Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[MRC_Hans]

Whee. Are we still here? At least I still know most of the people around. And the arguments on both sides.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Whee. Are we still here?

Yeah, 'cuz we never went to the moon hurr hurr.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Whee. Are we still here? At least I still know most of the people around. And the arguments on both sides.

Welcome back.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Welcome back.

Thanks.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Great leaping LEMs! Fifty-eight pages in one month?!

 

[SteveAitch]

Re the buoyancy references: is it possible that someone is getting moon-walking confused with the training astronauts do/did under water, iirc, to get them used to zero/reduced gravity?

 

[zooterkin]

Re the buoyancy references: is it possible that someone is getting moon-walking confused with the training astronauts do/did under water, iirc, to get them used to zero/reduced gravity?

The one that really baffled me was the reference to wind helping with the load.

I never said anything about muscles. Please read more carefully in future. You claimed a man weighing 180lbs would have no problem wearing his own weight on his back on the Moon, as opposed to on Earth. I simply pointed out the ratio remains exactly the same regardless of gravity.

There really is no buoyancy effect on the Moon. There is no wind to help ease the load.

 

[JayUtah]

Re the buoyancy references: is it possible that someone is getting moon-walking confused with the training astronauts do/did under water, iirc, to get them used to zero/reduced gravity?

Not likely. Someone who thinks wind has anything to do with buoyancy isn't likely to be laboring under that particular reasonable misconception.

Great leaping LEMs! Fifty-eight pages in one month?!

Funny how certain threads extend to absurd lengths while containing next to nothing from the claimant's side.

Vixen: The CM only had a thin aluminum skin!
Debunkers: No, not really, it had a layered design.
Vixen: The CM only had a thin aluminum skin!
Debunkers: No, in fact here's the engineering drawings that show otherwise.
Vixen: The CM only had a thin aluminum skin!
Debunkers: No, the CM skin was quite sufficient to attenuate the expected radiation. Here's the math...
Vixen: The CM only had a thin aluminum skin!
Debunkers: We've covered this several times. That's not correct.
Vixen: The CM only had a thin aluminum skin!

No more thought than you would get from a shell script.

 

[welshdean]

@Vixen, my eight year old daughter could carry me like a baby in the pool, but couldn't lift the weight of one of my legs on dry land.
Not a perfect analogy, but hopefully easy enough for even you to grasp the point.

 

[SteveAitch]

The one that really baffled me was the reference to wind helping with the load.

It's been my experience that the wind is always in the wrong direction to be any help.

Not likely. Someone who thinks wind has anything to do with buoyancy isn't likely to be laboring under that particular reasonable misconception.

OK. Howzabout the person is thinking about the (very, very tiny) uplift you would get on Earth as a body in a (very thin) fluid - Archimedes and all that?

Just trying to help out so someone who may be arguing stupid points in good faith, may learn something. Though I'm beginning to have my doubts about the good faith bit...

 

[JayUtah]

It's been my experience that the wind is always in the wrong direction to be any help.

As suggested by the rooster tail topic, @Vixen doesn't understand how wind works either.

OK. Howzabout the person is thinking about the (very, very tiny) uplift you would get on Earth as a body in a (very thin) fluid - Archimedes and all that?

Vixen has given us ample evidence for years that she doesn't understand buoyancy. @Foster Zygote has given a perfectly cogent explanation for why he tried to draw the analogy to buoyancy in order to compare changes in strength to changes in weight.

Just trying to help out so someone who may be arguing stupid points in good faith...

We're past that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's been my experience that the wind is always in the wrong direction to be any help.

Last thing you want in a space suit is wind

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's been my experience that the wind is always in the wrong direction to be any help.


OK. Howzabout the person is thinking about the (very, very tiny) uplift you would get on Earth as a body in a (very thin) fluid - Archimedes and all that?

Just trying to help out so someone who may be arguing stupid points in good faith, may learn something. Though I'm beginning to have my doubts about the good faith bit...

No, it was offered as an analogue for the reduced gravity on the Moon making weights easier to lift and unconvincingly thrown back as the person who offered it thinking things on the Moon were actually buoyant.

 

[SteveAitch]

I think I'll go and read the Da-Da Manifesto - bound to make more sense than all this!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Re the buoyancy references: is it possible that someone is getting moon-walking confused with the training astronauts do/did under water, iirc, to get them used to zero/reduced gravity?

[Not sure how to delete a post started accidentally.]

The buoyancy thing was from me. I was trying to explain that wearing the heavy (on earth) PLSS/OPS on the moon would be equivalent to me having my largest house cat across my shoulders. But then I thought I'd better try to explain that on the moon, I'd be 1/6th my earth weight too, so I added standing in enough water that it cancelled out all but 60 lbs. of our combined weight in order to illustrate how much load the astronauts fully equipped weight on the moon would be for their legs and back.

And now, whether through poor reading comprehension or deliberate misrepresentation, she's chosen to act as though I said that the astronauts on the moon were lighter because of buoyancy. Because if she can't prove she's right, she can at least pretend someone else is wrong.

As to the "no wind to lighten the load", I have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea what she's on about.

 

[Steve]

As to the "no wind to lighten the load",
I have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea what she's on about.

People seldom do.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

[Not sure how to delete a post started accidentally.]

Just select all and delete.

 

[EHocking]

Re the buoyancy references: is it possible that someone is getting moon-walking confused with the training astronauts do/did under water, iirc, to get them used to zero/reduced gravity?

Welllll, someone wasn’t too clued in about boat/ship buoyancy on water (earth), so confusion or ignorance regarding reduced gravity of simulations of same, is not surprising.

Oh, some levity, which is sort of on topic?

Me: I think I have a crush on Beyoncé.
Wife: Whatever floats your boat.
Me: No. that’s buoyancy.

 

[EHocking]

The one that really baffled me was the reference to wind helping with the load.

Yes. Using the logic that wind aids buoyancy, no ferries would ever sink in a gale-force storm.

 

[Steve]

Yes. Using the logic that wind aids buoyancy, no ferries would ever sink in a gale-force storm.

But that's an entirely different thread. With entirely different "logic".