correct working knowledge stumbles across a few of the hoax books or web sites and wrongly believes the stuff in them is correct science. Then they get up on the stump with those links at the ready and, again wrongly, believe they can pretend to be an expert without getting badly beaten up.
The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/02/the-dunning-kruger-effect-are-the-stupid-too-stupid-to-realize-theyre-stupid/
"the incompetent.....overestimate their own skill level and they lack the metacognition to realize their error. In other words, they were too incompetent to recognize their own incompetence."
The only bit that doesn't apply to the likes of tradosaurus is that their mind's are so closed that they rarely increase their skills so the effect of "Improving their metacognitive skills drove down their self-assessment scores as they became better evaluators of their own limitations". Tradosaurus is so emotionally and religiously wedded to his beliefs that he almost certainly will not become a better judge of his own incompetence.
Just like an alcoholic, the first step is to accept the fact he is incompetent. I'm not holding my breath waiting on that. ::)
-
No, I knew and know that (anything else would mean that the Earth wasn't orbiting the Sun and the sky wouldn't change with the seasons, something else for Trad to ponder). That's why I'm trying to see if there's a straightforward formula that I never found or figured out.
A quick and dirty formula for the RA at Greenwich is number of days since January 0.0 รท 15 + GMT - 17.4 hours. Apply your longitude รท 15ยฐ to get the RA at your meridian.
-
No, I knew and know that (anything else would mean that the Earth wasn't orbiting the Sun and the sky wouldn't change with the seasons, something else for Trad to ponder). That's why I'm trying to see if there's a straightforward formula that I never found or figured out.
A quick and dirty formula for the RA at Greenwich is number of days since January 0.0 รท 15 + GMT - 17.4 hours. Apply your longitude รท 15ยฐ to get the RA at your meridian.
Thank you! That was like getting a splinter removed after 45 years!
-
No, I knew and know that (anything else would mean that the Earth wasn't orbiting the Sun and the sky wouldn't change with the seasons, something else for Trad to ponder). That's why I'm trying to see if there's a straightforward formula that I never found or figured out.
A quick and dirty formula for the RA at Greenwich is number of days since January 0.0 รท 15 + GMT - 17.4 hours. Apply your longitude รท 15ยฐ to get the RA at your meridian.
Thank you! That was like getting a splinter removed after 45 years!
I only had a splinter in me for about 6 months, that must've really felt better. :)
-
Indeed, the typical pattern is that someone with almost no correct working knowledge stumbles across a few of the hoax books or web sites and wrongly believes the stuff in them is correct science.
And they go around proclaiming how much of an independent thinker they are!
That's the truly ironic part.
-
Indeed, the typical pattern is that someone with almost no correct working knowledge stumbles across a few of the hoax books or web sites and wrongly believes the stuff in them is correct science.
And they go around proclaiming how much of an independent thinker they are!
That's the truly ironic part.
Independent and "critical"!
-
After a brief flurry of gish-gashing from tradosaurus the forum has settled back down to a few posts per day. Or, at least until the next troll chances his arm by wandering over from YouTube. It's becoming familiar, isn't it? A rapid gish-gallop of BS, followed by a banning.
More evidence that the whole Moon landing hoax is virtually dead......
-
I said on my blog that re the Apollo Hoax, the geeks won -- and everyone should have seen it coming. The hoaxies challenged the internet, and when given choice of weapons foolishly went for "Science!" And if the interwebs breeds nothing else it would be tech-savvy, argumentative science nerds with a thing for space.
The only time they manage to make headway is when they keep it murky, political, and emotional. But there are a lot of more interesting murky, political, and emotional conspiracy theories competing for eyeballs -- on this arena, the Apollo Hoaxies lost to, well, Cthulhu.
(Timely illustration; Chrome's spellcheck stumbled on "Sibrel" while I was composing this post, but it easily recognized Old Squid-Face.)
-
I said on my blog that re the Apollo Hoax, the geeks won -- and everyone should have seen it coming. The hoaxies challenged the internet, and when given choice of weapons foolishly went for "Science!" And if the interwebs breeds nothing else it would be tech-savvy, argumentative science nerds with a thing for space.
The only time they manage to make headway is when they keep it murky, political, and emotional. But there are a lot of more interesting murky, political, and emotional conspiracy theories competing for eyeballs -- on this arena, the Apollo Hoaxies lost to, well, Cthulhu.
(Timely illustration; Chrome's spellcheck stumbled on "Sibrel" while I was composing this post, but it easily recognized Old Squid-Face.)
Now that is a description. :)
Cthulhu, now that was a new one for me, I had to look it up and find a cosmic entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu
-
I said on my blog that re the Apollo Hoax, the geeks won -- and everyone should have seen it coming. The hoaxies challenged the internet, and when given choice of weapons foolishly went for "Science!" And if the interwebs breeds nothing else it would be tech-savvy, argumentative science nerds with a thing for space.
The only time they manage to make headway is when they keep it murky, political, and emotional. But there are a lot of more interesting murky, political, and emotional conspiracy theories competing for eyeballs -- on this arena, the Apollo Hoaxies lost to, well, Cthulhu.
(Timely illustration; Chrome's spellcheck stumbled on "Sibrel" while I was composing this post, but it easily recognized Old Squid-Face.)
Now that is a description. :)
Cthulhu, now that was a new one for me, I had to look it up and find a cosmic entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu
HP Lovecraft may have been racist to the point it even looked absurd at the time, but damn if he didn't create something awesome. ^_^ Cosmic Horror has such a different texture than some slasher slicing up screaming, semi-naked teenagers.
-
Independent and "critical"!
That should be "indepandend and criticel", correct spelling and spell checkers are evil mainstream...
-
Independent and "critical"!
That should be "indepandend and criticel", correct spelling and spell checkers are evil mainstream...
Sarcasm is a seven letter word beginning with 'S'.
-
I was doing some searching for the batteries that the Apollo Hasselblad cameras used. I couldn't find a direct article, but IIRC they were either Zinc or Silver nicades. Is this correct ? If anyone has a link bookmarked, please provide.
-
I was doing some searching for the batteries that the Apollo Hasselblad cameras used. I couldn't find a direct article, but IIRC they were either Zinc or Silver nicades. Is this correct ? If anyone has a link bookmarked, please provide.
I think every flight battery used in the Apollo program was silver-zinc. I know that to be true for all stages of the Saturn V, the LM, the CSM and the PLSS. So I assume it was true for the cameras as well.
Silver/zinc is more accurately described as silver oxide/zinc. The anode (negative plate) is zinc, just as in ordinary alkaline batteries. The cathode (positive plate) is silver oxide. It should be fairly obvious why this is not more widely used despite substantially outperforming the manganese dioxide in the cathodes of ordinary alkaline batteries.
A "nicad" is a completely different type of battery. It uses cadmium anodes and nickel oxy-hydroxide cathodes. It has lower energy density but works well as a secondary (rechargeable) battery.
Silver-zinc can be recharged, but with a very poor cycle life measured in the single digits. The only batteries recharged in Apollo were the entry batteries in the CM; all the others were primaries (non-rechargeables).
-
This was all I found and it doesn't speak of the batteries in the 60-70's models just the lithium Ion after 2002 H2D model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad
-
I was doing some searching for the batteries that the Apollo Hasselblad cameras used. I couldn't find a direct article, but IIRC they were either Zinc or Silver nicades. Is this correct ? If anyone has a link bookmarked, please provide.
Did they even use batteries?
-
I was doing some searching for the batteries that the Apollo Hasselblad cameras used. I couldn't find a direct article, but IIRC they were either Zinc or Silver nicades. Is this correct ? If anyone has a link bookmarked, please provide.
Did they even use batteries?
Yes, the link says there is a 6.25 vdc Intervalometer
http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/02photoequip.htm
-
I was doing some searching for the batteries that the Apollo Hasselblad cameras used. I couldn't find a direct article, but IIRC they were either Zinc or Silver nicades. Is this correct ? If anyone has a link bookmarked, please provide.
Did they even use batteries?
Yes, the link says there is a 6.25 vdc Intervalometer
http://history.NASA.gov/ap16fj/02photoequip.htm
According to that link, the Intervalometer was powered from the "electric camera battery pack", which I'm assuming means the integral motor drive/ battery unit.
ETA- This A14 photography report (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjXu8Xi2NDLAhWBuBQKHXULBZYQFgg8MAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hq.nasa.gov%2Falsj%2Fa14%2FA14PhotoIndexPt1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEyQsWAj_zOV8oB7WdghkDxza54Sw&sig2=99e7H8XdErxfCI9xzXcwDQ) says that the motor drive batteries were NiCds.
-
I don't remember any cables from the camera in the pictures, so I guessed it was an internal battery. (Didn't read far enough, or a different type for the Apollo missions)
ETA: Image from A12, I don't see any cables or a battery box in this image, although his arms could be covering them.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpg
-
I posted an edit to my last post before seeing you had replied, so I'll post it again. This A14 photography report (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjXu8Xi2NDLAhWBuBQKHXULBZYQFgg8MAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hq.NASA.gov%2Falsj%2Fa14%2FA14PhotoIndexPt1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEyQsWAj_zOV8oB7WdghkDxza54Sw&sig2=99e7H8XdErxfCI9xzXcwDQ) says that the motor drive batteries were NiCds.
-
I posted an edit to my last post before seeing you had replied, so I'll post it again. This A14 photography report (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjXu8Xi2NDLAhWBuBQKHXULBZYQFgg8MAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hq.NASA.gov%2Falsj%2Fa14%2FA14PhotoIndexPt1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEyQsWAj_zOV8oB7WdghkDxza54Sw&sig2=99e7H8XdErxfCI9xzXcwDQ) says that the motor drive batteries were NiCds.
Good to have the report, thanks
-
If the report says NiCds, then it's probably correct. It's just surprising, since the batteries did not need to be recharged and they had lower energy density than silver-zinc. Maybe that's what the original design used, and there wasn't enough of a need to change them.
-
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/photography/
Says it was 2 nickel-cadmium batteries.
-
Anybody seen Tradosaurus, lately...?
-
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
No, it shouldn't.
I did a mathematical analysis of this on Photobucket:
http://s813.photobucket.com/user/astrobrant2/library/Earth%20Size%20When%20Viewed%20from%20the%20Moon?sort=2&page=1
-
1) Why does the earth look so small in the background of photographs on the moon. The earth should be much larger.
No, it shouldn't.
I did a mathematical analysis of this on Photobucket:
http://s813.photobucket.com/user/astrobrant2/library/Earth%20Size%20When%20Viewed%20from%20the%20Moon?sort=2&page=1
Nicely done, too, especially because you point out that Earth is actually a little bigger in the photo than it should be. But would die-hard hoax-believers actually learn anything from it?
There are two reasons why Earth could appear a little larger than calculated in AS17-134-20384HR (http://www.hq.NASA.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20384HR.jpg):
1. Its location near the top of the picture. There is likely to be a little distortion at the edges of the picture due to the wide-angle lens, which tends to slightly enlarge objects progressively, depending on how far they are from the centre.
2. Earth is a out of focus, which might cause a small of amount "enlargement" due to the fuzziness surrounding it.
Isn't there a quicker way to measure angles in lunar surface photos due to the reticules (or crosshairs) than by counting pixels? I had an idea that that was their purpose, but don't recall the details.
JayUtah might know.
-
2. Earth is a out of focus, which might cause a small of amount "enlargement" due to the fuzziness surrounding it.
If the earth is out of focus, that means the lens was focused closer than infinity, which means it was farther from the film and thus working with a slightly longer focal length, thus enlarging the image of the earth.
Usually this effect is too small to be noticeable, but it's substantial with macro lenses. The apparent focal length increases and the apparent speed of the lens decreases (the f-stop number increases).
-
1. Strawman. I've said before that it is my opinion that NASA has NAZI origins as the U.S. brought 1500 German scientists and engineers and Werhner Von Braun conceptualized the idea of space travel in the early 50's and within a few short years NASA was born. I'm just connecting the dots.
2. If I am wrong on the tunnel dimension please show me the true dimensions of the tunnel entrance to the command module. My shoulders are 24 inches from end to end and with a "space" suit on it would be much larger so hopefully your dimensions will be at least 42" or bigger.
3. Here is a picture of the Command module. Pay attention to the dimensions and then imagine the 3 parachutes with a lot of cord and all the other equipment plus 3 men fitting in this small space for 6 days of travel. According to NASA, 3 crew members spent 3 days to the moon and 3 days back to earth IN THE CM. One of the videos where Neil Armstrong manipulated the camera to show a "ball earth" it shows the astronauts with plenty of room. They should have been in the CM. Now look at the picture. Can you imagine being strapped to the chair with 2 guys with no room to stand up? Also the parachutes were stored in the top of the CM so how was it stored so that the astronauts still had room to make it thru the access tunnel? I think NASA's Hollywood department should have done a better job.
(http://www.aulis.com/images_cm/CM-3.jpg)
This was pointed out to you a few times, but you display a lazy behavior to investigate your claims. Here is a link that will show you the docking tunnel hatch was 30"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
Also it has been pointed out to you the parachutes were packed around the docking tunnel, NOT in the living space.
If you viewed any of the videos you should notice that without gravity the spacecraft was much roomier, although not as large as a bedroom. How do you think two men rode Gemini 7 for 14 days with much less room to move around. Now that was a cramped condition, much more than Apollo.
The astronauts were not strapped in their seats for the duration of the mission. Get over it Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.
Also, and please correct me if I am wrong, didn't the center seat fold up a bit to allow a bit more space to work in?
-
Yes, it did.
-
please correct me if I am wrong, didn't the center seat fold up a bit to allow a bit more space to work in?
Yes, this can clearly be seen in the James Burke video to be found at the BBC website. (Tour of the Command Module)
-
please correct me if I am wrong, didn't the center seat fold up a bit to allow a bit more space to work in?
Yes, this can clearly be seen in the James Burke video to be found at the BBC website. (Tour of the Command Module)
I don't think I have seen that one ... I'll have to look it up. Also, thanks to Jay for also confirming ...
-
(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p146/CarlosMeat/ApolloSeating03.jpg)
-
(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p146/CarlosMeat/ApolloSeating03.jpg)
Yep, that's the lower equipment bay. Amongst other stuff, the CMP's navigation station was down/back there, including the astrogation optics, as well as a DSKY for computer access.
-
Astrogation is a word? Makes sense I guess. Navigation would be for sea ships.
-
Astrogation is a word? Makes sense I guess. Navigation would be for sea ships.
You know, I think astrogation is actually more of a classic science fiction term, and not an actual real world science term. :-[ Too much Heinlein, Asimov etc. I suspect! :)
-
The first "real" SF book I read was Heinlein's "Starman Jones", where the protagonist runs away from home to join the Astrogators Guild. I was 9, so I always took the word for granted. :)
-
The first "real" SF book I read was Heinlein's "Starman Jones", where the protagonist runs away from home to join the Astrogators Guild. I was 9, so I always took the word for granted. :)
According to wikipedia
"Astrogation (a portmanteau of astronomical navigation), is the fictional navigation of spacecraft in interplanetary or interstellar travel. The term was first used by science fiction writers in the first half of the 20th century. An early usage is in the 1953 Robert A. Heinlein novel, Starman Jones."
-
My brother-in-law served aboard Perry-class frigates as a navigator. And they just called him 'gator. Methinks we can just drop the prefix.
-
My brother-in-law served aboard Perry-class frigates as a navigator. And they just called him 'gator. Methinks we can just drop the prefix.
Later Gator. ::)
-
Astrogation is a word? Makes sense I guess. Navigation would be for sea ships.
You know, I think astrogation is actually more of a classic science fiction term, and not an actual real world science term. :-[ Too much Heinlein, Asimov etc. I suspect! :)
Hmph. Next thing, you're going to tell me that Stellar Cartography isn't real, either.
-
My brother-in-law served aboard Perry-class frigates as a navigator. And they just called him 'gator. Methinks we can just drop the prefix.
In Australian ships the CO will normally call them 'Pilot', though you still see plenty of ball caps with 'NAV' or 'NAVO' sewn into the rear.
Regarding the term, we called it astronavigation. This was both as an aircraft navigator and a seaman officer.
-
What do they call harbor pilots in Australia to distinguish them from the 'pilots' who are really navigators? Are warships required to have harbor pilots?
-
When I was in the USN sub force we called the navigator "Nav". We would take on a local pilot (navigator familiar with the area) when entering a port other than our homeport. He or she was called the pilot.
Ranb
-
When I was in the USN sub force we called the navigator "Nav". We would take on a local pilot (navigator familiar with the area) when entering a port other than our homeport. He or she was called the pilot.
Ranb
Fairly normal operations of commercial ships entering or leaving a port.
-
What do they call harbor pilots in Australia to distinguish them from the 'pilots' who are really navigators? Are warships required to have harbor pilots?
Regarding taking on a pilot, that was up to the local rules for the port in question.
The Nav was still the Navigating Officer, but the COs tended to call them pilot. If there were a harbour pilot on the bridge then the CO (and everyone else) would ensure that the harbour pilot was called either 'Pilot" or by their name (e.g. Mr Johns).
-
When I was in the USN sub force we called the navigator "Nav". We would take on a local pilot (navigator familiar with the area) when entering a port other than our homeport. He or she was called the pilot.
Ranb
So the navigator would called 'nav', which makes an astrogator...erm..
-
So the navigator would called 'nav', which makes an astrogator...erm..
The Jetsons' dog?
-
When I was in the USN sub force we called the navigator "Nav". We would take on a local pilot (navigator familiar with the area) when entering a port other than our homeport. He or she was called the pilot.
Ranb
I didn't know you were in subs, too. Have you mentioned it before on here? Which boat(s) did you serve on? What was your rate?
-
I probably mentioned it some time in the past. I was an MM/ELT.
Tautog 84-87
Jacksonville 87-89
Wm H. Bates 92-95
Cavalla 95-97
Ranb
-
I probably mentioned it some time in the past. I was an MM/ELT.
Tautog 84-87
Jacksonville 87-89
Wm H. Bates 92-95
Cavalla 95-97
Ranb
Why do I know the Tautog? Something about her is famous and I can't put my finger on it...
-
Tautog collided with a Soviet Echo class submarine in 1970.
-
Tautog collided with a Soviet Echo class submarine in 1970.
Why do I know the Tautog? Something about her is famous and I can't put my finger on it...
Wouldn't that be infamous?
-
I probably mentioned it some time in the past. I was an MM/ELT.
Tautog 84-87
Jacksonville 87-89
Wm H. Bates 92-95
Cavalla 95-97
Ranb
Wasn't that the same class submarine as the USS Dallas depicted in the film "The Hunt for Red October" and at around the same time the movie was filmed?
-
Wasn't that the same class submarine as the USS Dallas depicted in the film "The Hunt for Red October" and at around the same time the movie was filmed?
Not only the same class, but as sisterly as boats get: SSN-699 and SSN-700.
-
The submarine used in the movie (playing the Dallas in the scene with the helicopter transfer) was USS Houston. When filming a scene with any military vehicles, the production company is required to pay for the fuel and lubricants used by the vehicle (known as the POL - petrolium, oil & lubricants - expenses). Since the Houston was nuclear powered, in the scene with the submarine and the helicopter the POL expenses for the helo was three times more than the submarine.
-
I probably mentioned it some time in the past. I was an MM/ELT.
Tautog 84-87
Jacksonville 87-89
Wm H. Bates 92-95
Cavalla 95-97
Ranb
I came in an undesignated seaman then struck QM.
Ranger CV-61 82-85
Plunger 85-88
CSG-7/CTF-74 in Yokosuka 88-91
Went into the reserves and drilled on the Wadsworth FFG-9 93-99 then went back active
Providence 00-02
Seawolf 02-04
Augusta 04-07 my Anav tour
Were you on the Cavalla when they merged QM, IC, and Nav ET?
-
Went into the reserves and drilled on the Wadsworth FFG-9 93-99 then went back active
Back to "Red October", the Navy frigate that takes the crew off near the end was called the Reuben James (a nod to Tom Clancy's 2nd book, "Red Storm Rising"), but was actually played by two other ships: My ship, USS Gary which fired the shot across Red October's bow and rescued the men in the rafts (including me, who was on Gary from 88-91 and was one of the crew members hired as Russian crew extras), and your ship, USS Wadsworth, which was the one filmed next to the big explosion at the climax of the battle.
8)
-
I think the merger happened after I left the boat in 97. I broke my leg and was on LIMDU for many months prior to going on shore duty.
Ranb
-
including me, who was on Gary from 88-91
A quartermaster friend of mine from the Ranger served on the Gary around that time, Donald Cook. Did you know him?
-
The name doesn't ring a bell. I checked my cruise books from the '88 & '89-'90 deployments and couldn't find him. I left in January of '91, so he might have come aboard after.
-
Tautog collided with a Soviet Echo class submarine in 1970.
Ah! Blind Man's Bluff - great book. Got it down from the shelf when I saw your reply.
-
Don't suppose anyone served in Swan, Kanimbla, Ipswich or Betano? 8-)
-
What about Unity, Claribel, Assyrian, Stormcock, and Golden Gain. ?
-
Back to "Red October"...
Just this week, I was inbound on the Glenn Highway, 'enjoying' my commute to work, when a truck towing a middling-sized fishing vessel approached me on the outbound side. The boat's name was "One Ping Only". Gave me quite the chuckle.
-
Back to "Red October"...
Just this week, I was inbound on the Glenn Highway, 'enjoying' my commute to work, when a truck towing a middling-sized fishing vessel approached me on the outbound side. The boat's name was "One Ping Only". Gave me quite the chuckle.
lol. Must be his way of paying tribute to a favorite movie of his.
My 15 year old daughter actually brought up the topic today about a game based on Rainbow Six and then when she looked up Tom Clancey, noticed he was an author(she loves reading). I mentioned about "The Hunt for Red October" being his first book and how it pretty quickly propelled him into a household name. I'll have to see if I can find my copy and let her read it. Well, maybe after I give it a go again. It's been a couple decades at least since I read it. My favorite of all his books was "Red Storm Rising"
-
My favorite part is just where Ryan has been taken onboard the sub Dallas - and where a guy bumps a valve, and it is made from rubber foam.
-
I was reading Hunt for Red October back in 1985 shortly after I arrived to my first submarine. It was an interesting read. I remember wishing I was in Clancey's Navy; the one in which there was no field day (4 hours of cleaning in a hot engine room) GMT, division/department training, hot racking, hazing, vulcan death watches, captain's mast, COB, duty with the midwatch followed by start-up then the maneuvering watch then first watch after leaving port, watching the coners leave while us nukes had to shutdown the reactor prior to going on liberty, ORSE, upkeep, SRE and everyone it seemed on he USS Dallas just loved being in the Navy.
Not sure how I made it 20 years.
Ranb
-
I was reading Hunt for Red October back in 1985 shortly after I arrived to my first submarine. It was an interesting read. I remember wishing I was in Clancey's Navy; the one in which there was no field day (4 hours of cleaning in a hot engine room) GMT, division/department training, hot racking, hazing, vulcan death watches, captain's mast, COB, duty with the midwatch followed by start-up then the maneuvering watch then first watch after leaving port, watching the coners leave while us nukes had to shutdown the reactor prior to going on liberty, ORSE, upkeep, SRE and everyone it seemed on he USS Dallas just loved being in the Navy.
Not sure how I made it 20 years.
Ranb
Since he never served a day on a submarine, it's not too surprising to read that. Not that I have, just saying. Still from all accounts he did a pretty phenomenal job with the technical details.
