• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

Anders Lindman said:
And I think the claim of the heat shield being enough is fiction. The Space Shuttle reentry probably never happened, and instead it was launched from a Boeing 747 and glided to the landing place, with the audience believing the shuttle had come intact from space, lol.
Click to expand...

How then did they fix the Hubble Space Telescope and perform other servicing missions? Robots?
 
GlennB said:
How then did they fix the Hubble Space Telescope and perform other servicing missions? Robots?
Click to expand...

Robots? That's ridiculous. They had about 5 or 6 Hubbles originally built. You think they spent $2.5 billion on just one telescope? It's just a tube and some glass. When problems arose they simply secretly launched a new one into space to replace the defective one. The supposed "repair" videos are all shot at the IMAX studio in Toronto.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, let's say that the heat insulation was enough for traveling to the moon and back, but what about the reentry into Earth's atmosphere? The claim that a heat shield could protect the astronauts seems dubious to me. The Apollo capsule would have burned up in its entirety! Like a meteorite.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA!
 
Anders would be a shining star over there at the site which shall not be named...the one which believes that ALL spaceflight is impossible, ergo, faked.

Proudly ignorant...unbelievable. Anders, there is a LOT of science, engineering, and technology behind spaceflight, You really ought to get at least familiar with some of that before making very outlandish claims and accusations.

Or is this the only way you can get attention in your life...??
 
Anders Lindman said:
Without tumbling through the air? I doubt that. Had the concept been tested in practice before it was used?
Click to expand...
Lots of times, yes. Re-entry was old hat by the time of Apollo. Even before manned space flight re-entry was performed many times.

Back before the days of digital, satellites used film fo imagery. How do you suppose those films were recovered?
 
abaddon said:
Lots of times, yes. Re-entry was old hat by the time of Apollo. Even before manned space flight re-entry was performed many times.

Back before the days of digital, satellites used film fo imagery. How do you suppose those films were recovered?
Click to expand...


A very long ladder.
 
abaddon said:
Lots of times, yes. Re-entry was old hat by the time of Apollo. Even before manned space flight re-entry was performed many times.

Back before the days of digital, satellites used film fo imagery. How do you suppose those films were recovered?
Click to expand...

Streaming.
 
Anders, you seem suspicious that the Apollo CM couldn't do what it did.

Fact is, it was a carefully designed basic "lifting body". It was able to maneuver somewhat during reentry to adjust it's descent rate and crossrange course. This was demonstrated in it's "double dip" reentry profile, as well as it's near pinpoint splashdown performance.

It was tested in unmanned flights. It had RCS jets to control roll, pitch and yaw during the reentry. It was designed to come through reentry in a controlled manner.

Your incredulity simply comes from lack of knowledge about the craft, and the technologies to solve the issues of spaceflight. Just because you can't believe how Apollo could "work" doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds of thousands out there who "do" spaceflight for a living...solving all the amazing problems that leave all us mere mortals scratching our heads in wonder...
 
LaurelHS said:
Have you read anything about Mercury or Gemini, or did you just brush them off as hoaxes without doing research?
Click to expand...

Research is irrelevant to the Anders Method which is a highly refined system of trolling. The method oftentimes includes citing other sources but then making statements that are the opposite of what is being cited. Another principal is the liberal use of phrases like "It doesn't make sense to me.", "I doubt that.", "I don't buy that." and "X seems suspicious to me." The method has been perfected to the point that Anders is semi-officially disqualified from the Stundies for being a professional.
 
abaddon said:
Lots of times, yes. Re-entry was old hat by the time of Apollo. Even before manned space flight re-entry was performed many times.

Back before the days of digital, satellites used film fo imagery. How do you suppose those films were recovered?
Click to expand...

Reentry with astronauts and at the same high reentry speed?

Besides:

"The Lunar Orbiters were all eventually commanded to crash on the Moon before their attitude control fuel ran out so they would not present navigational or communications hazards to later Apollo flights." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbiter_program

Satellites with ordinary chemical film? I didn't know that. Did those satellites have heat shields for reentry into the atmosphere? That may have been possible, but those were all unmanned.

Ha! You are pulling my leg. The satellite photos were sent to Earth via radio:

"Explorer 6, or S-2, was an American satellite launched on August 7, 1959. It was a small, spheroidal satellite designed to study trapped radiation of various energies, galactic cosmic rays, geomagnetism, radio propagation in the upper atmosphere, and the flux of micrometeorites. It also tested a scanning device designed for photographing the Earth's cloud cover, and transmitted the first pictures of Earth from orbit.[1][2]" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_6
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Anders Lindman
This message is hidden because Anders Lindman is on your ignore list.
Click to expand...
Good point. If only NASA geeks would have used what they learned from previous missions to design the cameras to not fail in the same way. They could then upgrade the cameras after every mission as a way of ensuring the best possible outcomes.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I didn't know that.
Click to expand...

That's the essence of this entire thread. There are many things you don't know about space and engineering for that environment. Until you've corrected that deficiency, no amount of doubt on you part constitutes anything that the rest of the world is obliged to grant attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom