Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


You know, I remember ALL of these nonsense claims from many, many pages back in this thread......and, they were raised by YOU, and the answers were supplied to YOU.

Short memory? Or, something else going on, here?

also see plumes during these Apollo stage separations which Im assuming is occurring in space:

You are referring to a video of Saturn V stage separation. If you bothered to research (well, actually as I just mentioned, you have already been schooled on this...but, I think everyone here knows why you keep bringing it up again, despite that fact).

Do you (really) not recall the discussion about the "ULLAGE MOTORS"? (**)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>[(**) AH, edit in here...I went to the ATS Search feature, and typed in 'ullage motor'. Lo and behold, here is an excellent post that describes the typical FoosM tactics in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please also refer to this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

And,this one: www.abovetopsecret.com...

And more....feel free, gentle audience, to review the entire Page 310 of this thread, for a refresher course in "Trolling and Deflecting Tactics", courtesy of one certain very prolific tr....erm......poster.

Also, "Ullage Motors" are mentioned again on Page 315.]

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by ProudBird

 

oh ..and why do i have to be qualified to ask a question ??

you dont' have to be qualified to ask a question.

However when you say things like:

The amount of fuel needed to launch off the moon, to stay in orbit is seriously lacking to me; not to mention the amount of oxygen needed to breathe which I've posted way earlier in the thread ..

the math doesn't compute to the needs of the engine, physics or human consumption to proceed ..

You are saying that you have computed how much it would take and you know the figures - THAT requires some qualification.

And since you say you know the figures, why don't you provide them?? You lambast the reply for not having any - but you didn't actually do the courtesy of showing your own calculations so are equally "guilty"

According to this page, for example, the Service module carried 290 kg of liquid oxygen - the wiki page for oxygen gives some figures for density, etc

1.141 g/cm³ density of liquid oxygen
90.188 K boiling point of oxygen
1.429 g/l density of gaseous oxygen

so 290 kg of liquid O2 would appear to be enough to create 414,410 litres of gaseous O2 (290*1000*1.429), which would be 138,136.7 litres per astronaut.

According to this page the average person consumes about 550 litres of pure O2 per day - so if my math is right that oxygen load is enough for 251 days!!

That seems like a lot to me so perhaps my math is wrong somewhere?? Feel free to check it out.....

hmmm..




CM & LEM in orbit? just looks rather odd to me, how the LEM is on top of the CM.. I had always assumed that the LEM would have just dropped below the CM as the CM would have just continued on it's path

.. but.. wouldn't that mean that the CM would still have to be traveling at the same orbiting speed to not loose the orbit.. and since that is true, how did the LEM disconnect from the CM specifically traveling at orbiting speed...

Here's what I thought would have happened ..

A) CM & LEM are both traveling at orbiting speed (velocity)

B) CM slows down just enough to hold orbit, while LEM 'drops' below to allow the CM to pass overhead, and continue

C) LEM lands

after this the LEM launches from the moon and the entire hook-up with the CM is to confusing to understand technically since I don't see any fuel cell large enough or technology precise to hook up with the CM in space let alone from the lift-off from the moon..

and in the picture, why is the LEM above the CM .. to me, it makes no sense to have the LEM above the CM.. unless they floated up above it, but that would require them to burn more fuel since they have to re-orientate the LM toward the moon and i can't find sources currently to view the entire disconnection of the CM / LM and their link-up in moon orbit ..

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Doesn't need to have a whole lot of qualification .. almost simple math you can do the cal's if needed.. which I did my best in this thread earlier on the actual amount of oxygen needed to survive the mission for 3 humans based on a airless environment using underwater as an example; which I don't see the tanks of oxygen anywhere on board which should require, IMO, 3 5000gls of breathable oxygen should have been needed...but, i guess they used re-breathers 100% of the time...

but I'm not a mathematician or a engineer,

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


so they're converting liquid O2 to breathable O2 ?? Now, i'm not a scientist by any means that you guys are .. but according to my very poor memory..

Breathable O2, for scuba diving isn't the same has Liquid O2..but, I didn't know they used Liquid O2 could be converted on the fly for breathable O2 ..

or can it..

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

And since you say you know the figures, why don't you provide them?? You lambast the reply for not having any - but you didn't actually do the courtesy of showing your own calculations so are equally "guilty"

I did, there on this thread some where, or a seperate thread i had started..

but can't find it ..

reply to post by Komodo


AFAIK breathing is the only reason to have any oxygen on hte command/Service module - the engines do not use it.

I don't know the technical rquirements - but ultimately gaseous oxygen from liquid oxygen is still gaseous oxygen and can be breathed - I expect it's a bit more complicated than scuba gear!!

Infamously, of course, the Apollo 1 crew was killed by a fire in which the 100% oxygen atmosphere was part of the problem - IIRC in space they breath it at only 5psi,- but the training exercise they were on was at "sea level" - and pressure was set at 16.7 psi pure O2 - WAY too much for safety

reply to post by Komodo

.....just like this reply, all 'slam & bang' but no details..

Well, since you found that neat retro NASA animated explanation from 1962 for the Apollo scenario, then a longer video is going to explain orbital dynamics.

(It was a *blast from the past*, and well over-simplified, but fun to watch anyway. You see, it was made shortly after the "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" concept for Apollo was officially adopted.....favored over the other two methods that were rejected).

President John F. Kennedy's decision in 1961 to land a man on the moon "before the decade is out" meant that NASA had to move quickly to find the best method of accomplishing the journey. NASA gave serious consideration to three options: Initially, direct ascent; then, Earth-orbit rendezvous (EOR), and, finally, a darkhorse candidate, lunar-orbit rendezvous (LOR).

Direct ascent was basically the method that had been pictured in science fiction novels and Hollywood movies. A massive rocket the size of a battleship would be fired directly to the moon, land and then blast off for home directly from the lunar surface. The trip would be like that of a chartered bus, moving from point A to point B and back to A again in one brute of a vehicle.

Strong feelings existed within NASA in favor of direct ascent, largely because it meant the development of a proposed giant booster named the Nova. After the engineers made their calculations, however, NASA realized that any single big rocket that had to carry and lift all the fuel necessary for leaving the Earth's gravity, braking against the moon's gravity as well as leaving it, and braking back down into the Earth's gravity again, was clearly not a realistic option-especially if the mission was to be accomplished anywhere close to President Kennedy's timetable. The development of a rocket that mammoth would just take too long, and the expense would be enormous.

SO, that early video had several inaccuracies....including the designation for the Lunar Module. ("LEM" was dropped early on, to just "LM". Still, the two letters are pronounced the same..."lem").

More on the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method

LOR required the need for skills in orbital rendezvous --- being able to know how to get two spacecraft to *meet up* on orbit. That was one of the reasons for the Gemini Project, where they practiced such maneuvers a lot. They practiced more rendezvous with Apollo too. Gemini also saw the practice of EVA on orbit ("spacewalks"), since there were cameras in the final few Apollo missions that were located in the Service Module, and the film magazines from those cameras had to be retrieved by going outside to get them, and bring back to the CM. This was done during the coast back home to Earth, after leaving Lunar orbit.

Since you like YouTube videos, these two (Parts 1 & 2) are about 22 minutes total, and explain the concept of orbital rendezvous:





It really is *rocket science*......

reply to post by ProudBird


I stil have the NatGeo's from the early 60's covering the Gemini missions & used to pore over them as a kid - I vividly recall the issues on the redezvous betweeen 2 Gemini's and between a Gemini & Agena - although I think that was a couple of years afterwards as I would ahve only been 6 or 7 at the time!!

I didn't really click until the mid 80's or even later that they were testing out the technology for Apollo - and even testing the viability of the mission plan itself - it is amazing to think how fast they decided how to do things back then!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


here's your FULL text of your Link

The average adult at rest inhales and exhales something like 7 or 8 liters (about one-fourth of a cubic foot) of air per minute. That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day.

The air that is inhaled is about 20-percent oxygen, and the air that is exhaled is about 15-percent oxygen, so about 5-percent of the volume of air is consumed in each breath and converted to carbon dioxide. Therefore, a human being uses about 550 liters of pure oxygen (19 cubic feet) per day. A person who is exercising obviously uses a lot more oxygen than that. You could determine how much air is moving through your lungs by exhaling into a plastic bag of known volume at each breath and seeing how long it takes to fill the bag.

the 551 is the PURE oxygen, I'm talking breathable air which is being stated as

That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day/24hr period per person or 2905.89 US gallons of air/24hrs which equals ..

231,000gals of air total for 3 astronauts for 7days.. and to be safe, should anything happen, to be on the safe side, double that to ensure they safe return is..

Now divide that by 5000gals (max tank size) =92.4gals tanks of air needed for the entire trip, even compressed that's 46.2 tanks needed.. and that's not converted into Cubit feet ..

I don't see those tanks ANYWHERE on the rocket, CM, LEM or CC..

but.. anways.. that's what i got ..

reply to post by Komodo


Apollo didn't use "air" - the astronauts breathed a pure oxygen atmosphere at 5 psi.

Originally posted by Komodo

the 551 is the PURE oxygen, I'm talking breathable air which is being stated as

That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day/24hr period per person or 2905.89 US gallons of air/24hrs which equals ..

231,000gals of air total for 3 astronauts for 7days.. and to be safe, should anything happen, to be on the safe side, double that to ensure they safe return is..

Now divide that by 5000gals (max tank size) =92.4gals tanks of air needed for the entire trip, even compressed that's 46.2 tanks needed.. and that's not converted into Cubit feet ..

I don't see those tanks ANYWHERE on the rocket, CM, LEM or CC..

but.. anways.. that's what i got ..

But what you haven't factored into your calculations is that the oxygen that Apollo crew uses got recycled and the out gasses scrubbed of cabon dioxide and resused.

"A scuba diver uses a tank of air in 60 minutes; in Apollo an equivalent amount of oxygen lasted 15 hours"

history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by FoosM
The thrust hits the first stage and what do we see happening?

We see the effects of the thrust hitting the first stage, but no plume is visible from the nozzle itself.

Secondly, Im sure if we watched from the other side, we would see a brightly hot glowing nozzle.

Yes you would. You can also see it on the Apollo 17 LM lift off video. When it pitches over you can see a small glowing white dot in the center were the rocket would be. Just find yourself a good quality version of it and give it a watch.

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki
reply to post by FoosM

 

Dude, obvious troll is obvious. You're embarrassing yourself, and that's pretty hard to do online. Just give it a break and admit we went to the moon already.

The problem is (and you are going to slap yourself when you figure this out) but here it is:

FoosM didn't go to the Moon. Neither did you. Therefore neither Foosm nor yourself can ever know for certain about this question except for gathering information about it. Think about it.

There were only 12 Apostles and one of them believes that Roswell was a government cover-up.



The same guy brought a camera back from the Moon (the same exact camera that filmed the last 5 minutes of the A14 lunar landing.) and NASA went after him like he was a criminal because that exact camera was meant to be destroyed in the LEM when it crashed back to the surface of the moon.

After some negotiations Ed Mitchell has decided to surrender the DAC 16-mm camera to NASA.
www.cbsnews.com...

(Space.com) Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell has decided to give up the camera he kept as a memento of his 1971 moon mission rather than face a federal lawsuit over its ownership.
In a settlement he reached with the U.S. government filed with the District Court in southern Florida on Thursday (Oct. 27), the sixth man to walk on the moon agreed to "relinquish all claims of ownership, legal title, or dominion" over the data acquisition camera that flew with him aboard NASA's Apollo 14 mission.

The camera will be handed over to the NASM (National Air and Space Museum) and we will probably ... never see it again and this camera will never take another picture again.

NASA seems to be going to extra-ordinary lengths to seize anything related to Apollo project. Just the other day we heard about NASA attacking an old granny for a few micrograms of moon rocks. And don't forget NASA fired 4 astronauts for trading in postal covers to stamp collectors!

Why has NASA gone to such great lengths to control the Apollo artifacts? Why has NASA gone to such great lengths to control the mythology? Why has NASA created this m y t h o l o g y ?

Originally posted by Logical one
But what you haven't factored into your calculations is that the oxygen that Apollo crew uses got recycled and the out gasses scrubbed of cabon dioxide and resused.

Starting at page 418 of this file www.hq.nasa.gov...

it explains how they overcame the problems they had on Apollo 13 with the 2 different scrubbers

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

so 290 kg of liquid O2 would appear to be enough to create 414,410 litres of gaseous O2 (290*1000*1.429), which would be 138,136.7 litres per astronaut.

According to this page the average person consumes about 550 litres of pure O2 per day - so if my math is right that oxygen load is enough for 251 days!!

That seems like a lot to me so perhaps my math is wrong somewhere?? Feel free to check it out.....

Yes it does seem like overkill..
Maybe a decimal point in the wrong spot?

reply to post by ProudBird


Nobody here questions the fact that Saturn rockets were launched. We are questioning the telemetry data. Fortunately for YOU... the telemetry data for every Apollo mission was "lost" (700 boxes, 3,500 tapes) in the 15 miles between the National Archives and Goddard Space Flight Center.



Now, you can and you will make up fantasy to feed into your biased mythological storylines. However, the tapes are still missing. They were never received. And there is nothing YOU can do to "fill the gap", so to speak.

The telemetry between LEO and the Moon does not exist because the tapes were "lost".

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Komodo

 

Apollo didn't use "air" - the astronauts breathed a pure oxygen atmosphere at 5 psi.

It depends what phase of the mission and which mission you are talking about. Right DJ?

100% oxygen not during the launch phase. It was a nitrogen/oxygen mixture during launch phase. A consideration made after the Apollo 1 accident.

After LEO is attained everything changes to 100% oxygen - including the trans-lunar and lunar landing phases. All 100% oxygen. All the way back to Earth....

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I ask again.....how tired are your arms, after doing that much stretching?

Is becoming obvious, by now. Those who cannot understand (Or, wish to over-complicate and obscure) the science will usually resort to, at the most basic levels, the attempt to distract with the worst *horse radish* they can attempt to scrounge.

600+ pages, (so far).....and not ONE....not ONE of the attempts to refute the science has managed to actually refute the science....and the facts.


On another note entirely.....I submit (after a close examination of just the last "few" pages [at least] .... and, keeping in mind the entirety of this *most epic thread*.....

....well......it should be very obvious, by this point.


The original *topic* here is, after all.....the alleged "Young Aussie Genius"

Who has, without a doubt been revealed as a terribly misunderstood self-promoting '[SNIP]' (*) who is desperately attempting to make a "name" for himself, in a pathetic cry for attention....oh is that too harsh??

[SNIP]

[continuing].....

There is little else to say. Because, every nonsense and horse-"radish" piece of ridiculous so-called "evidence" for the inane Apollo manned mission "hoax theory" has been completely destroyed by facts, verified by sources, each and every time....well.......

People who insist in living within their own "Private Idaho" delusions are free to do so. Just so long as they do not impose their particular brand of *crazy* upon the rest of society.