Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

they can only try to downplay the topic. yes they can and they are doing that.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

More likely your problem is you're not up to the challenge..

You have framed the challenge so as to be epistemologically impossible. No one can meet that challenge. It's akin to proving that God doesn't exist.

By comparing the Apollo myth to God, you are basically saying one must accept the scientific claim of landing men on the moon on "faith". So basically you are acknowledging that Apollo is propped up by pseudo science.

In order for scientific research to be considered valid, it must be open for critical analysis and refutability. Pseudoscientific research methods often do not provide the ability to be adequately replicated, yet pseudoscientist consider their knowledge claims to be irrefutable. Many pseudoscientific statements are vacuous in construction so they do not make a valid scientific claim but a pseudo-explanation to a knowledge claim.

Grab-Bag Approach to Evidence:
Pseudoscientists will grab volumes of evidence, with limited regard to the validity or quality of the evidence to help prove their theories. Science will only accept proven, quality, refutable evidence as opposed to quantities of evidence.

Irrefutable Hypothesis:
Pseudoscientists belief that his/her theory is irrefutable. Pseudoscientists pride themselves in never being proved wrong. Scientist, who follow scientific methods of inquiry, welcome the refuting of their theories as further documentation of the validity of their hypothesis.

www.lutz-sanfilippo.com...

reply to post by FoosM

By comparing the Apollo myth to God, you are basically saying one must accept the scientific claim of landing men on the moon on "faith". So basically you are acknowledging that Apollo is propped up by pseudo science.

So basically you're admitting that you do not understand the argument; it is the Moon Hoax believers who reject all reason and evidence, arguing that if they believe in something (ie; landing on the Moon is impossible) no evidence to the contrary can even prove its feasibility, let alone its historicity.

In order for scientific research to be considered valid, it must be open for critical analysis and refutability. Pseudoscientific research methods often do not provide the ability to be adequately replicated, yet pseudoscientist consider their knowledge claims to be irrefutable. Many pseudoscientific statements are vacuous in construction so they do not make a valid scientific claim but a pseudo-explanation to a knowledge claim.

Correct. The space program was not a scientific experiment, it was an engineering project. All of its engineering data was open to review by peers, none of it was deemed unsound. Many aspects of the Apollo program have been incorporated into current hardware designs by many nations. The engineering was sound. Note how much of the proposed "next gen" manned spacecraft look suspiciously like their Apollo forebears. I find it interesting that one of the marks of pseudo-science is that its practitioners "consider their knowledge claims to be irrefutable." Sounds a lot like Jarrah to me. Certainly, his claims are vacuous in construction and propose pseudo-explanations.

Grab-Bag Approach to Evidence:
Pseudoscientists will grab volumes of evidence, with limited regard to the validity or quality of the evidence to help prove their theories. Science will only accept proven, quality, refutable evidence as opposed to quantities of evidence.

A perfect description of Jarrah's approach. He refuses to delete videos even after they are thoroughly debunked. Need I present a list again?

Irrefutable Hypothesis:
Pseudoscientists belief that his/her theory is irrefutable. Pseudoscientists pride themselves in never being proved wrong. Scientist, who follow scientific methods of inquiry, welcome the refuting of their theories as further documentation of the validity of their hypothesis.

To the best of my knowledge, the only time Jarrah has admitted to being wrong, he seemed to be trying to blame it on his editing software. But enough of Jarrah's pseudo-science, let's look at an important distinction you fail to grasp, no matter how many times I explain it: the materiality of the Apollo missions is not a scientific question, but an historical one. The standards of historical methodology are quite different from those of the physical sciences. You cannot create the Norman Invasion in a laboratory, you must examine the documentation and physical evidence... I'm sure this has all been covered before:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your Source

Originally posted by DJW001

Grab-Bag Approach to Evidence:
Pseudoscientists will grab volumes of evidence, with limited regard to the validity or quality of the evidence to help prove their theories. Science will only accept proven, quality, refutable evidence as opposed to quantities of evidence.

A perfect description of Jarrah's approach. He refuses to delete videos even after they are thoroughly debunked. Need I present a list again?

LOL, thats why you call yourself DJ.
You love to spin.

How about you present a list on how the "engineering" of Apollo provided other nations the ability to land men on the moon?

reply to post by FoosM

How about you present a list on how the "engineering" of Apollo provided other nations the ability to land men on the moon?

Any nation with $100 billion dollars can utilize NASA's basic research to build their own lunar spacecraft. As it is, countries like France, Japan and India limit themselves to NASA's developments in rocketry to build boosters like Ariane, and the general space environment data collected to design their satellites.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

How about you present a list on how the "engineering" of Apollo provided other nations the ability to land men on the moon?

Any nation with $100 billion dollars can utilize NASA's basic research to build their own lunar spacecraft. As it is, countries like France, Japan and India limit themselves to NASA's developments in rocketry to build boosters like Ariane, and the general space environment data collected to design their satellites.

Now why would it cost 100 billion if so much of the work has been done already?
I mean, you should be able to run the entire mission on a laptop right?
SpaceSuits and PLSSs have been already developed and can just be ordered.
The Saturn should could be replicated, or just buy one of the Russian rockets.
We now have GPS so landing shouldn't be as hard.
Plenty of facilities already made where they can train.
Plenty of communication satellites already in use as well as for early warning.
We got so much now to work from.

reply to post by FoosM



Just because they have done the basic research all rockets would have to be updated with modern computers and that is also taking into account the cost of the rocket, fuel, man power, research and a couple other thousand jobs that would need to be paid for.

