Author Topic: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?  (Read 551319 times)

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #360 on: January 29, 2013, 03:52:41 AM »
What about Apollo 5? Software errors meant the LM didn't perform as expected (a suspected fuel leak meant that the tanks weren't pressurised at the right time, which "tripped" the computer up).
The writers of that software take exception to that characterization. The problem was that they were given an incorrect parameter; the software behaved correctly with the given value.

The computer was programmed to abort a burn if it did not see thrust (chamber pressure and/or +X acceleration) within a specified time. Because it was the first DPS burn, the pyro valves on the pressurization system had to be blown. Extra time should have been allowed for the helium to flow, but it wasn't factored into the burn abort timer.

This is why we test...


Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1598
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #361 on: January 29, 2013, 04:04:44 AM »
What about Apollo 5? Software errors meant the LM didn't perform as expected (a suspected fuel leak meant that the tanks weren't pressurised at the right time, which "tripped" the computer up).
The writers of that software take exception to that characterization. The problem was that they were given an incorrect parameter; the software behaved correctly with the given value.

The computer was programmed to abort a burn if it did not see thrust (chamber pressure and/or +X acceleration) within a specified time. Because it was the first DPS burn, the pyro valves on the pressurization system had to be blown. Extra time should have been allowed for the helium to flow, but it wasn't factored into the burn abort timer.

This is why we test...

I'm sure that the writers will cope.  ;)

The point stands. The LM did not perform flawlessly, as Alexsanchez contended. It performed well enough to get the job done, thanks to tens of thousands of hours testing, correcting, adapting, training and so on.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #362 on: January 29, 2013, 04:11:59 AM »
The point stands. The LM did not perform flawlessly, as Alexsanchez contended.
Absolutely true. And the failures it did have, while never serious enough to abort a mission or injure a crew, are of the type that any experienced engineer will most definitely recognize. They came in at least three kinds:

Last minute changes that impact some other system in an unforseen way. Because they're last minute, there wasn't time for a complete system integration retest.

Things that were never really tested at all - like the exact configuration of the rendezvous radar and computer during the Apollo 11 landing. Some of the switches in the simulators were just dummies because nothing meaningful could be done with them.

Random failures of things that worked before, due to quality control or just random bad luck.



Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1965
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #363 on: January 29, 2013, 05:03:22 AM »
You mean 100% guaranteed success like Iran-Contra, the Watergate break-in and tapes, Potempkin villages, Piltdown Man, the Bruno Hat...

... Korea, Bay of Pigs, The Pueblo, Francis Gary Powers, Vietnam....
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline tikkitakki

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 30
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #364 on: January 29, 2013, 05:28:08 AM »
There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qhcs6qiHLI
That's not Armstrong, but Joe Algranti (LLRV/LLTV crash #2 of 3).

This video has all three crashes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8EegsMCLnQ

Offline ChrLz

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #365 on: January 29, 2013, 05:50:43 AM »
Quote from: alexsanchez
If I have any other questions I know where to come.
Might have been better to ask questions right at the start, rather than making the allegation of fakery so stridently and ignorantly, and then having all your goofs and errors pointed out to you in excruciating detail.

Just as well it's not your real name, huh?

Quote
While I still maintain it was possible to fake
And you're wrong there too - I can nominate several things that would have been impossible to fake.  Surely you are aware of the wonderful analyses that are out there showing details that have only recently been able to be verified due to the newly available technologies?  A couple of those examples came from posters hereabouts.. I won't nominate them - someone needs to try to teach you to get off your lazy backside and do some decent research.  I'll give you a hint for one, though - 'weather'.

Quote
there's adequate overwhelming argument to maintain that it wasn't. Along with a comprehensive and completely coherent and consistent historical record, that could only be doubted by someone who hasn't bothered to look at it properly
Fixed that for you.

Quote
There's still a few things I want to check out though.
As I posted earlier, and you refused to acknowledge, why don't you just do that but *thoroughly*, and then bring back your best, well-researched 'thing'?, instead of the train wreck that has just transpired..

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #366 on: January 29, 2013, 08:02:10 AM »
Comin in late due to time differences, but here's my two penn'orth.

However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.

So not based on any actual examination of evidence then?

What you are doing is the equivalent of trying to convict me of murdering my wife because you have evidence that I lied about things, so I am probably lying about my innocence. Only thing is, you're so fixated on that you've neglected to check if my wife is actually dead. She's not (and she might well pop up here to confirm that in a minute). Since the case hinges on that rather salient point, it would be prudent to check the facts before singing on about motives and likelihood of lying.

Quote
But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.

Typical layman's mistake: assume that without prior samples we would have no way to confirm anything. Science doesn't work solely by comparison.

Quote
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.

How?

Quote
The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV.

That's because that's the only one that ever appears on conspiracy theory websites and TV shows. Those of us who have done a little more research have seen a lot more of the record.

Quote
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM,

How do you test a landing craft designed to be flown by two men? Could it be that you put two men in it and get them to land it?

The LM was tested on three flights before Apollo 11. Apollo 11 was the final test.

