It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 225
377
<< 222  223  224    226  227  228 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack

FooSM - Yes Tan lines are the proof. I mean they must be, right? Because that is your last gasp in this herculean struggle with reality, isn't it?
Do you see why serious minded people might get upset when you place burning bags of poo like that in front of them? It really is insulting.
Will you ever admit when you are wrong? Ever?

Please do us all a favor and debunk your last assertion for us. Go and list 3 reasons why what you said may NOT be true.




If you want to address one of my posts, address this one:
post

bye now




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Thanks, I view that bit of scampish humor as a concession.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Looking at averages doesn't tell you much.


Mercury MA-6: 64km

retrofire calculations had not taken into account the spacecraft's weight loss in consumables

Mercury MA-7: 300km

This misalignment alone would have caused the spacecraft to overshoot the planned impact point by about 175 miles. But the retrorockets began firing three seconds late, adding another 15 miles or so to the trajectory error.

Mercury MA-8: 7km
Mercury MA-9: 6km

Gemini 3: 97km

But "Molly Brown" seemed to be off course. The initial computer reading showed that she would miss her planned landing point by more than 69 kilometers, and Grissom's best efforts to reduce that gap were fruitless. Theoretically, the Gemini spacecraft had enough lift to be piloted to a relatively precise landing, but its real lift fell far short of what had been predicted from wind tunnel tests. As a result, Gemini 3 was about84 kilometers short of the intended splashdown point.

Gemini 4: 80km

Now they would have to resort to a rolling Mercury-type reentry, rather than the lifting bank angle the computer was supposed to help them achieve.

Gemini 5: 145km

the result of incorrect navigation coordinates transmitted to the spacecraft computer from the ground network.

Gemini 6: 10km
Gemini 7: 10km
Gemini 8: 5km
Gemini 9A: 1.5km
Gemini 10: 5.4km
Gemini 11: 5km
Gemini 12: 5km


Apollo 7: 14km
Apollo 8: 2.5km
Apollo 9: 4.8km
Apollo 10: 5.4Km
Apollo 11: 24km
Apollo 12: 7.25km
Apollo 13: 6.4km
Apollo 14: 7.km
Apollo 15: 10km
Apollo 16: 5km

Yes, they got better...on the average.

www.astronautix.com...


edit on 10/18/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
If you want to address one of my posts, address this one:
post

bye now

It's already been addressed. Sand is not more dense than rock. Given dimensions here, the ALSRC could potentially hold a solid piece of basalt (with density of 3 g/cm^3) weighing as much as 87 kg. None of the ALSRC exceeded this rough upper limit.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
Joesephus - You continue to make assertion after assertion, but provide ZERO in the way of actual data supporting your assertions. One might think that you have ZERO math skills and that is the cause of your reticence to share your academic acumen with the rest of us.

Can you support any of your assertions with data? What specific experiments have you personally done to support your many and varied assertions?

▼ If I posted here that the moon is made of cheese, would you believe me?
▼ If I told you that I know this because I am a cheese maker, would this convince you?
▼ If I told you that the Milk conglomerate was withholding the data from the public and that all of their calculations were a fraud, would that be sufficient to convince you?

What in the name of all that is Swiss, is keeping you from describing your conclusions in the scientific manner, befitting an academic?

FooSM - Yes Tan lines are the proof. I mean they must be, right? Because that is your last gasp in this herculean struggle with reality, isn't it?
Do you see why serious minded people might get upset when you place burning bags of poo like that in front of them? It really is insulting.
Will you ever admit when you are wrong? Ever?

Please do us all a favor and debunk your last assertion for us. Go and list 3 reasons why what you said may NOT be true.


i am completely shocked at the behavior of the posters here
i came to this board to have a semi-heated but learned debate on the "moon landings"
and all i see to refute valid points are insults

guys
it is just as easy to say
"perhaps they all had darker skin"
or
"if you can't show me the numbers then we are at a stalemate"

do you understand how to be civil to another during a debate

the moon landings are not able to be proven or dis-proven because of the lack of solid validity
and the contradictory numbers
the many anomalies
and the mounds and mounds of "lost"evidence
this all renders the event inconclusive at best

anyone who so chooses to stay in this board then i bid you a fine time

i have read some severely juvenile comments
while enduring the excruciating empathy of reading such words as previously quoted

i have participated in several fine threads here at ATS
but the supposed "debunkers" of the people who merely question the validity of the moon landings
on THIS THREAD
i now know to totally and completely avoid

i am shocked that the mods allow this kind of behavior
i came to ATS for intelligent debate
not gradeschool playground name calling

cheers



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


you are sooooooo correct that averages do not count for much

especially when we are talking about the locations for high neutron radiation that reflects off of the surface of the moon
as it is reported by the LRO

good to see a respected foe with a sane sense of self-worth back phage

ciao



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Have fun DJ, hope you have better luck than the lunar sample problem.


Luck has nothing to do with it; your inability to understand mathematical reasoning does. Let me explain:


Again, you stated the overall dimensions, not how much the rock box could actually hold.
And you went from 22 kilos to 87 kilos.


Your conflating these calculations demonstrates that you did not understand them. You have (almost literally) confused a bushel of apples with a bag of oranges.

As I have explained, the first post was not an attempt to analyze the actual quantity of lunar rock collected; it was specifically an attempt to neutralize your bogus argument that, correct me if I'm wrong, the quoted sample sizes were to bulky or unmanageable. You did this by using an analogy of unspecified volume. Just how big is your 50 pound sandbag? It was a rhetorical device to create a subjective image in the reader's mind, as I have pointed out elsewhere. I simply parodied your technique to create the opposite impression. What could be easier to visualize than a shoe box, something you can hold in one hand and store in the glove compartment of a (large-ish) SUV? Unlike you, I defined this hypothetical unit, the "shoebox," and proceeded to do what is called a "cocktail napkin calculation." This a a rough calculation made with reasonable assumptions to demonstrate the feasibility of a proposition (so-called because it is used by geeks to settle bar bets about questions like: "How many Standard Zeppelins would it take to steal the Golden Gate Bridge?" Yes, the Standard Zeppelin is a long standing, pre-defined quantity.) Assuming the lunar samples to be composed of basalt, and therefore having a density of 3g/cm3 is a perfectly valid step... and one which, if you were paying attention you would have jumped on instantly. You would have objected that I was describing "shoebox" sized bricks of solid basalt, not samples that would be loosely packed and therefor of lesser density. Nevertheless, the proposition would still be considered acceptable by "cocktail napkin" standards. In real life the number might be 18 kilos rather than 22. Either way, you could still pack it under your seat. In passing, this calculation sets the upper boundary on the mass of lunar samples that can be contained in a particular volume. We will return to that in a moment. For now, you must accept that the intention of the first post was fully realized. The lunar rock samples were of a manageable size. Objections?

The second post addressed the actual LSRC. I simply performed the same "cocktail napkin" calculations to determine what the theoretical upper limit on the mass of the samples would be. Assuming that the sample size corresponds to the outer dimensions of the LSRC (another point you failed to catch, but acceptable by "cocktail napkin" standards) and that it was packed with perfect efficiency into that volume, I showed that the total sample size could not possibly exceed 175.3 kilos per mission. It did not. Apollo 17 held the "Tetris Close Packing" record with 111 kilograms, or 63% of the maximum possible sample size based on the given assumptions. This suggests that the thickness of the container walls, aluminum mesh, gaps between the samples, etc, etc, ate up 27% of this theoretical maximum. By "cocktail napkin" standards, that's pretty darn close. Any objections?

Now we come to this curious statement that you make:


At the end of the day we have no choice but to defer to NASA's own numbers.
Would you agree?
Thats the problem, all we have is NASA as a source of information.


Since when do you believe in deferring to NASA on anything? Anyway, the problem with the figure you quote is that it is clearly a "Potemkin Number," one that has no clear referent or evidence to back it up, and therefor possibly made up. Does the NASA contract requirement specify the maximum weight that each LSRC can carry? Can you link to another source that verifies this? All we have elsewhere are the dimensions, not the carrying capacity. What would happen if they accidentally put 41 pounds of rock into one? Would the handle break off? The number is suspect for many reasons. First, they had no idea of exactly how dense their samples would be: they would assume they were igneous and therefor pretty dense, but what if they were light and fluffy? Did the astronauts carefully weigh each sample for fear of exceeding the rock box's limit? Why would NASA specify a maximum carrying capacity anyway? If you take the number in context, you will note that the page is written in an odd mixture of tenses, and an interesting "voice." It was clearly written prior to Apollo 16 and seems to be a "spectator's guide," intended to inform journalists, science teachers and the general public as to the coming attractions of the mission. Hence the future tense and use of expressions like "you will hear...." The writer was attempting to give the reader as concrete an impression as possible of the paraphernalia involved, hence the off-the-cuff statement that the LSRC held around 20 or 40 pounds of material. Which was it? 20 or 40 pounds? Not a very precise figure, is it? That's because it was a "guesstimate." The first few missions brought back from 80 to 90 pounds of samples, so, meh, the thing holds around twenty or thirty or forty pounds, something like that. It is clearly not intended to be a precise figure! Any calculation that uses such an imprecise figure can only be bogus. Any objections?

As I said earlier, I trust my own calculations over anything a NASA copywriter might say, especially when they are clearly speaking loosely, Any objections?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

i am completely shocked at the behavior of the posters here
i came to this board to have a semi-heated but learned debate on the "moon landings"
and all i see to refute valid points are insults


Can you give an example of one of your "valid points" you've made?


the moon landings are not able to be proven or dis-proven because of the lack of solid validity
and the contradictory numbers
the many anomalies
and the mounds and mounds of "lost"evidence
this all renders the event inconclusive at best



And I ask you again, what are these "contradictory numbers" you speak of? You came here making definitive statements that either the TLI burn was insufficient or there was not enough fuel to get the stack to the moon. However, every time you were asked to back up the assertions with data, you have ignored us.

Now please, give us the data you used to determine the TLI burn was insufficient and these "contradictory numbers".



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


(EDIT----Phage beat me to it, upthread....while I was slowly slogging through this one. Oh, well, his works too, because it's shorter...?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, FoosM, you have been caught....well, "lying" isn't entirely accurate.....you simply MISREPRESENTED numbers, that you (to credit) sourced...but, also, SINCE you sourced them, your "interpretation" will not withstand scrutiny.

I am truly wondering IF you really believe this tripe, or are just scraping the bottom of the barrel, in desperate attempts to safe "face"....

Let's see your first little ploy, here:


Originally posted by FoosM
Miss Distance Average in kilometers for manned missions:

Mercury: 84.06
Gemini: 50.57
Apollo: 4.5

4.5 ? What the hell?


Checking the Wiki source, "Spacecraft Splashdown" link....there is a really nice, BIG chart with the statistics for all the splashdowns.

Is THAT what you used to make your completely non-relevant "average"???

(I suggest anyone interested click the link, and take a gander....especially, paying attention to after Gemini 5....).

The reason your "average" is nonsense is seen, clearly. AFTER August 29, 1965 and the recovery of Gemini 5, the remainder all had a much better rate of accuracy. Gee....you don't think maybe they were LEARNING??? And, the unmanned missions can be ignored, for there is a reason to have a person onboard....for the final course corrections, before entry begins, and they are committed.

Feeble attempt at obfuscation, Foos....


What the hell did NASA do different for Apollo than for Gemini or Mercury?
...... More magical numbers for Apollo NASA?


??? NOW you are encroaching on outright falsehoods:

Gemini 8 --- Miss distance, 2 km
Gemini 9A --- Miss distance, 0.7 km (!!)

Gemini 10, 11 and 12....6 km, 5 km and 5 km

Apollo 7 ----- 3 km
Apollo 8 ----- 2 km
Apollo 9 ----- 5 km
(etc)........

Of course, you ARE ALSO calling every person in the United States Navy associated with the Apollo spacecraft recovery missions a LIAR, too --- you and "Jarrah White", with these stupid assertions. You do realize this, yes??



