Hi Jay, Obviousman, Peter B,
Peter B, The answer is simple. She moved two of her work days in the week till after Thursday.
Very good. (And for the rest of you who mightn't have twigged yet, the employee in question shifted from working Monday, Tuesday Wednesday to Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.) The thing is, though, that while the answer was simple to you, a colleague and I spent the best part of two hours trying to explain this to the employee in question, and she didn't get it.
And so it is here: it would be helpful all round if you'd be willing to accept that subject-matter experts (a) understand a given topic better than you, (b) understand exactly what your non-expert concern is, and (c) understand why your concern isn't actually a problem. Whether it's the size of LM windows or the position of SM RCS rockets, the engineers who designed these things looked at these issues and tested them all out prior to building the dang things. The people on this forum who work in the field today understand in detail what those engineers did and why - understand it in a visceral and instinctive way that I know I don't.
Take the LM's four legs, for example. The LM's designers didn't just sit around a table and agree that four's a nice number, let's give the LM four legs. Instead they looked at designs with three legs and other designs with five legs. They went away, did some sums about mass and about weight distribution, looked at images of the Moon close up and talked to experts about the Moon's surface, and then went and did some testing with models. They then chose four legs for the LM, on the basis of the test results.
And with regards to your comments about the preponderance of evidence, it is mainly from government sources. And as we have all come to know, governments can and have done some crazy, even unspeakable things.
Yes, governments do crazy, even unspeakable things. Well, to be precise, the people who work in those governments do those things, given that governments are abstractions.
However, your comment is unhelpful in at least three ways.
Firstly, just because a government does something crazy in situation A doesn't mean it would do something crazy in situation B. After all, I'm sure you accept that governments also do sensible and even noble things in some situations. On that basis Apollo must be sensible and maybe even noble.
Secondly, as others have pointed out, governments aren't monolithic things. Seeing as they're made up of people, and people behave as individuals, the result is that governments behave in anything but monolithic ways. Different agencies can often have conflicting agendas, and the result is that crazy actions are usually made public within a short period of time, either through inter-agency conflict, or interpersonal or inter-section conflict within the agency. (President Kennedy's science advisor Jerome Wiesner opposed manned space flight because he thought it was an expensive and dangerous way to do space science; he was right, but lost out because he completely missed the non-science (that is, Cold War propaganda) value of manned space flight. The point is that there were people in the government who were in a position to know the reality or otherwise of Apollo and who were quite willing to speak publicly against it.)
Thirdly, you're wrong that the evidence for Apollo is predominantly from
the government, by which I assume you mean the US government. Note that the two examples I gave were from the USSR and Australia. In any case the components of the Apollo-Saturn vehicle were built by private contractors (including at least one person who was a willing whistleblower about problems in the Command Module). The Apollo rocks were studied by university scientists from around the world. Telemetry from the spacecraft was picked up by private citizens from around the world (see Sven Grahn). Pictures of the spacecraft on the way to the Moon were taken by astronomers from around the world.
And no one has come forward with any evidence that Apollo was hoaxed. Not one noble patriot. Not one deathbed confession. Not one letter to be opened after someone's death.
More importantly, no one has explained how Apollo
could be faked. Not one self-consistent narrative has
ever been presented.
Instead, as I said before, every thread of evidence independently points to the same conclusion.