Quote
First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing,

That applies only to one landing. What about the other five? Apollo 12 in particular did have a reference and was sighted from orbit by the CSM optics, just on the other side of a crater that had Surveyor 3 in it.

Quote
The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.

But through the navigation optics?

Quote
That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.

Again the layman's error. The rendezvous was accomplished at closing speeds measured in the low feet per second range.

Quote
Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate.  They wouldn't even have a gyro-compass to get a bearing before liftoff.  No theodolite bearing.  How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?

You don't have an unknown bearing. You don't need to lift off into exactly the right orbit, as has been explained to you over and over again. Why can't you grasp the simple fact that getting into orbit and the rendezvous were decoupled?

Quote
The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.

Absolute rubbish.

Quote
You can slant an experiment to show anything you want.

No you can't.

Quote
The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real,

Prove it. We hear that all the time. Literally. And no-one has ever been able to explain how faking is easier than going.

Quote
My patent has really nothing to do with my arguments.  The patent happens to be for translating NASA software from an old language to object oriented C++, or any other modern language.  It could just as well be used for converting accounting software to C++.  My arguments about Apollo stand on their own.

No, you don't get out of it that easily. You have used your patent and your former colleagues as evidence of your own credentials, having made arguments that are based on your supposed expertise. You have been unable to substantiate that expertise, and when pressed to do so your attempts to bluff us failed miserably.

Quote
With the moon landings, it's NASA said it and I believe it.

What absolute utter rubbish. You can try all you like to reduce this to an argument of faith with no right or wrong answer, but the reality is exactly the opposite of that. We have tools and methods for analysing the evidence available. It is absolutely NOT a matter of faith.

Quote
I'd have to do some more research to attempt to prove they aren't there

And this is why the real engineers and scientists here don't take your claims of expertise seriously. What you should have said is 'I'd have to do some more research to attempt to find out if they are there or not'. You have clearly illustrated your agenda of choosing what the answer is before starting the research.
 
Quote
I'm not here to prove anything.  I can't.  I'm just here to debate.  A devils advocate.  It would be great if people could do that with a sense of humor.

It would be great if you could have done it without childish rudeness and insults. Sorry, you don't get it forgotten that easily when you suddenly say 'hey, I'm just here to debate'.

Quote
Are you saying there's no water on the moon?

Are you going down this road as well? How boring.

Yes, there is water on the Moon. It seems to be formed by interaction with the solar wind on the surface of the rocks and soil. It was not present when the rocks formed. Moon rocks are chemically anhydrous once you remove the outer layers.

Water was found in the Apollo samples, but not in parts of the rock and soil they could conclusively say had not been contaminated by water here on Earth. Since water is everywhere, contamination is almost impossible to avoid. Since they could not rule it out they could not say the water was part of the rock while it was on the moon. Inside the rock, there is no water chemically bound at all.

Quote
Did the astronauts come back with any 'zap pits'?

They hadn't been sitting on the Moon for billions of years to acquire them.

Quote
And the way to fake a moon video is to use a telecine.

And once again, as someone who knows what a telecine is and how it works, I will say again, no, that would not work.

Quote
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)

No, they're not. They're really not. They're ingeniously shot but they do not pass muster under close examination as true zero gravity footage.

Quote
Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.

I am always amused by this claim. Do you happen to know where Kubrick lived and worked during the 1960s, or where 2001 was actually shot?

Quote
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.

So you are indeed saying the engineering was not up to the task, despite your claim otherwise. You've supposedly worked for and with some of the companies that actually participated in Apollo. Why don't you contact your former colleagues with your ideas?

Quote
You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.

And you can go back and read the explanations as to why that is not right, and you can answer the questions that have been put to you. I'll repeat my question:

To what degree of precision and accuracy would they need to know their position to be able to get into orbit similar to that of the CSM? Provide your evidence.

Quote
My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.

Prove that.

Quote
It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.

Prove that.

Quote
What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?

Yes, it's a risk, but that's why there was an extensive testing program.

Apollo 1 killed three men on the pad. Challenger killed 7 people on ascent. Columbia killed seven people on re-entry. The space program goes on.

Quote
If the astronauts were prepared to die, I'm sure they were prepared to go into hiding.

Wow, you really have no idea about how people work, do you? Why do you think someone who is prepared to die risking their life for a worthy goal would be prepared to go into hiding to maintain a lie? That's just about the flimsiest argument ever.

Quote
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.

So now you finally realised we don't believe a word you say about your expertise and technical know-how, you're trying this lame about-face? Rather than defend your arguments against people who actually do have experience in the aerosapce industry that goes beyond software development patents, you've wimped out?

I still want answers to the following questions:

What do your former friends and colleagues at Boeing, General Dynamics and MacDonnell Douglas say about your ideas, and if they disagree why do you maintain your views?

How do you explain your absurd claim that you did image processing for Boeing on the U2 program, when those three things have nothing to do with each other?

What have you to say about your bare-faced lie about being kicked off a forum for believing the ISS was real?