Strange enough, for unmanned missions the distance already is larger.
Apollo: 134 kilometers


Oh, I see your renowned reputation for accuracy is still intact...
Again, looking at the chart in the link, the "unmanned" stats are clearly shown. There were some AMAZINGLY accurate ones. They had some better than others; your attempt to distort is noted. AND, without full and precise study as to ALL circumstances that impact each mission individually, your claims remain meaningless.




Now you and I know that NASA air dropped those capsules into the ocean.


Hogwash.

Let's take a look at some photos. Here is the Apollo 15 Command Module, AFTER a very, very hot entry through the Earth's atmosphere, shortly after recovery aboard the U.S.S. Okinawa:



Notice anything distinguishing about its condition???

Let's see what it looks like, circa recently, in a museum (some place I should think YOU may wish to visit, one day, in order to learn something for a change):



NOW....there are certainly plenty of images to see it BEFORE it flew....I found pretty ones when its attached to the Service Module, in Lunar orbit....and there are plenty of videos to access, too....LM docking, and such.

But, for overall impact, I chose this one, of another CM that was built, but never flew (I have now researched, it is craft #007, used for various tests to evaluate the structure and integrity). I fear it is large, and may exceed page width, so I may have to edit once posted. I like it BECAUSE it's large, and has good detail...This CM is a duplicate of Apollo CMs, and shows the pristine condition they all looked like, before flight:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, looks like ATS now automatically crops photos, to prevent screwing with page formats....so, I looked deeper into that last photo. As noted it has been restored by the museum where it resides, to represent what it would have looked like when new:


007 unflown test capsule Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA


List of Current Locations of Manned Spacecraft for that long-needed museum trip....


edit on 18 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Notes.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
If you want to address one of my posts, address this one:
post

bye now

It's already been addressed. Sand is not more dense than rock. Given dimensions here, the ALSRC could potentially hold a solid piece of basalt (with density of 3 g/cm^3) weighing as much as 87 kg. None of the ALSRC exceeded this rough upper limit.


I dont know what your smoking, but I think its probably illegal.
They only had two rock boxes that could hold as much as 40 pounds.
Thats 80 pounds or 36 kilos they could bring back.
Where are you getting 87 kilos from?

Secondly, think about the NUMBER or rocks they claimed to have brought back on A16 and A17.
And take a look at how many rocks could actually fit in the boxes. It doesn't add up.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


Apollo 7: 14km
Apollo 8: 2.5km
Apollo 9: 4.8km
Apollo 10: 5.4Km
Apollo 11: 24km
Apollo 12: 7.25km
Apollo 13: 6.4km
Apollo 14: 7.km
Apollo 15: 10km
Apollo 16: 5km

Yes, they got better...on the average.

www.astronautix.com...


edit on 10/18/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)


They got real good.
What accounts for that?
What was improved? extra DIV



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I liked your description of him much more than he is. And since when is the moon hoax still going on?

We've been to the moon people deal with it.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I dont know what your smoking, but I think its probably illegal.
They only had two rock boxes that could hold as much as 40 pounds.
Thats 80 pounds or 36 kilos they could bring back.
Where are you getting 87 kilos from?


You need to go back and read this.
edit on 18-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

They learned how to avoid problems which result in large miss distances. I specified those problems. Don't you understand what a single large number does to an average? That's why using averages makes no sense. You'll notice that the missions which did not experience reentry problems were just as accurate as the Apollo missions.

Mercury MA-6: 64km

retrofire calculations had not taken into account the spacecraft's weight loss in consumables

Mercury MA-7: 300+km

This misalignment alone would have caused the spacecraft to overshoot the planned impact point by about 175 miles. But the retrorockets began firing three seconds late, adding another 15 miles or so to the trajectory error.



Gemini 3: 97km

But "Molly Brown" seemed to be off course. The initial computer reading showed that she would miss her planned landing point by more than 69 kilometers, and Grissom's best efforts to reduce that gap were fruitless. Theoretically, the Gemini spacecraft had enough lift to be piloted to a relatively precise landing, but its real lift fell far short of what had been predicted from wind tunnel tests. As a result, Gemini 3 was about84 kilometers short of the intended splashdown point.

Gemini 4: 80km

Now they would have to resort to a rolling Mercury-type reentry, rather than the lifting bank angle the computer was supposed to help them achieve.

Gemini 5: 145km

the result of incorrect navigation coordinates transmitted to the spacecraft computer from the ground network.




edit on 10/18/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Secondly, think about the NUMBER or rocks they claimed to have brought back on A16 and A17.
And take a look at how many rocks could actually fit in the boxes. It doesn't add up.


Did you know they make rocks in different sizes now?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Do you think that the capacity of a container is measured by the volume it can contain, or by the weight it can carry? (hint: volume is the correct answer). Now do the following: search on Google for the capacity of the sample boxes. Then search for the more or less average density of the samples they collected. Now multiply the capacity by the average density. What is the figure you get? Is this figure lower than 110 kg?

Question, why haven't you done this before you made multiple (long) posts about this? The data in readily available.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
If you want to address one of my posts, address this one:
post

bye now

It's already been addressed. Sand is not more dense than rock. Given dimensions here, the ALSRC could potentially hold a solid piece of basalt (with density of 3 g/cm^3) weighing as much as 87 kg. None of the ALSRC exceeded this rough upper limit.


I dont know what your smoking, but I think its probably illegal.
They only had two rock boxes that could hold as much as 40 pounds.
Thats 80 pounds or 36 kilos they could bring back.
Where are you getting 87 kilos from?

Secondly, think about the NUMBER or rocks they claimed to have brought back on A16 and A17.
And take a look at how many rocks could actually fit in the boxes. It doesn't add up.



Whatever source you have putting a 40-pound limit on the box is wrong. If you look at the dimensions of the boxes I linked to (20.3 x 48.3 x 29.8cm), they can hold 29,218 cubic centimeters. Which means a solid piece of basalt, with a density of 3 grams per cubic centimeter, that could fit inside the box would weigh 87 kg.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
If you want to address one of my posts, address this one:
post

bye now

It's already been addressed. Sand is not more dense than rock. Given dimensions here, the ALSRC could potentially hold a solid piece of basalt (with density of 3 g/cm^3) weighing as much as 87 kg. None of the ALSRC exceeded this rough upper limit.


I dont know what your smoking, but I think its probably illegal.
They only had two rock boxes that could hold as much as 40 pounds.
Thats 80 pounds or 36 kilos they could bring back.
Where are you getting 87 kilos from?

Secondly, think about the NUMBER or rocks they claimed to have brought back on A16 and A17.
And take a look at how many rocks could actually fit in the boxes. It doesn't add up.



Whatever source you have putting a 40-pound limit on the box is wrong. If you look at the dimensions of the boxes I linked to (20.3 x 48.3 x 29.8cm), they can hold 29,218 cubic centimeters. Which means a solid piece of basalt, with a density of 3 grams per cubic centimeter, that could fit inside the box would weigh 87 kg.


Yet they didnt put one solid piece of basalt did they?
No.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

As I said earlier, I trust my own calculations over anything a NASA copywriter might say, especially when they are clearly speaking loosely, Any objections?


I dont object you wanting to believe your own estimates over NASA's.
Thats your prerogative.

But facts are facts buddy, NASA claims the numbers and they posted it on their website as fact.
Now I see you sending off posters to various NASA related information telling them to trust NASA's numbers.
I dont see you writing a lengthy preamble to the style and tone of what NASA has written warning those posters to take NASA's info with a grain of salt.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


No, they didn't put a solid bit in. But a solid bit would indicate the rough upper limit of what could possibly would fit in the box, weight wise. Actual individual samples would weight less than than a solid piece, as there would be packaging and empty space. But none of the boxes exceeded that limit, so there's nothing odd about the amounts that were actually in the box.

Keep following along. You'll get there eventually.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
377
<< 222  223  224    226  227  228 >>

log in

join