Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[ComfySlippers]

^There needs to be a way to translate that into bufooneese.
"Space car need big boom boom"

 

[Belz...]

And then there is the rather glaring statement by Kyoon, which amounts to an admission of ignorance. "NASA is hiding X!" but a normal person can find X in seconds. That's just trying to parlay one's own colossal ignorance as some kind of evidence that smart, dedicated people can't possibly have done a thing.

That is the Achilles' heel of all conspiracy theories: the low-information, tin-foil, Dunning-Kruger posterchild has to be able to spot it easily, but somehow he has to explain why the experts haven't. Thus does he style himself as a modern day Galileo surrounded by weak-minded experts, or a normal, free-thinking man equipped with super-common-sense, unburdened by the corruption and lies, and set upon by legions of paid-off shills, and shielded from physical harm only by the public nature of his utterances.

 

[AcesHigh]

when people confront me with "how could we have tech to put men on the moon back in 1969 and we can´t do it today?" I could give many complex answers that would require a lot of time.


But imho, this is the simplest one to get them thinking a little bit:

In that same year, 1969, we had a supersonic civilian passenger aircraft, the Concorde.

We have NONE nowadays. And we probably won´t have one in the next 10 years at least.


EXPLAIN THAT, Moon Landing Deniers.


here, a link that explains why we don't have a supersonic airliner nowadays...
"people will tell you that supersonic commercial flight is uneconomical. It’s not necessarily true. A supersonic transport (SST) is within the state of the art, but attempts to build one have been misdirected by politics and entrenched business interests, with a dash of class warfare."


Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Search-for-Quiet-SST-180952125/#m8JTTeT040At7S98.99
Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X
Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter


Well, the Concorde might have been economical, according to the article. But had all those other problems.

Going to the moon again has all those problems but atop that, it´s NOT economical for sure.

 

[A'isha]

And of course none of these were or are secret. You can download the yAGC emulator and run the actual MIT Draper Lab programs on them.

For the curious, the AGC emulator and documentation can be found here.

For the curious and adventurous, you can use this free expansion to the extremely realistic freeware spaceflight simulator program Orbiter to fly an entire Apollo mission, complete with its own emulation of the AGC.

 

[Peter May]

For the curious, the AGC emulator and documentation can be found here.

For the curious and adventurous, you can use this free expansion to the extremely realistic freeware spaceflight simulator program Orbiter to fly an entire Apollo mission, complete with its own emulation of the AGC.

Thank you for this most interesting link. I think we all agree, we did go to the Moon, however, nothing as trivial as the truth will ever deter the most determined conspiracy theorist. So be on your guard!

 

[Foster Zygote]

when people confront me with "how could we have tech to put men on the moon back in 1969 and we can´t do it today?" I could give many complex answers that would require a lot of time.


But imho, this is the simplest one to get them thinking a little bit:

In that same year, 1969, we had a supersonic civilian passenger aircraft, the Concorde.

We have NONE nowadays. And we probably won´t have one in the next 10 years at least.


EXPLAIN THAT, Moon Landing Deniers.


here, a link that explains why we don't have a supersonic airliner nowadays...
"people will tell you that supersonic commercial flight is uneconomical. It’s not necessarily true. A supersonic transport (SST) is within the state of the art, but attempts to build one have been misdirected by politics and entrenched business interests, with a dash of class warfare."


Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Search-for-Quiet-SST-180952125/#m8JTTeT040At7S98.99
Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X
Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter


Well, the Concorde might have been economical, according to the article. But had all those other problems.

Going to the moon again has all those problems but atop that, it´s NOT economical for sure.

A few months ago I saw someone claim that the fact that humans haven't been back to the moon in over 43 years "proves" that we never went. I pointed out that there were 55 years between the Magellan-Elcano voyage and the Drake voyage to circumnavigate the globe, and 52 years passed between Picard-Walsh and Cameron descending to the bottom of the Challenger Deep, and that both of those feats were far less technically challenging in their time than was the Apollo Program. As I recall, he expressed his gratitude for this information with some impotent insults.

 

[Foster Zygote]

For the curious, the AGC emulator and documentation can be found here.

For the curious and adventurous, you can use this free expansion to the extremely realistic freeware spaceflight simulator program Orbiter to fly an entire Apollo mission, complete with its own emulation of the AGC.

I often wonder why a conspiracy theorist, motivated by the need to feign intellectual superiority, would come to a forum full of people far more informed than himself. If you're going to make up a claim, such as that the coding for the AGC has never been released to the public, why not do it amongst an audience too ignorant or disinterested to even do a sub 60 second internet search to find out how wrong that statement is?

 

[Hans]

Non-conspiracy question. A lot of excellent info on the American Apollo program's computer system - what about the Soviets? Would they have been able to/did they create a similar system for the Soyuz 7K-LOK and LK Lander ?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Non-conspiracy question. A lot of excellent info on the American Apollo program's computer system - what about the Soviets? Would they have been able to/did they create a similar system for the Soyuz 7K-LOK and LK Lander ?

From here...

The capability and accuracy of the landing radar system was the crucial first problem in development. The prompt and precise determination of the velocity and altitude of the LK after separation from the Block D was the key to minimizing propellant usage for the landing and determined the sizing of the whole LK vehicle (due to the propellant reserves required for touchdown and hover maneuvers).

The landing radar system was designated Planeta. Planeta consisted of four antennae, with their beams arranged in an asymmetric pyramid. Three determined the velocity vector using Doppler, while the fourth beam, in the central position, determined altitude above the surface. The system was simple and reliable. It was later proven on the Luna Ye-8 automated lunar sample return probes.

Numerous problems had to be solved regarding the reflection of the radar beam from the surface - problems analogous to those tackled a decade later in America in the design of stealth aircraft. Tests of the Planeta system aboard MiG-17 aircraft indicated that the initial radar reflectivity assumptions were wrong by several orders of magnitude.

Ignition of the Block E stage was commanded automatically by the Planeta system when the LK was 3 km from the touchdown point. After eliminating the vertical velocity, the final landing maneuver was commanded by the cosmonaut. Landing was made in the deep throttle range of the Block E. Engine shutoff was commanded automatically by the Planeta system.

OKB-1 Chief Designer Mishin allowed only a 280 kg propellant reserve for the entire landing maneuver. This constraint prolonged development of the Planeta system. In 1967 Yangel finally went to the Chief Designer's committee and informed them that he could not meet the requirement for two complete lunar landers until 1971.

In 1968 the L3 scheme was overhauled. The original scheme had assumed a landing on the lunar equator. This meant that the LOK orbiter would pass over the landing site once per orbit, every hour. For the ascent of the LK to the rendezvous orbit in this case, a simple gyroscopic platform could accomplish the launch, as was used on the V-2 and R-7 missiles.

At landing sites away from the equator, within two to three orbits the LOK orbital plane would move too far away from the landing site to make such a pre-programmed ascent into the rendezvous orbit. Therefore a new type of guidance system was required. There were three possible choices:

• Install a full-capability inertial navigation unit. This would allow the LK to perform a complex dog-leg maneuver during ascent to reach the plane of the LOK orbit (this was the American LM solution)
• Use a strap-down gyroscopic platform to steer the LK in a pre-programmed deviation from its vertical axis until the LOK orbital plane position was reached.
• Use the existing platform but develop a pre-set program of yaw angles, set before launch.

The second alternative was chosen. The LK would use the gyro platform to begin a bank maneuver at 25 to 30 km altitude. The program calculated the angle of tangency and the function of the cut-off of the LK engine. Soviet computer technology was not good enough at that time to equip the LK with an on-board re-programmable digital system. So instead an analogue parametric calculator was developed that took into account all conceivable problems and emergencies and the times at which they could occur. The resulting system was very effective and represented the major avionics system development for the LK.

 

[vtbub]

I often wonder why a conspiracy theorist, motivated by the need to feign intellectual superiority, would come to a forum full of people far more informed than himself. If you're going to make up a claim, such as that the coding for the AGC has never been released to the public, why not do it amongst an audience too ignorant or disinterested to even do a sub 60 second internet search to find out how wrong that statement is?

Don't think he had a clue until he started flinging stuff on the wall to see what stuck. Certainly he didn't read the thread before jumping in.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Don't think he had a clue until he started flinging stuff on the wall to see what stuck. Certainly he didn't read the thread before jumping in.

Absolutely. His tactic of stubbornly asserting absurd falsehoods plainly wasn't going to pay off in this thread, so he hasn't been back.

 

[smartcooky]

when people confront me with "how could we have tech to put men on the moon back in 1969 and we can´t do it today?" I could give many complex answers that would require a lot of time.


But imho, this is the simplest one to get them thinking a little bit:

In that same year, 1969, we had a supersonic civilian passenger aircraft, the Concorde.

We have NONE nowadays. And we probably won´t have one in the next 10 years at least.


EXPLAIN THAT, Moon Landing Deniers.


here, a link that explains why we don't have a supersonic airliner nowadays...
"people will tell you that supersonic commercial flight is uneconomical. It’s not necessarily true. A supersonic transport (SST) is within the state of the art, but attempts to build one have been misdirected by politics and entrenched business interests, with a dash of class warfare."


Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Search-for-Quiet-SST-180952125/#m8JTTeT040At7S98.99
Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X
Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter


Well, the Concorde might have been economical, according to the article. But had all those other problems.

Going to the moon again has all those problems but atop that, it´s NOT economical for sure.

1969, the future of land transport was the Hovercraft. The SRN4 began commercial service in August 1968, running a passenger and car ferry service between Dover and Boulogne. It even featured in a James Bond film in 1971 ("Diamonds Are Forever"). It was quick too; 35 minutes on that trip and six trips per day. The future looked bright.

So, where are they all now? Sure there are a few still filling niche roles, but the prospect of seeing big Transatlantic and Transpacific hovercraft carrying passengers and freight around the world is just a lost dream.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I often wonder why a conspiracy theorist, motivated by the need to feign intellectual superiority, would come to a forum full of people far more informed than himself. If you're going to make up a claim, such as that the coding for the AGC has never been released to the public, why not do it amongst an audience too ignorant or disinterested to even do a sub 60 second internet search to find out how wrong that statement is?

Forums like this are a bit of a honey-trap for woo. They come in here and make bold pronouncements about stuff they're clueless on not realizing Jay and co are in the Bigfoot forum lurking in ambush. They have no idea there are people here who have calculated the amount of fuel required to bring the space shuttle back from the moon and how much thrust one properly vented flatus would give an astronaut, just for the heck of it.

 

[JayUtah]

Absolutely. His tactic of stubbornly asserting absurd falsehoods plainly wasn't going to pay off in this thread, so he hasn't been back.

And his discretion in applying that tactic reveals it to be no more than an act. There's a parallel to Jim Fetzer. Fetzer makes Apollo hoax claims too, but refuses to defend them where knowledgeable experts can comment. It's just an act to get attention.

 

[JayUtah]

...how much thrust one properly vented flatus would give an astronaut, just for the heck of it.

To be accurate, it was the thrust deriving from urination.

 

[Tolls]

To be accurate, it was the thrust deriving from urination.

I love this place sometimes...

 

[Hans]

From here...

[/I]

Thanks for the detailed answer!

 

[JayUtah]

Thanks for the detailed answer!

Indeed, it's a great explanation. Not only does it demonstrate that the Soviets took seriously the problem of landing on the Moon, but it explains control system concepts that aren't digital computers. Even today control-system engineering doesn't have to use digital techniques, and in fact analogue systems still avoid certain problems that arise in digital systems from the sampling rates.

 

[sts60]

And his discretion in applying that tactic reveals it to be no more than an act. There's a parallel to Jim Fetzer. Fetzer makes Apollo hoax claims too, but refuses to defend them where knowledgeable experts can comment. It's just an act to get attention.

I'm leaning this way, too; he just wants to get the grown-ups to talk to him, but it's no fun if he can't stretch it out.

 

[Kyoon]

It's almost as if the Wright Brothers were onto something.

Fantastic example. There's nothing you can not use it for. If that could fly, why can't the UFOs from the Galactic Federation land on Earth?

You convinced me. Now I believe in UFOs and in the moon landing. Well done, NASA.