Do you think we can't see a poor attempt at a face-saving exit after realising you can't actually discuss the technical details with the people here who actually know what they are talking about and recognise your arguments for the rubbish they are?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #367 on: January 29, 2013, 08:25:56 AM »
Comin in late due to time differences, but here's my two penn'orth.

However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.

So not based on any actual examination of evidence then?

What you are doing is the equivalent of trying to convict me of murdering my wife because you have evidence that I lied about things, so I am probably lying about my innocence. Only thing is, you're so fixated on that you've neglected to check if my wife is actually dead. She's not (and she might well pop up here to confirm that in a minute). Since the case hinges on that rather salient point, it would be prudent to check the facts before singing on about motives and likelihood of lying.

I am actually getting worried about the number of times you have used this example...
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #368 on: January 29, 2013, 09:00:56 AM »
Yes. What is it about domestic violence that lends itself to use in demonstrating logical fallacies?

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #369 on: January 29, 2013, 09:09:55 AM »
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. 

Since you have demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of the the relevant engineering issues nor of orbital mechanics, your claim has been defeated. 

Quote
My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

I'll give you your due for being open about the motivation for your belief being primarily political.  While political beliefs underlay most HBs' arguments, it is refreshing to find one who is so straight forward about it.  It is unfortunate for you that an after the fact political rationalization in a support of your beliefs, with no evidence supplied, serves no real purpose.  The claim of an Apollo hoax is a claim to an interpretation of history and the theory must be developed with reference to documentation and artifacts.  Since you provide none, your claim is nothing more than a "if I ran the zoo" argument. 

You have left the intellectual legacy of "alexsanchez" is in tatters. 
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 09:39:27 AM by Echnaton »
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #370 on: January 29, 2013, 09:21:11 AM »
There's a common belief that "if I can find one faked photograph, the whole thing was a fake." This is a logical fallacy. Actually, as long as at least one photograph on the moon's surface is NOT a fake, it means that the landing occurred.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #371 on: January 29, 2013, 09:36:37 AM »
Yes. What is it about domestic violence that lends itself to use in demonstrating logical fallacies?
The beginning and ending (or at least potential ending) of relationships have the most dramatic qualities and there is nothing more dramatic than murder.  The middle relationship stuff about who is cooking dinner tonight or taking out the garbage is really boring.  Murder is a poor way to start a relationship, except in those select few Gothic movies. 
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 09:38:34 AM by Echnaton »
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1598
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #372 on: January 29, 2013, 09:44:50 AM »
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. 

But it's been pointed out time and again that it WAS possible. The problem seems to be in your understanding of it.

the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.
 <handwaving deleted>

There are very few things in life that are 100% guaranteed. I can only think of two things.....death and taxes.
Nobody goes into anything expecting 100% success. Stock market investments, marriages, friendships, engineering projects all carry risk. But that's rarely a reason for not doing it. in engineering the risk is planned for and managed as far as possible. That's what makes engineering great...the way that meticulous planning can cover the vast majority of eventualities (but then, as an engineer you would know this... ;) ::) ::)).

The greater the risk, generally, the greater the rewards. And in the case of Apollo, the risks were very well managed (just look at the Mission Rules for a start). But success was not guaranteed. It never is. Thats not a reason for not doing something though.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #373 on: January 29, 2013, 10:12:05 AM »
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.
When you come back, please don't continue to maintain the fiction that you're some sort of aerospace engineer.  I asked you politely about your claimed experience, and didn't really get answers.  I don't need them any more; it's clear that not only have you inflated your resume, you've performed a burst test on it - and failed rather badly.

There's really nothing to add at this point; others here have picked clean your claims, all of which were just regurgitations of standard hoax-believer cliches anyway.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
« Reply #374 on: January 29, 2013, 10:14:04 AM »
If I have any other questions I know where to come.

You were never "asking questions."  You were never "seeking knowledge."  Your entire tenure here has been trying to foist naive layman's expectations and nonsense you cribbed from elsewhere, under the color of expertise, in order to validate your socio-political belief.  You aren't curious; you're condescending.  You had hoped that if you armed yourself with a smattering of Googled factoids and some handwaving (but obviously false) qualifications, and stirred it liberally with bluff and bluster, someone might praise you for your knowledge and cleverness.

While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.

Clever but unconvincing.  You acknowledge that you can't answer the challenges to your claims, but you don't change your mind.  You still believe as you did when you arrived.  It's a non-conceding concession that lets you save face for the fringe reset.

I predict you'll be back before too long, having "checked out" another set of conspiracy sites and cribbed their ignorance to pass off here as "knowledge" on yet another subject.  You tried navigation -- failed.  You tried photo analysis -- failed.  You tried geology -- failed.  My guess is space radiation.  That's usually the next topic the hoax believers push.  You'll have suddenly remembered some unverifiable credential that supposedly gives you expertise in radiation, and you'll copypaste more lay ignorance.  And all that "research" you did in your absence will predictably re-solidify your belief in the Apollo hoax.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams