Strong arguments versus weak arguments.

[Jason Thompson]

All I need is a plausibility for the scenario given. Plausible or not? No twitching, please!

OK. No, it is not plausible. It makes no sense. On the other hand, actually going to the moon achieves the object of making the US look good and avoids any issues of having to 'buy silence'.

Interestingly how much money did they save by building Space Shuttle complex with a completely different engines than f-!.

The shuttle engines use a different fuel combination, so they couldn't have used the F-1 anyway. The SSME was developed out of Apollo hardware, however, being based on development programs from the J-2 engine.

With a superb reliability of F-1, it seems odd it hasn`t found its application nowadays. Might we say- it was too good and too powerful?

Too big, too powerful, and too expensive. That really is all the explanation you need to look for.

[ka9q]

All I need is a plausibility for the scenario given. Plausible or not? No twitching, please!

Sorry, but plausibility isn't enough. Evidence something actually happened is what you need.

With a superb reliability of F-1, it seems odd it hasn`t found its application nowadays. Might we say- it was too good and too powerful?

"Too powerful"? No. Each Shuttle SRB had a liftoff thrust of 12 MN; the F-1, only 6.77 MN.

"Too good?" Nope again. The F-1 had a sea-level specific impulse of 263 seconds. The RD-180 has a sea-level impulse of 311 seconds. This is a remarkably big difference for two engines burning the same propellants, RP-1 kerosene and LOX. This probably has to do with the very different designs of the two engines; the F-1 used a gas generator cycle, simple but inefficient, while the RD-180 uses staged combustion, much more complex but also much more efficient.

In fact, the F-1's I_sp is almost as poor as the 242 seconds of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor, another rocket designed primarily for maximum thrust, not maximum performance. Solids are well known to have significantly poorer performance than nearly any modern liquid bipropellant rocket, but they're much easier and cheaper to build for large amounts of thrust -- and that's why they've become so popular.

[Luke Pemberton]

Alright, as I see you are soooo much afraid to answer the question... blah blah blah

Then answer mine, one which you have conveniently skipped as you move the goalposts and flit around subjects. Adopting your initial weak versus strong position, hoax theorists present radiation as their strongest argument to hoax the moon landings. Why is this argument such a strong case. After all, you have your suspicions, so let's start with what is considered the hoax theorists trump card.

[Glom]

I'm actually confused at what your point is.  What are you actually trying to do here?

Are you arguing that the moonlandings were faked?

If so, what is your evidence?  Trying to spin speculative stories does not constitute evidence.

[DataCable]

All you had to do is simply say `yes` or `no`.

You did not present a "yes or no" question, your presented a false dichotomy between two options.

Let`s talk moonlandings.

Let's.

Let`s start with very simple assumtions.

I prefer to start with evidence, not assumptions.

You entitled this thread "Strong arguments versus weak arguments," yet all you've done is present what you consider to be weak arguments.  I presented what I consider to be a strong argument in post #36.  Please address it:

Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur. 

[Echnaton]

I can`t prove that you are credible, but I can draw som econclusions by asking a simple 9/11 question.

A more interesting topic: why is ideological credibility important to you?  What conclusions about us do you draw from the responses?  Specifically, what conclusion do you draw from my response that we were onto your game from your first post?

[Luke Pemberton]

A more interesting topic: why is ideological credibility important to you?

Ever notice that theorists cling on to ideological credibility? That's because they cannot answer questions of science. One only has to observe the debate between Jay and HWSNBN 2 at the Iambi. Once HWSNBN 2 could not answer Jay's questions, he shifted to the credibility of NASA over the Apollo 1 accident. HWSNBN 2 still has unanswered questions at the Iambi. I am seeing a pattern and the number of threads that finish with unanswered questions and gish gallops.

[Echnaton]

Interestingly how much money did they save by building Space Shuttle complex with a completely different engines than f-!. With a superb reliability of F-1, it seems odd it hasn`t found its application nowadays. Might we say- it was too good and too powerful?

The F-1 engine and the shuttle main engines burn different fuels.  Specifically, the F-1 burnt RP1, a form of kerosene, while the SME burns hydrogen.   Hydrogen is a more efficient fuel to burn but takes up much more volume.  The amount of energy needed from the Saturn V  first stage was simply too high to accommodate the bulk needed to store the required amount of hydrogen.

I was going to comment that your lack of knowledge about rocketry was leading you to be suspicious of Apollo, but then thought about it and decided that your questions were just part of your game of searching for ideological agreement.

[Echnaton]

I am seeing a pattern and the number of threads that finish with unanswered questions and gish gallops.

Yes it is quite familiar.  Advancedboy is either someone who thinks in the same way as an old friend of the board or actually is an old friend. 

[advancedboy]

@Data Cable.`Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur.  `
  There are no high quality videos of lunar dust closeup being kicked up by astronauts. If you go to a beach and start kicking around sand, you won`t see any clouds either. I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand or adding coagulants. What we need to do is to check more videos if the sand doesn`t manage to fall faster down to the ground than the astronaut hanging on wires. I will try to check some videos. Are you going to demand and parrot again about proof? Ok, I will give you a blue-ray dvd where an astronaut is hosing with water the studio sand while holding a card of social securty right in front of him. That is what you need, right?

[advancedboy]

Jason, this is your quote-`The shuttle engines use a different fuel combination, so they couldn't have used the F-1 anyway`
 I have a question, are you mocking yourself?

[frenat]

@Data Cable.`Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur.  `

Interestingly that same hoax proponent tried the same rigged credibility tests that you did.

[Glom]

@Data Cable.`Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur.  `
  There are no high quality videos of lunar dust closeup being kicked up by astronauts. If you go to a beach and start kicking around sand, you won`t see any clouds either. I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand or adding coagulants. What we need to do is to check more videos if the sand doesn`t manage to fall faster down to the ground than the astronaut hanging on wires. I will try to check some videos. Are you going to demand and parrot again about proof? Ok, I will give you a blue-ray dvd where an astronaut is hosing with water the studio sand while holding a card of social securty right in front of him. That is what you need, right?

We need some kind of evidence.  No hoax proponents ever provide evidence of an actual hoax, they just try to offer up evidence of anomalies (false though they are) in the record, for which there could be a great many explanation.  You haven't even gotten to step one.  You have try to show anything is wrong with the record, you've just offered (bad) speculation on how it could have been done, which is entirely pointless.

It couldn't have been sand that was used because it isn't sand on the Moon.  It is dust.

Jason, this is your quote-`The shuttle engines use a different fuel combination, so they couldn't have used the F-1 anyway`
 I have a question, are you mocking yourself?

Why do you ask that?  Do you find something particularly incredulous about what Jason said.

[raven]

@Data Cable.`Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur.  `
  There are no high quality videos of lunar dust closeup being kicked up by astronauts. If you go to a beach and start kicking around sand, you won`t see any clouds either. I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand or adding coagulants. What we need to do is to check more videos if the sand doesn`t manage to fall faster down to the ground than the astronaut hanging on wires. I will try to check some videos. Are you going to demand and parrot again about proof? Ok, I will give you a blue-ray dvd where an astronaut is hosing with water the studio sand while holding a card of social securty right in front of him. That is what you need, right?

Actually, there is plenty. The 16mm DAC footage is especially nice, but even the video on later missions is quite good quality.
Archive.org also has a lot of 16mm DAC footage worth checking out.

[Andromeda]

Jason, this is your quote-`The shuttle engines use a different fuel combination, so they couldn't have used the F-1 anyway`
 I have a question, are you mocking yourself?

Jason is quite serious.  I suggest you NOT start the ad hominem attacks and educate yourself on shuttle engines if you wish to be taken seriously.