ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: onebigmonkey on July 17, 2015, 04:54:31 PM
-
Following bewaremouse's nonsense over at infowars, i decided to get my teeth into the alleged Apollo 20 mission videos to see how they were done.
I know there are plenty of websites and youtube videos that have had a go, but I think I'm doing it slightly differently, and (I hope) pretty much putting it in the bin.
Bewaremouse's contention is that it must be real, because the video features an apparently genuine CM and LM and how could anyone go to that sort of trouble to fake it just for a youtube video. The first chunk of what I've done focuses on that, and I think we can safely say that they are genuine CM images, from Apollo 17.
http://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/apollo20.html
Next up, the LM footage and the supposed orbit the mission used (according to the film across the Tsiolkovskiy region, it's Polar!).
-
So, let me get this right.....The latest HB guff is to claim that a mission that only happened in a Hollywood set IS real, and the missions that really happened were faked in a Hollywood set?
WTF????? Are these headbangers deliberately contrary???? ::)
-
WTF????? Are these headbangers deliberately contrary???? ::)
That was more-or-less my thought, possibly a different set of words. ;D
-
It's a different angle to the hoax argument, one that is quite happy that we went to the moon, just not when we said we did or where we said we did. They get all the benefits of not having to think too hard in challenging the science, and still get to call NASA the evil bad guys!
-
I though the program ended in Apollo 17...
-
It did and it didn't. Surplus hardware was used in the Skylab-programme.
-
So according to these people, what happened to Apollos 18 and 19?
-
Well, of course, Apollo-Soyuz was the next Apollo flight after Apollo17, so I suppose you could argue that it was Apollo 18 from a certain standpoint.
-
Well, of course, Apollo-Soyuz was the next Apollo flight after Apollo17, so I suppose you could argue that it was Apollo 18 from a certain standpoint.
and of course the CSM used for the mission was the one earmarked for Apollo 18. :)
-
And if you are going to include all CSM flights as 'Apollo' missions, this should be 21, since it allegedly came after the last visit to Skylab.
-
Well, of course, Apollo-Soyuz was the next Apollo flight after Apollo17, so I suppose you could argue that it was Apollo 18 from a certain standpoint.
The Skylab expeditions (using modern parlance) were just as much Apollo as ASTP. Same spacecraft. Same LV.
-
Forgive the necromancy, but I was prompted to revisit this after being alerted that bewaremouse was continuing to try and get mileage out of the supposed Apollo 20 footage taken in the LM on an allegedly unscheduled TV broadcast from the far side of the moon.
I know.
While looking for other sources of the video I came across a youtube channel by 'TheFakingHoaxer', who cheerfully produces absolutely brilliant UFO and other movies, openly revealing how they were done.
Despite his stating clearly that they are fakes, I have seen his stuff used and claimed as genuine - including by bewaremouse and elsewhere - as part of the entirely fictional Apollo 20 mission.
Videos like this one:
and this one:
(Check out his Mars one as well - it really is cleverly done).
Anyhow - what I need is more info on the LM interior used in the Apollo 20 video. Here's a composite I made of it:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2yy42tv.jpg)
There is a broad similarity with the composite kicking around of Aldrin in the LM, but it isn't exactly the same.
There are a number of things wrong in the sequence, not least the 'astronaut' tossing a camera around just like many genuine ones have done in cislunar zero gravity videos, but clearly in Earth gravity conditions, the fake alien seems to be superimposed, and the zooming to exterior shots contain very obvious fade edits.
Notice also the strange material under the LM window which looks as though it is in the distance somewhere, and also the detailing on the DSKY panel, which is wrong.
It is not (as far as I can tell) a reproduction of any known LM photos, based on the footage available and the pre-launch photos taken to document the interiors. My feeling is that it is either a display model they've hijacked, but none of the ones I've found on the web show the same windows, light shades, camera mountings, DSKY, dial positions etc etc
Or they made one themselves.
Any suggestions?
-
Are people this stupid in believing that any of these are real?
-
Are people this stupid in believing that any of these are real?
Yes.
There are even more stupid people out there who, when the fakery is pointed out to them, will argue that it is a smokescreen designed to discredit the truth about Aliens. So depending on which UFO nut you speak to it is either a genuine video showing UFO and alien activity, or it is a fake proving UFO and Alien activity. There are number of pro-UFO sites that acknowledge that it is a fake, but that it is so elaborate and must have taken so much effort to do that there must be some official involvement to produce it.
I have come across one site (http://forgetomori.com/2008/aliens/an-alien-with-boobies-and-floating-torsos/) that spots what it believes is poor compositing in the video superimposing the human figure, but it is possible that the effect is from a shadow, so I think that one's debatable. That site, and others, identifies an artist by the name of Thierry Speth as being responsible, but he doesn't appear to be anywhere online today.
The way that the model alien appears to move is very suggestive of a composite movie, and the techniques used in the other parts of the film suggest a use of large photographic prints with adornments to give an illusion of depth. This may also be how the LM interior was created, so the question is: which photograph was used?!
-
Perhaps it was composite of several internal LM views instead of a single?
-
Possibly AS17-163-24150.
The lunar surface pics are from Apollo 15.
-
And for the inspiration for the "alien female", look no further than the cover of Emerson Lake and Palmer's album "Brain Salad Surgery" designed by none other than H. R. Giger which he in turn based on his partner at the time.
-
Possibly AS17-163-24150.
The lunar surface pics are from Apollo 15.
That's for the CSM footage, which I already shredded :D
-
Possibly AS17-163-24150.
The lunar surface pics are from Apollo 15.
That's for the CSM footage, which I already shredded :D
Was it yourself who spotted that the CM hatch hinges were in the fully open position? I couldn't remember who that was.
-
Possibly AS17-163-24150.
The lunar surface pics are from Apollo 15.
That's for the CSM footage, which I already shredded :D
Was it yourself who spotted that the CM hatch hinges were in the fully open position? I couldn't remember who that was.
it was :)
I've updated my page on it, for what it's worth.
-
Forgive the necromancy, but I was prompted to revisit this after being alerted that bewaremouse was continuing to try and get mileage out of the supposed Apollo 20 footage taken in the LM on an allegedly unscheduled TV broadcast from the far side of the moon.
Apologies for prompting this, I know how these things grind when they get a foothold in your brain. I am just sorry I can't be more helpful on your quest, I have had a nose around but I feel I am lumbering around in a subject that you have a far better knowledge of..
-
Forgive the necromancy, but I was prompted to revisit this after being alerted that bewaremouse was continuing to try and get mileage out of the supposed Apollo 20 footage taken in the LM on an allegedly unscheduled TV broadcast from the far side of the moon.
Apologies for prompting this, I know how these things grind when they get a foothold in your brain. I am just sorry I can't be more helpful on your quest, I have had a nose around but I feel I am lumbering around in a subject that you have a far better knowledge of..
lol - don't worry about it, I feel as though I've taken it as far as it can go now anyway, which closes off a section of 'stuff I've been meaning to do'. There's a whole chunk of internet that has been dissecting this video in one form or another for years now without coming to any real conclusion (other than that it's bollocks), and hopefully I've been able to add something to it.
I just wish I could be bothered to trawl through the rodent's infowars silliness to find the video he posted that is by the 'TheFakingHoaxer' guy - he's definitely linked to something that featured the fake towers in the background of the Apollo 15 LRV and claimed NASA bad guys.
-
My apologies for bringing this thread up again, but...
Is there any truth to the statement that "A) F1 clusters were regularly tested and launched from Vandenberg, and B) Site security is such that it's almost impossible to view clearly enough to positively identify any specific launch vehicle."
I saw this claim and I simply cannot imagine how anyone could believe that Saturns were launched from Vandenberg. I thought that the facilities there for large-scale launches weren't built until the Shuttle program, and that the base was never considered for Apollo launches, primarily for trajectory reasons.
-
My apologies for bringing this thread up again, but...
Is there any truth to the statement that "A) F1 clusters were regularly tested and launched from Vandenberg, and B) Site security is such that it's almost impossible to view clearly enough to positively identify any specific launch vehicle."
I saw this claim and I simply cannot imagine how anyone could believe that Saturns were launched from Vandenberg. I thought that the facilities there for large-scale launches weren't built until the Shuttle program, and that the base was never considered for Apollo launches, primarily for trajectory reasons.
No. Even the Shuttle launch facility was abandoned before ever becoming operational.
Besides which statements A and B are mutually exclusive.
-
My apologies for bringing this thread up again, but...
Is there any truth to the statement that "A) F1 clusters were regularly tested and launched from Vandenberg, and B) Site security is such that it's almost impossible to view clearly enough to positively identify any specific launch vehicle."
I saw this claim and I simply cannot imagine how anyone could believe that Saturns were launched from Vandenberg. I thought that the facilities there for large-scale launches weren't built until the Shuttle program, and that the base was never considered for Apollo launches, primarily for trajectory reasons.
No. Even the Shuttle launch facility was abandoned before ever becoming operational.
Besides which statements A and B are mutually exclusive.
Okay, you say so. That's good enough for me, on this particular forum, but what facts can be presented to disprove it?
I saw once where some guy calculated the impact points of the first and second stages of all the Saturn V launches, and if they'd come from Vandenberg all the first stages would have impacted somewhere in Arizona, and all the second stages would have impacted somewhere in North Carolina. Except, I don't have any idea how to do that kind of math. I'm a history professor. :o I wouldn't even know where to start.
Also, I have read some news articles where people from as far away as Columbia, SC and Savannah, GA both saw contrails from Apollo 17s night launch, around 12:40am or so, and a Time article saying that it was visible from the North Carolina coast.
So given this, and how densely populated the area around Vandenberg is, (Santa Barbara County alone was 277,000 in 1972) Would it just not be possible that a launch of a vehicle that size would not be seen? How do you prove something like that?
-
Santa Barbara County is not far from LA. It strikes me as not unlikely that the entire population of Los Angeles County would be aware of an Apollo launch from Vandenburg. Also, I'm pretty sure the Amtrak lines run right past the launch facility.
-
Okay, you say so. That's good enough for me, on this particular forum, but what facts can be presented to disprove it?
Cannot prove a negative. I find it amusing that you have fallen for this trap despite everything posted on here. If someone makes the affirmative claim that F1 launches occurred at VAB then it is up to them to them to demonstrate it. Nevertheless, here are all known launches and vehicles.
http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm
Somehow, a Saturn V went unseen because...reasons.
I saw once where some guy calculated the impact points of the first and second stages of all the Saturn V launches, and if they'd come from Vandenberg all the first stages would have impacted somewhere in Arizona, and all the second stages would have impacted somewhere in North Carolina. Except, I don't have any idea how to do that kind of math. I'm a history professor. :o I wouldn't even know where to start.
That is more a function of politics than maths. The US planned their landings to occur in places where they had control just as the Russians plan their landings to occur in the steppes. Hell, Soyuz still smacks down in the steppes to this day. It is not a matter of math, or orbits or even spacecraft. It is a matter of where you prefer the spacecraft to land by choice.
Also, I have read some news articles where people from as far away as Columbia, SC and Savannah, GA both saw contrails from Apollo 17s night launch, around 12:40am or so, and a Time article saying that it was visible from the North Carolina coast.
Simple geometry gets you there. They were ascending on the biggest rocket ever to the furthest distance manned flight ever reached.
So given this, and how densely populated the area around Vandenberg is, (Santa Barbara County alone was 277,000 in 1972) Would it just not be possible that a launch of a vehicle that size would not be seen? How do you prove something like that?
Do not accept the reversal of the burden of proof. If the claim is that it could be concealed in any way, then the burden of proof rests with the claimant to demonstrate that it could be so concealed. It is a commonplace tactic of the deranged loons to reverse the burden of proof. Don't fall for it. If they claim covert Saturn launches at VAB, then it is on them to show that such occurred, not for you to show that such never happened.
-
Would the Saturn V have been enough to preform a moon mission going out east to west and all the inefficiencies that entails?
-
Santa Barbara County is not far from LA. It strikes me as not unlikely that the entire population of Los Angeles County would be aware of an Apollo launch from Vandenburg. Also, I'm pretty sure the Amtrak lines run right past the launch facility.
They Hired David Copperield to hide everything! ::)
-
Santa Barbara County is not far from LA. It strikes me as not unlikely that the entire population of Los Angeles County would be aware of an Apollo launch from Vandenburg. Also, I'm pretty sure the Amtrak lines run right past the launch facility.
They Hired David Copperield to hide everything! ::)
I actually know how he did the famous 'hide the statue of liberty' trick. Like many of the best tricks, it's simple, dead simple in principle, and all around ingenious. And, as if it needs to be said, it would not work for this.
-
Santa Barbara County is not far from LA. It strikes me as not unlikely that the entire population of Los Angeles County would be aware of an Apollo launch from Vandenburg. Also, I'm pretty sure the Amtrak lines run right past the launch facility.
They Hired David Copperield to hide everything! ::)
I actually know how he did the famous 'hide the statue of liberty' trick. Like many of the best tricks, it's simple, dead simple in principle, and all around ingenious. And, as if it needs to be said, it would not work for this.
My father was a stage magician, and I inherited. Both he and I found Copperfield to be irritating in extremis. Both of us much preferred illusions which could be performed right under your nose. This "bigger is better" malarkey annoyed the bejeebers out of both of us. Sadly, he has shuffled of this mortal coil, but I continue the tradition and carry some illusions with me whenever I attend dinner at friends, things you can do right in front of their eyes on their place mat.
At some point, before I in turn shuffle of this mortal coil myself, I will pass on what I have learnt to my kids, but today is not that day.
-
Okay, you say so. That's good enough for me, on this particular forum, but what facts can be presented to disprove it?
Cannot prove a negative. I find it amusing that you have fallen for this trap despite everything posted on here. If someone makes the affirmative claim that F1 launches occurred at VAB then it is up to them to them to demonstrate it. Nevertheless, here are all known launches and vehicles.
http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm)
Somehow, a Saturn V went unseen because...reasons.
I saw once where some guy calculated the impact points of the first and second stages of all the Saturn V launches, and if they'd come from Vandenberg all the first stages would have impacted somewhere in Arizona, and all the second stages would have impacted somewhere in North Carolina. Except, I don't have any idea how to do that kind of math. I'm a history professor. :o I wouldn't even know where to start.
That is more a function of politics than maths. The US planned their landings to occur in places where they had control just as the Russians plan their landings to occur in the steppes. Hell, Soyuz still smacks down in the steppes to this day. It is not a matter of math, or orbits or even spacecraft. It is a matter of where you prefer the spacecraft to land by choice.
Also, I have read some news articles where people from as far away as Columbia, SC and Savannah, GA both saw contrails from Apollo 17s night launch, around 12:40am or so, and a Time article saying that it was visible from the North Carolina coast.
Simple geometry gets you there. They were ascending on the biggest rocket ever to the furthest distance manned flight ever reached.
So given this, and how densely populated the area around Vandenberg is, (Santa Barbara County alone was 277,000 in 1972) Would it just not be possible that a launch of a vehicle that size would not be seen? How do you prove something like that?
Do not accept the reversal of the burden of proof. If the claim is that it could be concealed in any way, then the burden of proof rests with the claimant to demonstrate that it could be so concealed. It is a commonplace tactic of the deranged loons to reverse the burden of proof. Don't fall for it. If they claim covert Saturn launches at VAB, then it is on them to show that such occurred, not for you to show that such never happened.
Whoa... wait just a damn minute.... I am not some hoax nut who can be brushed off with an arrogant response. I never said I believed any of this. I know better. You've gone out of your way to be insulting, in my opinion, and I am angry as a result.
I have not fallen for anything. I'm asking for something that all of the people here have asked every hoax nut for. Evidence beyond someone's word. Nothing more. Either way, I don't give a rat's rosy red ass what you find amusing. I asked for specific information, not derision. Which, by the way, nobody has posted anything other than asides. There are no sources for additional information, no citations, and no efforts other than to say "that's impossible." I know it is, but I want to be able to know WHY it is, so that someone else can't dismiss the evidence. What's so hard to understand about that. the best way to respond to idiots expressing false opinions is with facts and valid citations. Those things that every one of us here has demanded from idiots like AwE130, Tarkus, Hunchbacked, and Neil Baker. They can't provide factual information. They don't have any to provide. In the absence of facts, hoax nuts take root. In the presence of facts, they tend to go away.
You and I, and everyone else here know that hoax nuts NEVER provide any evidence, factual or otherwise. All they ever fall back on is someone else's hoax belief. I have never accepted anything other than someone actually providing evidence I can check on my own. If one of my students puts something in a paper, or makes a statement, I require that they have citation. Chapter and verse. This situation is no different. The hoax nut is claiming that Vandenberg was the launch site for "clusters of F1 engines" and I want to respond to it with factual evidence that it just ain't so. I've noticed that when you give them factual evidence, they tend to shut up if they don't move the goal posts first.
I am fully aware that they have the burden of proof. I also have a desire to never let false information pass unchallenged. If someone is going to make a claim, and don't follow up to a request for verification, then it seems to me to be important to not let that void go unfilled, because there are dozens of other idiots out there who absolutely won't know why. I'd rather explain why and kill the thing in its tracks.
Now, can you provide the information I asked about? If not, kindly stay out of it then. There are others here who can, and who won't be so derisive about it.
-
Okay, you say so. That's good enough for me, on this particular forum, but what facts can be presented to disprove it?
Cannot prove a negative. I find it amusing that you have fallen for this trap despite everything posted on here. If someone makes the affirmative claim that F1 launches occurred at VAB then it is up to them to them to demonstrate it. Nevertheless, here are all known launches and vehicles.
http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm)
Somehow, a Saturn V went unseen because...reasons.
I saw once where some guy calculated the impact points of the first and second stages of all the Saturn V launches, and if they'd come from Vandenberg all the first stages would have impacted somewhere in Arizona, and all the second stages would have impacted somewhere in North Carolina. Except, I don't have any idea how to do that kind of math. I'm a history professor. :o I wouldn't even know where to start.
That is more a function of politics than maths. The US planned their landings to occur in places where they had control just as the Russians plan their landings to occur in the steppes. Hell, Soyuz still smacks down in the steppes to this day. It is not a matter of math, or orbits or even spacecraft. It is a matter of where you prefer the spacecraft to land by choice.
Also, I have read some news articles where people from as far away as Columbia, SC and Savannah, GA both saw contrails from Apollo 17s night launch, around 12:40am or so, and a Time article saying that it was visible from the North Carolina coast.
Simple geometry gets you there. They were ascending on the biggest rocket ever to the furthest distance manned flight ever reached.
So given this, and how densely populated the area around Vandenberg is, (Santa Barbara County alone was 277,000 in 1972) Would it just not be possible that a launch of a vehicle that size would not be seen? How do you prove something like that?
Do not accept the reversal of the burden of proof. If the claim is that it could be concealed in any way, then the burden of proof rests with the claimant to demonstrate that it could be so concealed. It is a commonplace tactic of the deranged loons to reverse the burden of proof. Don't fall for it. If they claim covert Saturn launches at VAB, then it is on them to show that such occurred, not for you to show that such never happened.
Whoa... wait just a damn minute.... I am not some hoax nut who can be brushed off with an arrogant response. I never said I believed any of this. I know better. You've gone out of your way to be insulting, in my opinion, and I am angry as a result.
I have not fallen for anything. I'm asking for something that all of the people here have asked every hoax nut for. Evidence beyond someone's word. Nothing more. Either way, I don't give a rat's rosy red ass what you find amusing. I asked for specific information, not derision. Which, by the way, nobody has posted anything other than asides. There are no sources for additional information, no citations, and no efforts other than to say "that's impossible." I know it is, but I want to be able to know WHY it is, so that someone else can't dismiss the evidence. What's so hard to understand about that. the best way to respond to idiots expressing false opinions is with facts and valid citations. Those things that every one of us here has demanded from idiots like AwE130, Tarkus, Hunchbacked, and Neil Baker. They can't provide factual information. They don't have any to provide. In the absence of facts, hoax nuts take root. In the presence of facts, they tend to go away.
You and I, and everyone else here know that hoax nuts NEVER provide any evidence, factual or otherwise. All they ever fall back on is someone else's hoax belief. I have never accepted anything other than someone actually providing evidence I can check on my own. If one of my students puts something in a paper, or makes a statement, I require that they have citation. Chapter and verse. This situation is no different. The hoax nut is claiming that Vandenberg was the launch site for "clusters of F1 engines" and I want to respond to it with factual evidence that it just ain't so. I've noticed that when you give them factual evidence, they tend to shut up if they don't move the goal posts first.
I am fully aware that they have the burden of proof. I also have a desire to never let false information pass unchallenged. If someone is going to make a claim, and don't follow up to a request for verification, then it seems to me to be important to not let that void go unfilled, because there are dozens of other idiots out there who absolutely won't know why. I'd rather explain why and kill the thing in its tracks.
All this twaddle about David Copperfield is irrelevant to the questions I asked. How would one calculate where the various stages would impact? I know that the information where they did impact in the Atlantic exists, I just have no idea where to begin to look for it. I'm sure someone else here does. If I have to drag out a map in the science department offices at my university, I'll find someone who can make the calculations.
Now, can you provide the information I asked about? If not, kindly stay out of it then. There are others here who can, and who won't be so derisive about it.
-
Whoa... wait just a damn minute.... I am not some hoax nut who can be brushed off with an arrogant response. I never said I believed any of this. I know better. You've gone out of your way to be insulting, in my opinion, and I am angry as a result.
This response seems unmerited by the post to which it is directed. Mebbe have a cup of tea and then reread it to see if it could be interpreted in a way that was not arrogant or insulting? I didn't pick up either from Abaddon's post.
-
Double post Ishkabibble?
-
I'm not an engineer, but we know how far down range the Saturn V stages impacted (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-22_Saturn_Stage_Earth_Impact.htm) when launched from Cape Canaveral, and we know these numbers are accurate since parts (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032013a.html) have been recovered from those locations. So . . . just plot from Vandenberg over the continental United States to see where, generally, they'd land. Or am I missing something?
-
Abaddon
Personally I have no problem myself in accepting a "reverse burden of proof" when I know I can smash the stupid down with reason.
In this case, "hiding Saturn V launches at Vandenberg" the notion can be dismissed with one word.... "noise"
The town of Santa Maria is only 10km away from the launch pads, and while it might be possible to hide the great big rocket by painting it black and launching at night with no lights, but you cannot hide the noise. A Saturn V rocket lifting off with its five F1 engines chucking several million pounds of thrust out the back, generates a sound level of about 90 db at that distance. That is VERY loud.. as loud as a fighter jet running at take-off power 500 metres away..... No-one in Santa Maria could have missed it.
I have a friend who used to live in Port Orange, FL a few km south of Daytona Beach and about 60km from the KSC. He once told me that and his Dad could hear the Saturn V launch and then see them soon after they launched. He also told me that then could hear and feel the rumble of Space Shuttle launches.
-
Whoa... wait just a damn minute.... I am not some hoax nut who can be brushed off with an arrogant response. I never said I believed any of this. I know better. You've gone out of your way to be insulting, in my opinion, and I am angry as a result.
I did not accuse you of any such thing. I was not insulting. I simply stuck to the facts of the matter at hand. What I did state is that you, like many of us get sucked in to the HB contentions very easily. Happens to me, you and all of us from time to time. That is the HB game. I can personally attest that the red mist has fallen over my eyes from time to time. I try to avoid it as best I can, but sometimes a HB will post something so egregious that one cannot help oneself.
By the same token, when one sees a fellow doing the same thing, one is obliged to say "Whoa, step back from the abyss, brother".
You might take a moment to read what I actually wrote when you cool down.
As for the rest of your post? I have no issue. Except for this.
Now, can you provide the information I asked about? If not, kindly stay out of it then. There are others here who can, and who won't be so derisive about it.
This is a discussion forum. You cannot lay down rules for who may or may not participate in said discussion. That is not your remit, responsibility or right. It is LO and LO alone who sets the standard, and a high standard it is.
The bottom line here is that you have somehow purloined my post into a personal insult. I have no idea how you did that, but you have. Since I wrote it, you can take it from me that it was not so intended.
-
Abaddon
Personally I have no problem myself in accepting a "reverse burden of proof" when I know I can smash the stupid down with reason.
In this case, "hiding Saturn V launches at Vandenberg" the notion can be dismissed with one word.... "noise"
The town of Santa Maria is only 10km away from the launch pads, and while it might be possible to hide the great big rocket by painting it black and launching at night with no lights, but you cannot hide the noise. A Saturn V rocket lifting off with its five F1 engines chucking several million pounds of thrust out the back, generates a sound level of about 90 db at that distance. That is VERY loud.. as loud as a fighter jet running at take-off power 500 metres away..... No-one in Santa Maria could have missed it.
I have a friend who used to live in Port Orange, FL a few km south of Daytona Beach and about 60km from the KSC. He once told me that and his Dad could hear the Saturn V launch and then see them soon after they launched. He also told me that then could hear and feel the rumble of Space Shuttle launches.
See, there is a common trope that HB types are living in Mom's basement. This is supportive evidence that this may be true. The sheer racket that such a launch would generate would be sufficient but the HB crew would propose "silent" launches without ever specifying how such silence was achieved.
This is how HB ideas escalate. They must create ever expanding lies to accommodate their glaring inconsistencies. For example, last tale I heard was that the VAB launches were silent because they were using alien propulsion systems. Now, if you can invent a deus ex machina on an ad hoc basis to suit whatever baloney one is pushing there is no amount of rational thought which will make the slightest bit of difference to a HB loon.
-
Saturn V rocket lifting off with its five F1 engines chucking several million pounds of thrust out the back, generates a sound level of about 90 db at that distance. That is VERY loud.. as loud as a fighter jet running at take-off power 500 metres away..... No-one in Santa Maria could have missed it.
I witnessed the night launch of Apollo 17. It isn't just the noise, the exhaust lit up the whole area, anyone awake within a large surrounding area would have noticed.
-
Saturn V rocket lifting off with its five F1 engines chucking several million pounds of thrust out the back, generates a sound level of about 90 db at that distance. That is VERY loud.. as loud as a fighter jet running at take-off power 500 metres away..... No-one in Santa Maria could have missed it.
I witnessed the night launch of Apollo 17. It isn't just the noise, the exhaust lit up the whole area, anyone awake within a large surrounding area would have noticed.
As my first job out of college, I worked at VAB in the early 60's and lived in both Santa Maria and Lompoc during that time. Even the puny (by comparison) Atlas launches were very obvious from either town and the night launches were spectacular as the rocket exhaust lit up the cloud layer as they passed through.
-
Saturn V rocket lifting off with its five F1 engines chucking several million pounds of thrust out the back, generates a sound level of about 90 db at that distance. That is VERY loud.. as loud as a fighter jet running at take-off power 500 metres away..... No-one in Santa Maria could have missed it.
I witnessed the night launch of Apollo 17. It isn't just the noise, the exhaust lit up the whole area, anyone awake within a large surrounding area would have noticed.
As my first job out of college, I worked at VAB in the early 60's and lived in both Santa Maria and Lompoc during that time. Even the puny (by comparison) Atlas launches were very obvious from either town and the night launches were spectacular as the rocket exhaust lit up the cloud layer as they passed through.
An eye witness account that should put to rest any conspiracy thoughts on covert Saturn V launches from VAB! :)
-
See, there is a common trope that HB types are living in Mom's basement. This is supportive evidence that this may be true. The sheer racket that such a launch would generate would be sufficient but the HB crew would propose "silent" launches without ever specifying how such silence was achieved.
. . . And sound doesn't travel in basements? I'm not following you, here. I have a friend who lives in his in-laws' basement, and he would still, if I asked, be well aware that rockets are loud.
-
The sheer racket that such a launch would generate would be sufficient but the HB crew would propose "silent" launches without ever specifying how such silence was achieved.
Perhaps they envision them being launched from underground, like a Minuteman, or Thunderbird 1.
Incidentally, wouldn't the Saturn V have to be transported to Vandenberg first? It'd be hard to miss huge pieces of rocket being carried up on barges. Someone, surely, would have noticed them.
-
Perhaps they envision them being launched from underground, like a Minuteman, or Thunderbird 1.
Incidentally, wouldn't the Saturn V have to be transported to Vandenberg first? It'd be hard to miss huge pieces of rocket being carried up on barges. Someone, surely, would have noticed them.
Not to mention the assembly.
-
See, there is a common trope that HB types are living in Mom's basement. This is supportive evidence that this may be true. The sheer racket that such a launch would generate would be sufficient but the HB crew would propose "silent" launches without ever specifying how such silence was achieved.
. . . And sound doesn't travel in basements? I'm not following you, here. I have a friend who lives in his in-laws' basement, and he would still, if I asked, be well aware that rockets are loud.
By which I mean that often HB types seem to never have set foot outside the basement and are innocent of the real world.
-
See, there is a common trope that HB types are living in Mom's basement. This is supportive evidence that this may be true. The sheer racket that such a launch would generate would be sufficient but the HB crew would propose "silent" launches without ever specifying how such silence was achieved.
. . . And sound doesn't travel in basements? I'm not following you, here. I have a friend who lives in his in-laws' basement, and he would still, if I asked, be well aware that rockets are loud.
By which I mean that often HB types seem to never have set foot outside the basement and are innocent of the real world.
I have a friend who recently fell on hard times and is now living in his parents' basement. I unthinkingly made a comment to him that AWE130 probably lives in his mother's basement and spent the next half hour apologizing. I don't use that put-down any more.
-
I have heard it said that Saturn V launches were visible from hundreds of miles away. Plus the launches were recorded on seismograph some 360 miles from the launchpad. Of course, the average HB will just handwoven all that away.
-
I have heard it said that Saturn V launches were visible from hundreds of miles away. Plus the launches were recorded on seismograph some 360 miles from the launchpad. Of course, the average HB will just handwoven all that away.
You could stick them in a rocket and boot their ass out of the hatch onto the lunar surface, and their dying words would be "It's a faaake!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zp2NucwsU)
-
See, there is a common trope that HB types are living in Mom's basement. This is supportive evidence that this may be true. The sheer racket that such a launch would generate would be sufficient but the HB crew would propose "silent" launches without ever specifying how such silence was achieved.
. . . And sound doesn't travel in basements? I'm not following you, here. I have a friend who lives in his in-laws' basement, and he would still, if I asked, be well aware that rockets are loud.
By which I mean that often HB types seem to never have set foot outside the basement and are innocent of the real world.
I have a friend who recently fell on hard times and is now living in his parents' basement. I unthinkingly made a comment to him that AWE130 probably lives in his mother's basement and spent the next half hour apologizing. I don't use that put-down any more.
I have a lot of friends who live with parents for one reason or another, usually because either the friend can't find a job that will pay for a place of their own or because the parent is in poor health. Sometimes both.
-
I'm not an engineer, but we know how far down range the Saturn V stages impacted (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-22_Saturn_Stage_Earth_Impact.htm) when launched from Cape Canaveral, and we know these numbers are accurate since parts (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032013a.html) have been recovered from those locations. So . . . just plot from Vandenberg over the continental United States to see where, generally, they'd land. Or am I missing something?
Yep, that's what I was thinking too. What locations are in the 340-370 mile range from Vandenberg?
-
San Diego (where I live) is about 230 miles straight line from VAFB. The site is used only for high inclination orbits (e.g., polar sun synchronous) and westbound suborbital ICBM tests so all launches are over water to the west or southwest. Polar launches take them right past Santa Barbara, the Greater Disneyland Basin (i.e., Los Angeles and Orange County) and San Diego. Staging of a Delta II typically occurs right as it passes my latitude.
Medium prograde inclinations higher than those reachable from KSC involve flying "doglegs" to keep them away from land. Some polar launches still have to fly doglegs or delay SRB jettison to protect oil platforms.
Evening launches invariably generate huge numbers of UFO reports. Night launches are less obvious, but the SRBs make them easy to spot if the skies are clear. A morning launch might be visible from sunlight glinting off metallic surfaces. Day launches are the hardest to see from here, but I suspect they're much more visible from Los Angeles and especially Santa Barbara.
-
Whoa... wait just a damn minute.... I am not some hoax nut who can be brushed off with an arrogant response. I never said I believed any of this. I know better. You've gone out of your way to be insulting, in my opinion, and I am angry as a result.
This response seems unmerited by the post to which it is directed. Mebbe have a cup of tea and then reread it to see if it could be interpreted in a way that was not arrogant or insulting? I didn't pick up either from Abaddon's post.
Nope... A couple of days later and I'm still angry about it. It seems to me that there's an undertone here of "let's attack a hoax nut" first, before anything else. I asked to be given information I could learn from. Instead, I got a rather smug lecture on not "falling for claims in spite of what's posted here." So far, to be honest, all that was posted was just statements. There was no initial effort to provide any source material, no suggestions for places to find further information, and no "well, here's how to calculate what you're looking for"
As I've indicated, I am not a mathematical person. I am not a science-educated person. I am an historian, and professor of history. I don't know how to do advanced math, beyond basic algebra. So when I asked for additional information, I felt it reasonable to expect something other than "because we said so".
-
Double post Ishkabibble?
Yeah, and I don't know why either.
-
I'm not an engineer, but we know how far down range the Saturn V stages impacted (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-22_Saturn_Stage_Earth_Impact.htm) when launched from Cape Canaveral, and we know these numbers are accurate since parts (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032013a.html) have been recovered from those locations. So . . . just plot from Vandenberg over the continental United States to see where, generally, they'd land. Or am I missing something?
Yes, from my perspective, you're missing how you know "how far downrange the Saturn V stages impacted" You might know it, but I don't. And I don't have a clue where to begin going through the massive NASA webpages to find first-source material.
We all know they did, but I have absolutely no idea where to begin combing through the massive number of NASA webpages to find first-source information. My initial search led me to the Technical Documents server, and two hours later I gave up because nothing germane to what I was looking for came up.
A second-level or third-level citation is okay for personal purposes, but in the academic world, first-level only. There's too much information coming up, and none of it is specific. And even if it did come up, I don't have the trigonometry or calculus skills or education to figure out what the heck to do with it.
-
Whoa... wait just a damn minute.... I am not some hoax nut who can be brushed off with an arrogant response. I never said I believed any of this. I know better. You've gone out of your way to be insulting, in my opinion, and I am angry as a result.
I did not accuse you of any such thing. I was not insulting. I simply stuck to the facts of the matter at hand. What I did state is that you, like many of us get sucked in to the HB contentions very easily. Happens to me, you and all of us from time to time. That is the HB game. I can personally attest that the red mist has fallen over my eyes from time to time. I try to avoid it as best I can, but sometimes a HB will post something so egregious that one cannot help oneself.
By the same token, when one sees a fellow doing the same thing, one is obliged to say "Whoa, step back from the abyss, brother".
You might take a moment to read what I actually wrote when you cool down.
As for the rest of your post? I have no issue. Except for this.
Now, can you provide the information I asked about? If not, kindly stay out of it then. There are others here who can, and who won't be so derisive about it.
This is a discussion forum. You cannot lay down rules for who may or may not participate in said discussion. That is not your remit, responsibility or right. It is LO and LO alone who sets the standard, and a high standard it is.
The bottom line here is that you have somehow purloined my post into a personal insult. I have no idea how you did that, but you have. Since I wrote it, you can take it from me that it was not so intended.
This response is even more condescending than the first.
I don't know where you get off treating me like I'm a hoax nut, but you need to just stop. I asked for specific information. So far, you haven't done anything but lecture me, rather condescendingly, about how I should or should not post.
Please don't talk *at* me that way. I'm not some pimply-faced dropout who doesn't know his rear from a hole in the ground.
-
I have heard it said that Saturn V launches were visible from hundreds of miles away. Plus the launches were recorded on seismograph some 360 miles from the launchpad. Of course, the average HB will just handwoven all that away.
Can you show me where you've seen the seismographic evidence for this? I'm hoping I can learn something about this, rather than just have to accept some people's word that it exists. This is almost what I was hoping for in the beginning. Things that lead me to actual citations.
Thanks!
-
Saturn V rocket lifting off with its five F1 engines chucking several million pounds of thrust out the back, generates a sound level of about 90 db at that distance. That is VERY loud.. as loud as a fighter jet running at take-off power 500 metres away..... No-one in Santa Maria could have missed it.
I witnessed the night launch of Apollo 17. It isn't just the noise, the exhaust lit up the whole area, anyone awake within a large surrounding area would have noticed.
Since I started looking into this, I've found someone who lived in Charleston, SC in December 1972, who stated that they saw "light in the sky" from the launch. Charleston is easily a couple hundred miles (as the crow flies) from KSC, and that means that at the very least, a radius of 150 miles would not be an unreasonable distance to ignore any night launch. Cut that by two thirds, and you have a 50 mile radius, for day launches. By my rough math, I find that according to the US census bureau that almost 600,000 people lived within a 50-mile radius of Vandenberg in 1972. So this gives me a number based in documented facts that can be used. I'm interested in finding out more information about the seismic effects of a Saturn V launch, given that California is a very active seismic activity state, and they have hundreds of seismometers littered about the landscape there. Auditory evidence would be just as good. How loud was the thing? I know that people who witnessed launches from KSC have all said that the sound was so great that you could actually feel it in your guts, but are there any sources for decibel levels at known distances from the pads? That would make a nice bit of information.
Thanks!
-
I'm not an engineer, but we know how far down range the Saturn V stages impacted (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-22_Saturn_Stage_Earth_Impact.htm) when launched from Cape Canaveral, and we know these numbers are accurate since parts (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032013a.html) have been recovered from those locations. So . . . just plot from Vandenberg over the continental United States to see where, generally, they'd land. Or am I missing something?
Yep, that's what I was thinking too. What locations are in the 340-370 mile range from Vandenberg?
Didn't launches for the Apollo missions have to be along certain lines of bearing? If so, wouldn't it narrow down the corridor of possible locations if you had say, a 15-degree wide swath of bearing, over a specific range of distance? That would encompass the total area of possible impacts, I think, if I am visualizing it correctly, but the mathematics involved in figuring it out are beyond me.
-
I'm not an engineer, but we know how far down range the Saturn V stages impacted (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-22_Saturn_Stage_Earth_Impact.htm) when launched from Cape Canaveral, and we know these numbers are accurate since parts (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032013a.html) have been recovered from those locations. So . . . just plot from Vandenberg over the continental United States to see where, generally, they'd land. Or am I missing something?
Yep, that's what I was thinking too. What locations are in the 340-370 mile range from Vandenberg?
Didn't launches for the Apollo missions have to be along certain lines of bearing? If so, wouldn't it narrow down the corridor of possible locations if you had say, a 15-degree wide swath of bearing, over a specific range of distance? That would encompass the total area of possible impacts, I think, if I am visualizing it correctly, but the mathematics involved in figuring it out are beyond me.
Never let it be said...
http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/pdf/as-505-postflight-trajectory.pdf
Be warned. It is not light reading material.
-
This response seems unmerited by the post to which it is directed. Mebbe have a cup of tea and then reread it to see if it could be interpreted in a way that was not arrogant or insulting? I didn't pick up either from Abaddon's post.
Nope... A couple of days later and I'm still angry about it. It seems to me that there's an undertone here of "let's attack a hoax nut" first, before anything else. I asked to be given information I could learn from. Instead, I got a rather smug lecture on not "falling for claims in spite of what's posted here." So far, to be honest, all that was posted was just statements. There was no initial effort to provide any source material, no suggestions for places to find further information, and no "well, here's how to calculate what you're looking for"
As I've indicated, I am not a mathematical person. I am not a science-educated person. I am an historian, and professor of history. I don't know how to do advanced math, beyond basic algebra. So when I asked for additional information, I felt it reasonable to expect something other than "because we said so".
I am not seeing attacks, and no one has called you a "nut". Your skin seems too thin here.
Moving to the positive, as a historian you are probably better qualified than most to locate and peruse primary source material related to these claims. The more technical-minded of us might be more able/willing to help in providing assistance with a specific question or interpreting a specific source.
-
All this talk of the roar and the light of a launch being experienced as a significant event many miles away reminds me of Ray Bradbury's very short tale "Rocket Summer."
-
Never let it be said...
http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/pdf/as-505-postflight-trajectory.pdf (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/pdf/as-505-postflight-trajectory.pdf)
Be warned. It is not light reading material.
The diagram on page 70 is precisely what I was looking for, and in conjunction with the text on page 23, I now have a way to create a physical "map" of where the stages impacted. I couldn't find this, but it's likely because I had no idea how to construct search terms with limited vocabulary on the subject. Now that I have it, it gives me more search terms to use, and I can probably find the same documents from each of the next six launches.
Thank you very much! This is precisely what I was looking for from the beginning! And you weren't kidding. Whooo, that stuff's not for the faint of heart!
I don't know if I did the calculations correctly, but these are the figures I came up with, and they don't seem wildly out of place. I'll have someone from the math department tell me if I did this right, or if there's an easier way to do it than I did it.
Impact of S1C for Apollo 11: Launch bearing from KSC: 75.58°- Distance from launch point: 660.4 km/356.6 nm
It's not going to be a hell of a lot of fun for me doing this twice each for ten flights, but I have to have the figures so I can plot the same lines of bearing and distances from Vandenberg. Then again, I might just do the four most widely spaced ones for each stage, and average them all together. Would that method be "scientifically accurate" enough?
Heck, if this works out the way I am envisioning it, I might write an article that can be added to the database here. Who knows?
-
Impact of S1C for Apollo 11: Launch bearing from KSC: 75.58°- Distance from launch point: 660.4 km/356.6 nm
It's not going to be a hell of a lot of fun for me doing this twice each for ten flights, but I have to have the figures so I can plot the same lines of bearing and distances from Vandenberg. Then again, I might just do the four most widely spaced ones for each stage, and average them all together. Would that method be "scientifically accurate" enough?
Heck, if this works out the way I am envisioning it, I might write an article that can be added to the database here. Who knows?
What is the intended end product from this study? Locations where the S1C would have landed if launched from Vandenberg into the historical orbits? Because Vandenberg is further north than Canaveral, none of the historical Apollo inclinations (28.5-32.6°) could have been achieved from Vandenberg (minimum inclination 51°).
Put another way, if you launch from Vandenberg with the same azimuth as from Canaveral, you end up in a quite different orbit.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-20_Ascent_Data.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
-
Actually, the minimum inclination reachable from VAFB (without a dogleg) is about 34.5 degrees -- the latitude of the launch site. That's with a due east launch over land. The minimum safe inclination is about 51 degrees.
-
Impact of S1C for Apollo 11: Launch bearing from KSC: 75.58°- Distance from launch point: 660.4 km/356.6 nm
It's not going to be a hell of a lot of fun for me doing this twice each for ten flights, but I have to have the figures so I can plot the same lines of bearing and distances from Vandenberg. Then again, I might just do the four most widely spaced ones for each stage, and average them all together. Would that method be "scientifically accurate" enough?
Heck, if this works out the way I am envisioning it, I might write an article that can be added to the database here. Who knows?
What is the intended end product from this study? Locations where the S1C would have landed if launched from Vandenberg into the historical orbits? Because Vandenberg is further north than Canaveral, none of the historical Apollo inclinations (28.5-32.6°) could have been achieved from Vandenberg (minimum inclination 51°).
Put another way, if you launch from Vandenberg with the same azimuth as from Canaveral, you end up in a quite different orbit.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-20_Ascent_Data.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
If I understand what Ishkabibble is trying to do here, I don't think any of that is really relevant, because he's not talking about the known historical Apollo missions, he's debunking the claim that a "souper seekrit" Apollo mission was launched from VAFB some time after A17 in 1972.
It should be possible to work out a launch to send a Saturn V from VAFB into an orbit from which it can execute a TLI burn and head off for a lunar landing. Once that is achieved, you should then be able to calculate how far downrange the S1C would impact (which would certainly be on land) and then point to an absence of evidence of any such impact to debunk the claim.
-
If I understand what Ishkabibble is trying to do here, I don't think any of that is really relevant, because he's not talking about the known historical Apollo missions, he's debunking the claim that a "souper seekrit" Apollo mission was launched from VAFB some time after A17 in 1972.
It should be possible to work out a launch to send a Saturn V from VAFB into an orbit from which it can execute a TLI burn and head off for a lunar landing. Once that is achieved, you should then be able to calculate how far downrange the S1C would impact (which would certainly be on land) and then point to an absence of evidence of any such impact to debunk the claim.
Well, I had to get with some grad student (I swear, she looked like she was about 14) to do the math on this, since it was waaaaaay beyond me (and her impatience with my explanation showed) but we (read that she) figured out only from the launch point of KSC pad 39-A and the published impact points of the S-IC and S-II stages (why didn't anyone tell me about the "Apollo by the numbers" web page?) transposing the KSC coordinates to the largest pad at Vandenberg, two points where the stages would impact. It didn't occur to either one of us that the base orbits would be different because of the latitude difference (I have never claimed to know anything about orbital mechanics, and it shows) but we did find the two points that would be the average impact points from all 10 manned Saturn V launches.
They are:
S-IC: 19.83 miles southeast of Grand Canyon West airport (34°44′35″N, 077°11′33″W on Google Earth)
S-II: 115.63 miles south east of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse (35°51′22″N, 113°30′06″W on Google Earth)
Given the huge amounts of populated areas beneath the trajectories along these tracks, it is absolutely impossible that anyone would even allow the launch of a vehicle with that much explosive potential. Which is just about the most obvious statement I think I have ever made. Of course, some hoax nut would say that it had to be a "sooper seekrit rockit that nobody knows exists" or some such thing. But being able to publish these sets of coordinates would demonstrate clearly to hoax nuts that the actual facts don't support their narrative. Of course, that's never mattered, but we fight false information with facts, right?
-
Actually, the minimum inclination reachable from VAFB (without a dogleg) is about 34.5 degrees -- the latitude of the launch site. That's with a due east launch over land. The minimum safe inclination is about 51 degrees.
That makes sense, thanks for the correction. I should have thought of that given that I live way north of VAFB but south of the 51st parallel.
-
Relevant to this thread, here's a compilation of all the observations, mostly by the general population, of the Soyuz launch last month:
http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/Soyuz_launch_4.pdf
-
My father was a stage magician, and I inherited. Both he and I found Copperfield to be irritating in extremis. Both of us much preferred illusions which could be performed right under your nose. This "bigger is better" malarkey annoyed the bejeebers out of both of us.
I was part of his "13" illusion several years back, after which I found myself crammed into what was essentially a broom closet with him and the other 12 participants. Copperfield was literally pressed up against me as he warned us all not to reveal the secret. A rather surreal evening to be sure. 8)
-
...why didn't anyone tell me about the "Apollo by the numbers" web page?
[Shoots hand up.] I did, back in October 2007 -- a little while before you joined ApolloHoax. :)
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1356/apollo-numbers
I recently thought of re-posting the links here, but don't really have time right now to check that they all still work. Any other members who can check some?
Of course, some hoax nut would say that it had to be a "sooper seekrit rockit that nobody knows exists"
If so, it obviously had to also be extremely quiet, so ask them if, perhaps, NASA had powered it with bottled space-pixie farts.
...
(With apologies to JayUtah for pinching one of his many quips.)
-
<snip for brevity>
(why didn't anyone tell me about the "Apollo by the numbers" web page?)
See, that happens. When one is familiar with such sources over years, it becomes "de riguer" to assume that everyone is (bar the HB loons, of course).
Yourself, not being a HB Loon, I assumed you were familiar with it. Wrongly as it turns out, for which I apologise.
In any event, there are wholesale buckets of actual data on every aspect of Apollo which I or anyone else would be happy to link you to. Personally, I am familiar with lots of it, but even that "lots" is only a fraction of what is available.
-
On another forum regarding another topic, there is a very close-knit group of people who have been with the forum almost from the beginning. Most of us old-timers there have pretty much read, seen, and heard it all. However, from time to time, a total "newb" will come in, and ask a question that has been answered so many times, one could recite the answer without even thinking about it. Many of the old-timers have little to no patience, (some have even less) and are very disdainful and almost hostile to certain newb questions. I posted the old joke about the two elderly prisoners who had been in jail for so long that they had told each other all the jokes they knew so much, they merely would say the number and elicit cackling from their cellmate.
To make a long story short (too late, I know) the forum owner there was forced to send out an IM to all of the old-timers to remind them that we were newbs once too, and to not bite their little heads off so quickly.
Now, rest assured that I am in no way attempting to draw a parallel to anything that happens on this forum, but it is a wise bunch of folks who can keep in the back of their minds that not everyone else knows what they themselves know.
I would like to know more about the orbital inclinations (explained in a way that I can get, since I'm so mathematically deficient) and also the seismological data that might well be very useful in the future. If anyone has the information and the patience to discuss it with me, I'd appreciate it.
As I was perusing the Apollo by the Numbers site (and yes, all the links I looked at in the ToC all worked!) I was thunderstruck at the sheer volume of information. This is precisely what is meant when it is said that the hoax nuts never have a comprehensive tale of how the thing was pulled off, because they do not have any of the evidence that NASA has. Just once, just one time, I'd like some hoax nut to say "man, I had no idea all that was available. I guess I've been fooled, eh?" and acknowledge once and for all that with the massive amount of information available, that it could not have been a hoax. Problem is, they all would say all that data is fake too.
Thanks for all the assistance, and my apologies for the kerfluffle earlier on. It grates me to no end to have someone seem to patronize me, and while I still feel like I was being lectured to, I would prefer that the event had never taken place.
-
I posted the old joke about the two elderly prisoners who had been in jail for so long that they had told each other all the jokes they knew so much, they merely would say the number and elicit cackling from their cellmate.
You left off the rest of the joke.
A new prisoner arrives. Some time later he says "32" but his cellmates don't laugh.
"Why didn't you laugh?"
"You didn't tell it right."
-
I would like to know more about the orbital inclinations
The inclination of an orbit is the angle at which the spacecraft crosses the equator. If the spacecraft flies continuously over the equator in an eastbound direction its inclination is zero. If it flies over it at right angles so that it also passes over both poles once per orbit, then its inclination is 90 degrees. If it flies continuously over the equator in a westbound direction, its inclination is 180 degrees.
The inclination of an orbit is determined by the latitude of the launch site and the direction the rocket flies from the launch pad (the launch azimuth). If the launch is due east, the inclination is equal to the (absolute value) of the launch site's latitude. Any other direction can only increase the inclination.
Geostationary communications satellites have zero orbital inclination. There are only two ways to reach such orbits: by launching from a site directly on the equator, as the company Sea Launch did, or to perform a "plane change" maneuver when the spacecraft crosses the equator. The latter can require a lot of extra propellant when the original inclination is high. This gives a considerable advantage to low latitude launch sites such as Kourou, French Guiana (5 degrees N) or the ocean spots used by Sea Launch.
-
I would like to know more about the orbital inclinations
The inclination of an orbit is the angle at which the spacecraft crosses the equator. If the spacecraft flies continuously over the equator in an eastbound direction its inclination is zero. If it flies over it at right angles so that it also passes over both poles once per orbit, then its inclination is 90 degrees. If it flies continuously over the equator in a westbound direction, its inclination is 180 degrees.
The inclination of an orbit is determined by the latitude of the launch site and the direction the rocket flies from the launch pad (the launch azimuth). If the launch is due east, the inclination is equal to the (absolute value) of the launch site's latitude. Any other direction can only increase the inclination.
Geostationary communications satellites have zero orbital inclination. There are only two ways to reach such orbits: by launching from a site directly on the equator, as the company Sea Launch did, or to perform a "plane change" maneuver when the spacecraft crosses the equator. The latter can require a lot of extra propellant when the original inclination is high. This gives a considerable advantage to low latitude launch sites such as Kourou, French Guiana (5 degrees N) or the ocean spots used by Sea Launch.
I think I get lesson one.
There has to be a far better familiarity with the global system of latitude and longitude than I have, to be able to just "know" these things. Half the time when the family is on a road trip, I have to stop and think about which direction is east and which is west when looking at a map. I get starboard and port confused occasionally. But I sure can tell you what Winston Churchill and FDR had for lunch just before the famous photo of the Yalta Conference was taken... I can also tell you how many martinis FDR had. ;)
It's all a matter of the things we're naturally inclined toward, and the education to back it up. (see what I did there?)
-
There has to be a far better familiarity with the global system of latitude and longitude than I have, to be able to just "know" these things. Half the time when the family is on a road trip, I have to stop and think about which direction is east and which is west when looking at a map. I get starboard and port confused occasionally. But I sure can tell you what Winston Churchill and FDR had for lunch just before the famous photo of the Yalta Conference was taken... I can also tell you how many martinis FDR had. ;)
Have you ever heard of the free space flight simulator called Orbiter?
http://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Go_Play_In_Space
I know computer games are not for everyone, but playing a couple of tutorials while flying a fictional high-performance spaceplane is a great way to get an intuitive feel for orbital mechanics.
If you prefer to stick with reading, the tutorials at the Wiki I linked also have some low-barrier-to-entry descriptions of the underlying concepts, including earth-moon transfers that the Apollo flights actually used.
-
I've heard of Orbiter, but haven't ever really been interested in it until now. Computer games/simulations just haven't really been my thing, so to speak.
I may have to look at it now... As if I don't have enough to play with.... Heh.
Thanks!
-
I would like to know more about the orbital inclinations
The inclination of an orbit is the angle at which the spacecraft crosses the equator. If the spacecraft flies continuously over the equator in an eastbound direction its inclination is zero. If it flies over it at right angles so that it also passes over both poles once per orbit, then its inclination is 90 degrees. If it flies continuously over the equator in a westbound direction, its inclination is 180 degrees.
The inclination of an orbit is determined by the latitude of the launch site and the direction the rocket flies from the launch pad (the launch azimuth). If the launch is due east, the inclination is equal to the (absolute value) of the launch site's latitude. Any other direction can only increase the inclination.
Geostationary communications satellites have zero orbital inclination. There are only two ways to reach such orbits: by launching from a site directly on the equator, as the company Sea Launch did, or to perform a "plane change" maneuver when the spacecraft crosses the equator. The latter can require a lot of extra propellant when the original inclination is high. This gives a considerable advantage to low latitude launch sites such as Kourou, French Guiana (5 degrees N) or the ocean spots used by Sea Launch.
I think I get lesson one.
There has to be a far better familiarity with the global system of latitude and longitude than I have, to be able to just "know" these things. Half the time when the family is on a road trip, I have to stop and think about which direction is east and which is west when looking at a map. I get starboard and port confused occasionally. But I sure can tell you what Winston Churchill and FDR had for lunch just before the famous photo of the Yalta Conference was taken... I can also tell you how many martinis FDR had. ;)
It's all a matter of the things we're naturally inclined toward, and the education to back it up. (see what I did there?)
Ah, orientation. When I was young, (and I decline to say how long ago that was) I thought everyone was aware of their spatial orientation. Age and experience have taught me otherwise. There is no harm in that. For example, give me an axe and I can chop wood up, but that is as close as I can get to any sort of carpentry. Wood and I are not best friends. Another would be artistic painting. I am utterly useless at that. Organic Chemistry? That's a closed papery object to me.
One simply cannot be expert in every field, that is the reality of the modern world. Nor should anyone be expected to be.
-
...
One simply cannot be expert in every field, that is the reality of the modern world. Nor should anyone be expected to be.
Except of course, HB's who know everything.
-
...
One simply cannot be expert in every field, that is the reality of the modern world. Nor should anyone be expected to be.
Except of course, HB's who know everything.
Only in perfect ignorance does one dare claim perfect knowledge.
-
<snip for brevity>
Thanks for all the assistance, and my apologies for the kerfluffle earlier on. It grates me to no end to have someone seem to patronize me, and while I still feel like I was being lectured to, I would prefer that the event had never taken place.
No need, it was as much my doing as yours. I was frankly astonished that "Apollo by the Numbers" was new to you because one tends to forget that not everyone in the universe has even heard of it.
It is such a goto reference in these here parts that one forgets many/most have never seen it through no fault of their own, most would have no particular reason to have seen it.
I will unreservedly apologise for the unnecessary escalation.
-
No need, it was as much my doing as yours. I was frankly astonished that "Apollo by the Numbers" was new to you because one tends to forget that not everyone in the universe has even heard of it.
It is such a goto reference in these here parts that one forgets many/most have never seen it through no fault of their own, most would have no particular reason to have seen it.
I will unreservedly apologise for the unnecessary escalation.
Very nice Abaddon! :)
-
<snip for brevity>
Thanks for all the assistance, and my apologies for the kerfluffle earlier on. It grates me to no end to have someone seem to patronize me, and while I still feel like I was being lectured to, I would prefer that the event had never taken place.
No need, it was as much my doing as yours. I was frankly astonished that "Apollo by the Numbers" was new to you because one tends to forget that not everyone in the universe has even heard of it.
It is such a goto reference in these here parts that one forgets many/most have never seen it through no fault of their own, most would have no particular reason to have seen it.
I will unreservedly apologise for the unnecessary escalation.
I accept, and unreservedly apologize for any possible overreaction.
I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...
-
I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...
It's easier than thinking. And there's a LOT of lazy people out there.
Having "secret" knowledge also appeals to lots of people...IMHO it allows them to feel superior to people that have achieved more in life than them.
-
I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...
It's easier than thinking. And there's a LOT of lazy people out there.
Having "secret" knowledge also appeals to lots of people...IMHO it allows them to feel superior to people that have achieved more in life than them.
Plus a large dose of government distrust.
-
I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...
It's easier than thinking. And there's a LOT of lazy people out there.
Having "secret" knowledge also appeals to lots of people...IMHO it allows them to feel superior to people that have achieved more in life than them.
Plus a large dose of government distrust.
Which is fairly reasonable. It's understandable that both surges of Apollo doubting, at least in the West, happened in the 1970's and 2000's, though the attitude of 'Once a liar, always a liar' on faith is not reasonable.
-
I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...
It's easier than thinking. And there's a LOT of lazy people out there.
Having "secret" knowledge also appeals to lots of people...IMHO it allows them to feel superior to people that have achieved more in life than them.
Plus a large dose of government distrust.
Which is fairly reasonable. It's understandable that both surges of Apollo doubting, at least in the West, happened in the 1970's and 2000's, though the attitude of 'Once a liar, always a liar' on faith is not reasonable.
To a certain extent, I disagree, Raven... I think the "once a liar, always a liar" is just lazy, and intellectually dishonest.
If any of my students should ever attempt to get away with failing to fact check anything, their grades reflect it.
Past performance is not always even so much as an indicator of future performance. And there is absolutely no causal relationship between someone having lied in the past, to their being unfailingly and continually dishonest in the future. It is only an indicator that it may be so, but it is not proof.
-
Which is fairly reasonable. It's understandable that both surges of Apollo doubting, at least in the West, happened in the 1970's and 2000's, though the attitude of 'Once a liar, always a liar' on faith is not reasonable.
To a certain extent, I disagree, Raven... I think the "once a liar, always a liar" is just lazy, and intellectually dishonest.
If any of my students should ever attempt to get away with failing to fact check anything, their grades reflect it.
Past performance is not always even so much as an indicator of future performance. And there is absolutely no causal relationship between someone having lied in the past, to their being unfailingly and continually dishonest in the future. It is only an indicator that it may be so, but it is not proof.
That's actually pretty much what I was trying to say. "Once a liar, always a liar" isn't reasonable, even if a certain level of government distrust is.
-
Which is fairly reasonable. It's understandable that both surges of Apollo doubting, at least in the West, happened in the 1970's and 2000's, though the attitude of 'Once a liar, always a liar' on faith is not reasonable.
To a certain extent, I disagree, Raven... I think the "once a liar, always a liar" is just lazy, and intellectually dishonest.
If any of my students should ever attempt to get away with failing to fact check anything, their grades reflect it.
Past performance is not always even so much as an indicator of future performance. And there is absolutely no causal relationship between someone having lied in the past, to their being unfailingly and continually dishonest in the future. It is only an indicator that it may be so, but it is not proof.
That's actually pretty much what I was trying to say. "Once a liar, always a liar" isn't reasonable, even if a certain level of government distrust is.
Trouble yourself not, Raven. It was only after I posted that I realized I was making the grievous error of restating what you had written.
At times like this, I hear my great grandmother Ada inside my head...
If I used slang, or poor sentence structure, or if I had participles dangling, or such, she would give me that look and say, "Remember, one is judged by one's command of the language. If one sounds as if one has fallen from the vegetable truck, everybody else will believe one has." She had this maddeningly precise way of speaking. I tell my daughter the same thing in a different way. "If you needed an operation to save your life, and you had a choice between a doctor that sounded like Larry the Cable Guy or Carl Sagan, which would you prefer?"
One of my students noted this in class the other day. He was having a little bit of trouble trying to explain his thoughts on a particular point in class, and I simply filled in the blanks for him with what I thought he was trying to say. He then said that hecouldn't get it out the way he wanted, but that he knew I could. Made me think, and it also made me wonder how much I have "explained things" to my students, when they didn't need it, and when I should have made them think it out for themselves.
Win-win, as far as I am concerned.
-
Hrm.
This verges on something I've said although I don't entirely believe it.
Which is that if you can't say it, you don't know it. Most of the time I see a confused, turgid attempt at explanation which is often circular, badly phrased, and all in all difficult to read, after much discussion to drill down to the actual idea I'll discover one that is similarly incoherent.
Not to say you can't have one of those blinding bits of insight that you can't manage to put into language. Dancing about architecture and all that, after all. Nor that you can't make a melodious and grammatical uttering that is nonetheless complete nonsense.
There's also a mirror case. Seems often that when you have a problem, if you can manage to put it clearly and cleanly in words, you will have without intending to also spoken the solution.
-
Ah, orientation. When I was young, (and I decline to say how long ago that was) I thought everyone was aware of their spatial orientation. Age and experience have taught me otherwise. There is no harm in that. For example, give me an axe and I can chop wood up, but that is as close as I can get to any sort of carpentry. Wood and I are not best friends. Another would be artistic painting. I am utterly useless at that. Organic Chemistry? That's a closed papery object to me.
One simply cannot be expert in every field, that is the reality of the modern world. Nor should anyone be expected to be.
My most efficient way of getting around, prior to GPS, was to stand still and ask myself, "What direction does my heart of hearts tell me I should go in?" Once I got that instinctive sensation, I would set out in the opposite direction.
It was surprisingly effective.