ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: Zakalwe on October 17, 2013, 05:29:38 AM
-
http://www.space.com/23202-china-moon-rover-december-launch.html
Finally, it looks like someone else is going to soft land on the Moon. I wonder when the woo-woo brigade will start to call "HOAX"?
-
Pretty soon, I bet. The obvious resemblance to the Apollo LM will certainly not go unnoticed.
-
It's obviously a fake...it's made of tinfoil!
::)
-
Given previous experience, before it even leaves the ground. Depending on the particular CTs to which particular conspiracists subscribe, charges of "the data will be faked"
may will appear as soon as they become aware of it. Expect it to become more widespread if skeptics start using it to debunk Apollo stuff.
-
Everyone knows that without the right documents, it cannot get through the Van Allen belts.
-
Everyone knows that without the right documents, it cannot get through the Van Allen belts.
;D
-
I'm just wondering... have any of the HB crowd ever come up with a design of what a lunar lander should look like? Most of them still seem to be stuck on the old von Braun giant surface-to-surface rocket.
I don't think I've ever seen any of them attempt it, but it sure would be fun picking it apart. Of course, any flaws we pointed out would be taken as evidence that lunar landings are obviously impossible.
-
I'm just wondering... have any of the HB crowd ever come up with a design of what a lunar lander should look like? Most of them still seem to be stuck on the old von Braun giant surface-to-surface rocket.
I don't think I've ever seen any of them attempt it, but it sure would be fun picking it apart. Of course, any flaws we pointed out would be taken as evidence that lunar landings are obviously impossible.
I doubt it. The modus operandi for the majority of HBs that I've come across is to try and pick holes in the evidence (normally based on supposition and errors). They never offer an alternative, probably because to do so would require solid knowledge. If they had solid knowledge, then they'd be able to debunk their own hoax hypothesis.
The exception to this was Patrick Tekeli. Yes he was wildly off the mark, but he appeared to have read and digested a lot of the archives.
-
I'll give Patrick credit for actually doing original work, rather magnificent in its own unique weirdness. Also, he was willing to try to defend it. Much more invigorating to debate than the typical "it was HOACKS, see this youtube video proves it" seagull poster.
It seems that the CT community has now "matured" (so to speak) into accepting the "Everything's a Hoax" theory. Absolutely *nothing* is as it seems, and this can be assumed without even looking at the evidence first. We are all living in our own Truman Show.
-
I'm just wondering... have any of the HB crowd ever come up with a design of what a lunar lander should look like?
Without any infrastructure it's really hard to come up with anything that doesn't look a lot like the Apollo LM (or the Russian LK).
I have thought a bit about how a lander would look if we pursued the goal of reusing it for more than one landing. It could only have a single stage, and it would have to be refueled on the lunar surface, in lunar orbit, or in both places.
I've long thought that our emphasis on reusable launchers was misplaced, though I think SpaceX has as good a chance of anybody of finally making that idea economically practical. Much of the cost of an Apollo mission came from throwing away a perfectly good LM after each landing just because the tanks were empty. We need to figure out how to refuel these spacecraft with propellants made somewhere other than the bottom of the earth's gravity well.
-
I've long thought that our emphasis on reusable launchers was misplaced, though I think SpaceX has as good a chance of anybody of finally making that idea economically practical. Much of the cost of an Apollo mission came from throwing away a perfectly good LM after each landing just because the tanks were empty. We need to figure out how to refuel these spacecraft with propellants made somewhere other than the bottom of the earth's gravity well.
The engine bell had an ablative surface instead of being actively cooled by the fuel. So the engine would need to be changed, as well as allowing refuelling. And there's the rub...doing all of that increased the weight, which increases the fuel load needed to get it off the ground in the first place. Which means that you need a bigger booster....
Expensive as it was, it was probably cheaper to implement a "throw-away" policy. Certainly to hit Kennedy's timescale the designers had no other choice. It had to be as simple and as light as possible otherwise they'd never have done in within the decade.
Fast. Cheap. Safe. Pick any two, but you can't have all three. A fast, cheap program won't be safe. A safe, cheap program won't be cheap. And so on.
-
So the engine would need to be changed, as well as allowing refuelling.
Well...yes, though a different engine design could be used.
And the batteries would have to be recharged (or, more likely, solar panels added) and the O2 and water tanks refilled, etc, etc.
Expensive as it was, it was probably cheaper to implement a "throw-away" policy. Certainly to hit Kennedy's timescale the designers had no other choice. It had to be as simple and as light as possible otherwise they'd never have done in within the decade.
Oh, no question. But that design philosophy had already become a problem even before the Apollo program was over, considering the work required to modify the LM to support the 3-day stays of the J-missions.
-
If we were to have a reusable LM, I see no reason it's initial launch would have to be part of a crewed mission. Launching it separately would remove some of the weight restrictions and allow for a bigger and more capable LM to be built. And the cost of the extra launch would be offset by the reusability factor.
-
Well, they've successfully landed on the Moon, and congratulations to the Chinese space effort.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25356603
I shall now sit back and wait for the loons to declare it a fake. I wonder will Vincent McConnell pop up again? He seemed to have a particular flea up his ass about the Chinese efforts...
-
I've already seen one "there are no stars" comment.
-
<HB Mode ON>
Of course it's faked. The US and Russia, however, won't blow the whistle because China didn't blow the whilstle they faked their missions; if they did point out it was faked, China would do the same to them. Since none of them want to lose face, they keep silent about each others fakery.
<HB Mode OFF>
-
Did it land close enough to any of the Apollo sites that the rover could pay them a visit?
-
Did it land close enough to any of the Apollo sites that the rover could pay them a visit?
Nowhere near. It landed in the Sinus Iridium. The nearest Apollo site would A15 at Hadley Rille, roughly 1000Km away.
-
Nowhere near. It landed in the Sinus Iridium. The nearest Apollo site would A15 at Hadley Rille, roughly 1000Km away.
It actually landed in the Mare Imbrium, but that doesn't alter the situation re other sites.
-
Nowhere near.
Well that's disappointing.
-
That's a 200 day drive, if it goes non-stop. Doubt it would last that long. What's the longest endurance of an off-world rover? Distance and time?
-
The Opportunity rover has driven almost 40km since 2004. So I doubt 1000km is a realistic goal for the Chinese lunar rover.
-
Nowhere near. It landed in the Sinus Iridium. The nearest Apollo site would A15 at Hadley Rille, roughly 1000Km away.
It actually landed in the Mare Imbrium, but that doesn't alter the situation re other sites.
Yes, most websites are saying Sinus Iridium but the location of the landing site is 44.1260°N 19.5014°W. Thats the Mare Imbrium, and the nearest named crater is Laplace F.
-
The Opportunity rover has driven almost 40km since 2004. So I doubt 1000km is a realistic goal for the Chinese lunar rover.
Impressive.
-
That's a 200 day drive, if it goes non-stop. Doubt it would last that long. What's the longest endurance of an off-world rover? Distance and time?
According to Leonard David's article on space.com, Jade Rabbit is designed to function for 12 months.
-
I couldn't help but notice how today's photos show non-parallel shadows. That raises an intersting question to the HB crowd who want the Yutu to discredit Apollo. Also where the hell is the blast crater??
-
The Opportunity rover has driven almost 40km since 2004. So I doubt 1000km is a realistic goal for the Chinese lunar rover.
Lunokhod 2 went slightly further, but in a much shorter time. The lunar environment is probably a lot more hostile than Mars for a rover, due to the greater temperature range and the abrasive lunar dust.
-
Here's footage of the descent and touchdown
Ohh, there's no stars. And there's no blast crater.
::) ::)
-
Here's footage of the descent and touchdown
Nice video. I really enjoyed the self similar look of the random pattern of craters on surface. As small craters became big craters during the descent the even smaller ones came into view to replace them.
-
You beat me to it! I was also going to say that this was a beautiful illustration of the fractal nature of the surface. It does make it hard to know your altitude until the dust starts blowing around.
And there's no visible plume.
And no crater.
I can't wait to hear what Hunchbacked, Jarrah White and all their sycophants have to say about this...
-
I can't wait to hear what Hunchbacked, Jarrah White and all their sycophants have to say about this...
https://www.youtube.com/user/hunchbacked/discussion
hunchbacked
1 day ago
+Kris de Valle
There is no chinese rover on the moon.
Looks like HB is going for it's a fake too.
-
I'm just wondering... have any of the HB crowd ever come up with a design of what a lunar lander should look like? Most of them still seem to be stuck on the old von Braun giant surface-to-surface rocket.
If you wanted a retro aesthetic you could chose between a giant streamlined tail-sitter (a la Tintin, Disney, Destination Moon, and a hundred SF movies, programs and book/magazine covers) or an early von Braun (giant unstreamlined tail-sitter). So maybe they really do expect something like these
http://www.yesterland.com/moonrocket.html
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Scientist-Wernher-Von-Braun-with-Model-of-Moon-Rocket-He-Designed-Posters_i5170001_.htm
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/lunarlan.html
http://gamedesignreviews.com/scrapbook/tintin-on-the-moon/
http://horrornews.net/48665/film-review-destination-moon-1950/
Of course if they were clever (an oxymoron, I know), they could use a horizontal lander, which is an excellent configuration for large landers with heavy payloads.
http://timzero4.deviantart.com/art/SPACE-1999-EAGLE-BLENDER-3D-176507235
-
I couldn't help but notice how today's photos show non-parallel shadows. That raises an intersting question to the HB crowd who want the Yutu to discredit Apollo. Also where the hell is the blast crater??
Sorry to resurrect a 4 month old post, but hasn't He Who Shall Not Be Named used the Chang'e 3 data to 'discredit' Apollo, where the former shows no blast crater and parallel shadows. Invoke one argument for Apollo but not the other. Geeze!
-
I loved the YouTube video by BertieSlack .
-
I couldn't help but notice how today's photos show non-parallel shadows. That raises an intersting question to the HB crowd who want the Yutu to discredit Apollo. Also where the hell is the blast crater??
Sorry to resurrect a 4 month old post, but hasn't He Who Shall Not Be Named used the Chang'e 3 data to 'discredit' Apollo, where the former shows no blast crater and parallel shadows. Invoke one argument for Apollo but not the other. Geeze!
Ya gotta love the a la carte approach to conspiracy theorism! The handiest part is, if later on if HWSNBN wants to discredit Chang'e 3, I suspect he'll have no qualms about using NASA data to do so! Win-Win! :o
-
I couldn't help but notice how today's photos show non-parallel shadows. That raises an intersting question to the HB crowd who want the Yutu to discredit Apollo. Also where the hell is the blast crater??
Sorry to resurrect a 4 month old post, but hasn't He Who Shall Not Be Named used the Chang'e 3 data to 'discredit' Apollo, where the former shows no blast crater and parallel shadows. Invoke one argument for Apollo but not the other. Geeze!
HWSNBN(good coin) used the rover's particle x-ray spectrometer readings indicating a different composition than that of Apollo moon rocks. I won't print the percentages but they are there to look at. I've not done a comparison, but maybe someone else has looked at the comparison and can post results.
-
I couldn't help but notice how today's photos show non-parallel shadows. That raises an intersting question to the HB crowd who want the Yutu to discredit Apollo. Also where the hell is the blast crater??
Sorry to resurrect a 4 month old post, but hasn't He Who Shall Not Be Named used the Chang'e 3 data to 'discredit' Apollo, where the former shows no blast crater and parallel shadows. Invoke one argument for Apollo but not the other. Geeze!
HWSNBN(good coin) used the rover's particle x-ray spectrometer readings indicating a different composition than that of Apollo moon rocks. I won't print the percentages but they are there to look at. I've not done a comparison, but maybe someone else has looked at the comparison and can post results.
He expects rocks 1000 km away from the nearest Apollo site to have the same composition?
-
In his perverted mind, the fact that a difference exist "proves" his contention that Apollo "was" a hoax. Only critical evaluation of the data would allow for differences to exist. From listening to many videos, not just YT, I have the understanding Oxygen isotope ratios is similar. I'm not sure the lander had the ability to measure this commonality.
-
In his perverted mind, the fact that a difference exist "proves" his contention that Apollo "was" a hoax. Only critical evaluation of the data would allow for differences to exist. From listening to many videos, not just YT, I have the understanding Oxygen isotope ratios is similar. I'm not sure the lander had the ability to measure this commonality.
Yutu carries a APX, so will provide whole rock chemsitry data only. There should be a diversity of compositions, as the landing site is close to the boundary between high and low Ti mare basalts, and there is highland material not that far away. There have been a couple of papers, I will see if I can find them when I am next at a good library (the only Yutu paper I have is the very nice one on the GPR). There is also an IR spectrometer, providing mineralogy.
-
I loved the YouTube video by BertieSlack .
Thanks, but it pretty much wrote itself. There's some interesting Chang'e 3 news news from La-La Land. The moon hoax theory's champion idiot, Expattaffy1, has just claimed that Chang'e 3 was faked...........by NASA. Apparently this was done to trick the world into believing that landing on the moon is possible at all.
-
I loved the YouTube video by BertieSlack .
Thanks, but it pretty much wrote itself. There's some interesting Chang'e 3 news news from La-La Land. The moon hoax theory's champion idiot, Expattaffy1, has just claimed that Chang'e 3 was faked...........by NASA. Apparently this was done to trick the world into believing that landing on the moon is possible at all.
I haven't seen this one, but it would fit his perverted half-mind(thanks to Abaddon).
ETA:
Are you still thinking of a video concerning the metadata information?
-
Are you still thinking of a video concerning the metadata information?
I've got a video in production that will mention it. I'd like to get your opinion before I upload, so I'll post it unlisted when it's ready. I should be posting a quick video about Taffy's Chang'e 3 claim tonight.
-
Are you still thinking of a video concerning the metadata information?
I've got a video in production that will mention it. I'd like to get your opinion before I upload, so I'll post it unlisted when it's ready. I should be posting a quick video about Taffy's Chang'e 3 claim tonight.
Let me know, you have my address.
-
He expects rocks 1000 km away from the nearest Apollo site to have the same composition?
So wait, China finds a rock type that is slightly different to the Apollo ones and this is proof that there aren't any Apollo ones for them to work out a difference?
And NASA did this? Man are they getting sloppy...