Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

Go and research it. It's not my responsibility to educate random eejits on the Internet.

You made a statement that there were significant issues with all 3.

All landings, except for A11 were 0.5 km or less from their marks.  A11 off by 4 miles.   None were significant.   They all landed without much (or any) horizontal motion... unless Odysseus which had such bad visibility that it couldn't even tell it was moving horizontally...  way too much dust, would explain it.   Way more than was reported by Apollo...   But Odysseus is tight lipped, and AFAIK, has only shared a few lower rez photos, and NOTHING from their descent, to explain why they lose comms and the ability to discern horizontal velocity.   Dust would explain it.

[onebigmonkey]

Go and research it. It's not my responsibility to educate random eejits on the Internet.

You made a statement that there were significant issues with all 3.

All landings, except for A11 were 0.5 km or less from their marks.  A11 off by 4 miles.   None were significant.   They all landed without much (or any) horizontal motion... unless Odysseus which had such bad visibility that it couldn't even tell it was moving horizontally...  way too much dust, would explain it.   Way more than was reported by Apollo...   But Odysseus is tight lipped, and AFAIK, has only shared a few lower rez photos, and NOTHING from their descent, to explain why they lose comms and the ability to discern horizontal velocity.   Dust would explain it.

Tight lipped...

https://www.intuitivemachines.com/im-1

[TimberWolfAu]

...

And the Soviets succeeded twice out of some 13 attempts (uh oh, spooky 13 again) with the Luna program, and NASA 5 out of 7 with Surveyor program. The first Vikram lander from ISRO failed too. In fact, only the CNSA Chang'e program has an unmanned landing rate of 100%.

Guess it looks like having a manned lander is a benefit.

[smartcooky]

...

And the Soviets succeeded twice out of some 13 attempts (uh oh, spooky 13 again) with the Luna program, and NASA 5 out of 7 with Surveyor program. The first Vikram lander from ISRO failed too. In fact, only the CNSA Chang'e program has an unmanned landing rate of 100%.

Guess it looks like having a manned lander is a benefit.

And the Soviets succeeded twice out of some 13 attempts (uh oh, spooky 13 again) with the Luna program, and NASA 5 out of 7 with Surveyor program. The first Vikram lander from ISRO failed too. In fact, only the CNSA Chang'e program has an unmanned landing rate of 100%.

Guess it looks like having a manned lander is a benefit.

Indeed. Apollo 11 was saved during landing, because Neil Armstrong used his intuition. He looked at that boulder field they were about to land on, and intuitively decided that it was not a safe place to land, so he took manual control of the LM and, with limited fuel available,  navigated to a safe landing spot.Even in 2024, computers don't have that kind of intuition, in 1969, they certainly didn't.

Using humans on such endeavours is far superior to using computers. This is one of the reasons why sending humans to explore Mars is currently likely to yeild far more and better results far more quickly than sending robots. A robot cannot see a curious object, and immediately decide to go pick it up, turn it over in its hand, feel its weight, see the detail on it surface and make some speculation about it. The human can do all of that autonomously, and has already completed a detailed, visual and tactile analysis while a robotic rover's pictures are still making their way back to Earth. Would a robotic rover on the moon have spotted the now famous "orange soil" that Harrison Schmitt saw - a discovery that rewrote our undertranding of the formation of our solar system? Maybe, maybe not.

The Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity and Perseverence rovers have spent a total time of 38 years (~333,000) hours on the moon... in that time , they have travelled a total of 115 km. The 12 men who went to the Moon in six missions covered 84% of this distance in 80 hours --- just over 3 days. Let that fact sink in.

[najak]

Tight lipped...
https://www.intuitivemachines.com/im-1

Yep.  See how many actual photos or footage you can find from them from the actual lunar module.  I've found 3.   All low-rez.

Where is the footage or photos from the module during the descent?   Why did their horizontal velocity detection totally fail?   And comms, totally fail...   what are their answers, and were is the footage and photos?  10 months...

[najak]

Guess it looks like having a manned lander is a benefit.

Especially when it's faked...   I only see evidence of Armstrong practicing with the LLTV...  and here we have a few 2-minute or less clips of it tightly cropped doing almost nothing, without context to prove it can even travel a straight line...   This LLTV was flat, and not working as advertised (the jet engine was only supposed to provide 83% lift, not 100%... but they always had it at 100%).

And right, un-practiced man with joystick looking out 9" window with dust - is so much more reliable than tech with a thousand times more fidelity on response.  That makes perfect sense.

[smartcooky]

Tight lipped...
https://www.intuitivemachines.com/im-1

Yep.  See how many actual photos or footage you can find from them from the actual lunar module.  I've found 3.   All low-rez.

Where is the footage or photos from the module during the descent?   Why did their horizontal velocity detection totally fail?   And comms, totally fail...   what are their answers, and were is the footage and photos?  10 months...

What, if anything, has any of this to do with the Apollo missions?

[najak]

What, if anything, has any of this to do with the Apollo missions?

Because if Apollo didn't land, then their presentation of the Lunar Surface model/conditions was likely wrong.  I believe it was critically wrong.

Namely they modeled all of Apollo on a "firm/solid surface covered by a few inches of dust" -- therefore not much dust on landing and no crater.

NASA/SpaceX now proclaim the surface is 3-4 meters+ thick of Unconsolidated Regolith.  So if this results in a LOT MORE DUST - as one might suspect -- then Odysseus already official KNOWS that Apollo wasn't honest.   So them being tight-lipped prevents them from having to "continue the Lie".

Perhaps now they are deliberating with govt/NASA -- as though - they were ALL FOOLED... and now are "just as surprised as us".

But before dropping a whopper on all mankind's believers -- do it gradually... Or send back another mission to "Confirm".  etc.

For what other reason would they NOT be sharing ANY good photos or footage from the lander??  How the hell did they not know their horizontal velocity?  Way too much dust - would explain it.

[Mag40]

Because if Apollo didn't land, then their presentation of the Lunar Surface model/conditions was likely wrong.

They did, it is proven. Your piddling little threads have thus far proven diddly squat, except that you lack the "100% integrity" you were aiming for. You continue to divert this thread off topic.

I believe it was critically wrong.

Your belief is confirmation-bias-driven bollocks.

[TimberWolfAu]

NASA/SpaceX now proclaim the surface is 3-4 meters+ thick of Unconsolidated Regolith.  So if this results in a LOT MORE DUST -

I suspect you're not understanding what this means. Are you expecting metres of dust? Should we start referring to you as Thomas Gold now? The Surveyor, and Luna, programs both showed that the surface was only several centimetres of loose material before reaching the hardpacked material. The loose material is what was blown away during landing, with visible halos still existing to this date at each landing site, and why all photos of the area underneath the LMs show them to be free of loose material, only showing the hardpacked surface, with the loose material returning before the landing pads are reached, as was expected.

For what other reason would they NOT be sharing ANY good photos or footage from the lander??  How the hell did they not know their horizontal velocity?  Way too much dust - would explain it.

You mean the lander that had it's main radar fail before even reaching the moon and required new software to be written and uploaded so it could attempt to use equipment that wasn't supposed to be used as a landing radar? Gee, I wonder why it didn't end up landing correctly.

And then, since it landed in a poor orientation, the power didn't last as long as was expected, not was communication as easily established. And, as an added unfortunate bonus, the cube-sat camera that had been built by university students failed to transmit back to the lander. For all we know, it's got a wonderful collection of photos, it just didn't want to share them.

And radar isn't typically blocked by dust, given most dust particles are, on average, about 1,000 times smaller than the wavelengths used.