How about Edward Beach's "Cold is the Sea"? I read it way back in 1978 when it first came out. I had read his first 2 books "Run Silent, Run Deep" and "Dust on the Sea" so it was very interesting to get his perspective on nuclear subs. THey had one chapter that described the first question of the Captains nuke qualification test and my mind was a bit boggled by it I can tell you. Probably still would be if I read it again. Lot of respect for you guys behind the running of those beauties.
-
I was reading Hunt for Red October back in 1985 shortly after I arrived to my first submarine. It was an interesting read. I remember wishing I was in Clancey's Navy; the one in which there was no field day (4 hours of cleaning in a hot engine room) GMT, division/department training, hot racking, hazing, vulcan death watches, captain's mast, COB, duty with the midwatch followed by start-up then the maneuvering watch then first watch after leaving port, watching the coners leave while us nukes had to shutdown the reactor prior to going on liberty, ORSE, upkeep, SRE and everyone it seemed on he USS Dallas just loved being in the Navy.
Not sure how I made it 20 years.
Ranb
But it did mention many things that were not widely known. I remember reading a few things in there and thinking "But I'm not allowed to discuss that!", SCI kind of stuff.
-
"How Cold is the Sea". Hmmmmm. I spent most of my time on subs in Hawaii, cold seas were something most of us in the engineering department looked forward to. Low seawater injection temperature made a huge difference in the comfort (or lack thereof) of the engineering spaces. As far as I know, cold seas were something only the diesel boat crews and surface Sailors disliked. Some of the coners and officers on the nuke boats did have to occasionally stand watch on the bridge exposed to the elements though.
For the junior enlisted nukes who stood watch in the hot engine rooms (their job was pushing the forward end) so the officers and coners could be awarded medals for bringing the fight to our enemies, Clancey's navy was alien to them.
Ranb
-
"How Cold is the Sea". Hmmmmm. I spent most of my time on subs in Hawaii, cold seas were something most of us in the engineering department looked forward to. Low seawater injection temperature made a huge difference in the comfort (or lack thereof) of the engineering spaces. As far as I know, cold seas were something only the diesel boat crews and surface Sailors disliked. Some of the coners and officers on the nuke boats did have to occasionally stand watch on the bridge exposed to the elements though.
For the junior enlisted nukes who stood watch in the hot engine rooms (their job was pushing the forward end) so the officers and coners could be awarded medals for bringing the fight to our enemies, Clancey's navy was alien to them.
Ranb
I think you completely misinterpreted my question. I was asking about the book by Edward Beach titled "Cold is the Sea"
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Sea-Novel-Bluejacket-Books/dp/1591140560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462807893&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+is+the+sea
-
"Vulcan Death Watch"
Even after 20 years I laugh when I hear it.
-
I think you completely misinterpreted my question. I was asking about the book by Edward Beach titled "Cold is the Sea"
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Sea-Novel-Bluejacket-Books/dp/1591140560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462807893&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+is+the+sea
Sorry about that, I haven't read that book. I was commenting on the title and how it might be a dislike of cold seas.
"Vulcan Death Watch"
Even after 20 years I laugh when I hear it.
Even today I think the 0000-0600, 0600-1000, 1000-1400, 1400-1800, 1800-2400 watches on a 3-section rotation was elitist; designed to get maximum work out of the junior enlisted/officers while the senior officers were still allowed to enjoy their 24 hour rotation. Imagine standing watch from midnight to 6am, drilling for the next 8 hours as monitor/casualty assistance team, then going back on watch for 4 hours to be drilled again. :) When your down time is 18-24, you'll sometimes find it filled with training and other activities that take priority over sleep.
But on the other hand there is no reveille on a sub like there is on surface ships.
Ranb
-
I think you completely misinterpreted my question. I was asking about the book by Edward Beach titled "Cold is the Sea"
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Sea-Novel-Bluejacket-Books/dp/1591140560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462807893&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+is+the+sea
Sorry about that, I haven't read that book. I was commenting on the title and how it might be a dislike of cold seas.
Ranb
Might want to give it a go. Be interesting to hear how it compares with Clancy's book from somebody better qualified them me. It's been awhile since I read both but I felt that "Cold is the Sea" came out on top.
-
Ed Beach of course commanded the USS Triton on the first submerged circumnavigation.