Its not that it can't be done, We could do it again right now if obama hadn't canned the constalation program. Which cost more money to shut down than it would have to let to kept going.

people must remember that for ever dollar Nasa gets it gives back about 3 in research, new tech, so on and so fourth.

Hope that answers your question fsoom

reply to post by FoosM

LOL, thats why you call yourself DJ.
You love to spin.

How about you present a list on how the "engineering" of Apollo provided other nations the ability to land men on the moon?

I love to spin? Am I the only one who noticed what you did? I said:

Correct. The space program was not a scientific experiment, it was an engineering project. All of its engineering data was open to review by peers, none of it was deemed unsound. Many aspects of the Apollo program have been incorporated into current hardware designs by many nations.

Create straw men much? Nevertheless, I answered your question. You still haven't addressed any of the issues I raised in my post, however. Time to run away again. What will it be this time? Converging shadows? Awkward press conferences? I know... radiation! When will you stop playing games?

reply to post by DJW001

The space program was not a scientific experiment, it was an engineering project. All of its engineering data was open to review by peers, none of it was deemed unsound. Many aspects of the Apollo program have been incorporated into current hardware designs by many nations. The engineering was sound. Note how much of the proposed "next gen" manned spacecraft look suspiciously like their Apollo forebears.

How about the LMs??
I have seen recent clips of new generation landers and many are NOT very stable even given the incredible advances in computing power..
Why is that when the Apollo LM's all seemed incredibly stable even under manual control??

Why aren't we doing equal or better than that now??

reply to post by backinblack

Why aren't we doing equal or better than that now??

No comment about FoosM's straw man tactic? How impartial of you....

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

Why aren't we doing equal or better than that now??

No comment about FoosM's straw man tactic? How impartial of you....

You want me to answer for Foosm??

mate, do you comment when your guys get stars for saying nothing??

Originally posted by backinblack
How about the LMs??
I have seen recent clips of new generation landers and many are NOT very stable even given the incredible advances in computing power..

And where were these recent clips taking place? On Earth? Outside, where there is an atmosphere with wind, stronger gravity. Unlike the Moon which has less gravity and no atmospheric conditions to deal with. That makes a difference.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
How about the LMs??
I have seen recent clips of new generation landers and many are NOT very stable even given the incredible advances in computing power..

And where were these recent clips taking place? On Earth? Outside, where there is an atmosphere with wind, stronger gravity. Unlike the Moon which has less gravity and no atmospheric conditions to deal with. That makes a difference.

Pardon my ignorance but I would have though condition on the moon would make guidance harder..

Firstly atmosphere like earth acts as a buffer/resistance which IMO would keep a craft more stable..
Secondly more gravity would help keep center of gravity more stable if anything..

All you got is wind and surely they wouldn't test in a hurricane and may in fact test indoors..

Lastly advancements in computing power and software should make keeping a craft stable easy compared to what Apollo had..Not to mention advancements in rockets and controls..

Originally posted by backinblack
Lastly advancements in computing power and software should make keeping a craft stable easy compared to what Apollo had..Not to mention advancements in rockets and controls..

Exactly what "landers" are you talking about? Are you talking about things like Armadillo Aerospace's stuff?



What do you consider "less stable" than the Apollo LM about these? Also keep in mind that the AA landers are entirely controlled through gimbaling of the single engine, rather than using an RCS system. That's significantly more complex that the system on Apollo, as the margin for error is much smaller.

Originally posted by nataylor

What do you consider "less stable" than the Apollo LM about these? Also keep in mind that the AA landers are entirely controlled through gimbaling of the single engine, rather than using an RCS system. That's significantly more complex that the system on Apollo, as the margin for error is much smaller.

So the LM's engine was not gimballed?

Originally posted by FoosM
So the LM's engine was not gimballed?

Yes, it was gimbaled. But, unlike the AA craft, it did not rely entirely on gimbaling the engine for attitude control.

Originally posted by backinblack
Pardon my ignorance but I would have though condition on the moon would make guidance harder..

Firstly atmosphere like earth acts as a buffer/resistance which IMO would keep a craft more stable..
Secondly more gravity would help keep center of gravity more stable if anything..

I don't see how the two things you listed would help to keep the craft more stable.

Winds will affect it, and no, they don't need to be hurricane strength winds either. I also don't understand how more gravity would make the vehicles center of gravity more stable. The center of gravity will stay fixed, regardless of what gravity well the craft is in, as long as the vehicle itself isn't loosing a lot of its own mass.

Lastly advancements in computing power and software should make keeping a craft stable easy compared to what Apollo had..Not to mention advancements in rockets and controls..

Advancements in computers and software have the potential to make it better. The software is only as good as the people who develop it. And if the videos you saw were of early prototypes from new start-up companies like Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems, then of course they're are still going to be a lot of bugs to work out (both in hardware and software). To expect perfection right from the beginning with these small, low budget start-ups is a bit unreasonable.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
So the LM's engine was not gimballed?

Yes, it was gimbaled. But, unlike the AA craft, it did not rely entirely on gimbaling the engine for attitude control.

So tell me, if the LM hovered a few feet above the ground for a few seconds, would it leave a crater?

reply to post by FoosM


I have no idea.

Should it?

I don't see how the two things you listed would help to keep the craft more stable.

You don't think being in zero atmosphere would allow the craft to move about more??

Atmospheric pressure IMO would hold the craft more steady, why do you think it wouldn't??