[najak]

NASA/SpaceX now proclaim the surface is 3-4 meters+ thick of Unconsolidated Regolith.  So if this results in a LOT MORE DUST -

I suspect you're not understanding what this means. Are you expecting metres of dust?

I refer to this 2019 article.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/05_1_snoble_thelunarregolith.pdf

QUOTE:
"A thick layer of regolith, fragmental and unconsolidated rock material, covers the entire
lunar surface. This layer is the result of the continuous impact of meteoroids large and small and
the steady bombardment of charged particles from the sun and stars. The regolith is generally
about 4-5 m thick in mare regions "

===
Moon dust gathers at 1 meter per million years...  so 4 meters would be 4 million years of dust gathering.   With no rain/weather or biological life - to cause cementation - it remains unconsolidated.

So the 2-3" deep dust reported by Apollo, followed by an ABRUPT hardness -- doesn't seem to match this description.

Why would there be an abrupt "hardness?"  What hardened it all of a sudden at 2-3" deep?

Do you know?  I don't.

[najak]

....

This should all be in a separate thread.   Clearly there is interest to discuss other matters.   The overlord will not allow it, as he misrepresents my defense of the "8 flag motions".

I also wonder how we estimate dust to fall at 1 mm per thousand years -- which is 1 meter per million...  and volcanic activities on the moon stopped over a billion years ago...   

Why hasn't this dust built up to 1000+ meters deep?   The volcanic/Basalt rocks should be buried 1000 meters down, right?

How does this add up?

[LunarOrbit]

....

This should all be in a separate thread.   Clearly there is interest to discuss other matters.   The overlord will not allow it, as he misrepresents my defense of the "8 flag motions".

Insulting me or calling me names is not going to do you any good. I've told you why I've added this restriction: so that you don't flood the forum with claims that you are not willing to defend. Until you prove that you are willing to defend the claims that you have already made, why should I allow you to waste our time with more?

If you keep taking your current threads off topic I will lock them too. Make a list of things you want to discuss for after you have satisfactorily concluded the current threads.

[najak]

If you keep taking your current threads off topic I will lock them too. Make a list of things you want to discuss for after you have satisfactorily concluded the current threads.

OTHERS are taking these off topic... we don't have anywhere else to discuss good topics that interest them.

I have defended ALL of my threads so far.   And drawn reasonable conclusions.

Example: 8 Flag movements has "no viable Apollogist hypothesis to explain it" -- you terminated this thread saying "he won't defend it" - but you STILL no one can provide a viable hypothesis that THEY are willing to defend... NONE.  ZERO. 

You may say - it HAS been refuted... But saying "something" without defending your "something" - isn't a proof of "viability".  When I challenge some of these attempts - they back off IMMEDIATELY because it's clear that whatever *something* they said, is non-defendable.

Tell me just ONE viable hypothesis for the 8 flag movements that someone would like to defend.    And re-open that thread so that we can discuss it where it belongs.  I am FULLY willing to discuss and defend this thesis, 100%.    But no one wants to defend their attempted hypotheses.

===
Similarly here -- I'd love to finish this one, but Jay is holding it up -- somehow it's dependent upon him.   It's been weeks now for him to offer a viable explanation for acceleration magnitude and duration that we're witnessing for all 3 AM launches.    I've defended this well.   This claim remains UNDEBUNKED.

Your overlord conclusions, and report card grades -- are very inaccurate.  This forum is being run like the Salem Witch Trial -- the ONLY accepted outcome of EVERY THREAD is "MLH must lose".  It's your present mandate.

We should now be able to move on to a few more threads, to replace the ones that have wrapped up, or are paused (waiting for Jay).

But you don't like that the ones I've opened so far -- simply don't look so good for the Apollogy.  So it's time to shut me down.

[Zakalwe]

But you don't like that the ones I've opened so far -- simply don't look so good for the Apollogy.  So it's time to shut me down.

The last defence of the coward "They had to ban me on Apollohoax". As if this is somehow a badge of honour.