Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Carrot Flower King]

Yes, like this:



Vixen, are you implying that scientists and engineers at the top of their fields are merely average compared to you, or are you still pretending that we're talking about the general human population, and not experts who know far more about this than you do?

Irrelevant "analogy". We might call this the "Vixen special".

Except that we're talking about "evidence" that would be in the wheelhouse of literally millions of experts worldwide for > half a century. The things you think you've "exposed" are so basic that everyone who's ever taken a couple of semesters of physics should be saying "now just wait a damned minute!". After all, it's not like you or the clowns you're citing have access to top secret documents. You're making claims about basic physics and engineering - things that are covered in freshman textbooks.

The fact that you continue to pointedly ignore this, or pretend that we're appealing to the beliefs of the human populace as a whole, is all the proof needed to know that you realize how ridiculous your claims to superior knowledge really are. Even you, with your assertions of your top tenth of a percent intellect, realize how laughable it is to posit that that generations of legitimate experts around the globe have been too ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid to notice anomalies regarding lighting, stars, ionizing radiation and the lack of telephone lines stretching to the moon.

It's not even that level with geology: barely up to the AO-level I did at school and certainly not my under-grad work.

 

[JayUtah]

No, it's to do with the topic. We've covered so far, the lighting, the stars, the radiation and the Nixon phone call.

All of which you first got wrong and then started lying about.

So, how plausible do you think it is that in order to land, they just need to switch off the engine and move the gearr stick around a little bit to avoid a massive crater?

No, that's not the landing sequence. I see you're going to get this point massively wrong too.

'We only had 15 secs of fuel left' and then on lift off they had to use a pencil as one of the thrusts had broken off.

What a dog's breakfast you've made.

Yes, the best estimates say there was only 15 seconds' worth of fuel left in the descent propulsion system. I don't know what point you think that makes. Armstrong used extra fuel to avoid obstacles in his path. The ascent stage used an entirely different engine and fuel supply.

No, one of the "thrusts" did not break off. What broke off was the cap portion of a pushbutton circuit breaker of the kind commonly used in airplanes and spacecraft. One of the astronauts knocked into it while suited up. Aldrin used the back of a felt-tip pen to press the broken portion and close the circuit.

Below, you seem to want to relate this to the stability of the lunar module. The APS ARM circuit breaker has nothing to with the flight stability of the lunar module.

OK, I am not saying it didn't happen but the idea the thing didn't topple over is touch and go.

Don't try to do physics.

 

[JayUtah]

The premise they were on the surface of the Moon is yet to be established.

Irrelevant. The question is what one should expect from photography on the lunar surface. Your source lied and said that from an expert point of view one should expect to see stars incidentally in Apollo photographs. You were shown empirical evidence that this cannot be so, and you confirmed it yourself. But because you're obviously biased in favor of the conspiracy theories, you can't bear to hold your source accountable for his lie. You're committed to maintaining the illusion that these people are arguing in good faith and are making reasonable points that are being poorly "debunked."

 

[JayUtah]

Some time earlier I mentioned the plan...

All that was a distraction from questions you brought up but which you can't seem to remember to follow up on.

The Artemis II mission followed a similar path through the Van Allen belts as did all the Moon-bound Apollo missions. You say this would pose a serious heath risk. Was the Artemis II mission a fake too?

You report that Marcus Allen claimed there was something wrong with the Orion spacecraft design, which either you or he has inexplicably conflated with the Saturn V. It was something about spacecraft mass versus safety, but you never actually made a point. Are you going to clean up that dog's breakfast, or was it just another play on words?

 

[JayUtah]

...on the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight in order to extract the water to use as fuel component.

As everyone else has pointed out—because they're all smarter than you—there is no dark side of the Moon. The craters in question are in the polar regions, not the sides. Because the sun is invariably low on the horizon all the time there, the bottoms of deep craters are never lit by the sun and may contain water ice.

Because the Moon's rotational axis is not aligned with its orbital plane, and because its orbit is not coplanar to the ecliptic, all parts of the lunar surface reckoned on a large scale get some sunlight at one time or another. Local depressions like craters at the poles are the small-scale exceptions.

 

[Mojo]

Thirty minutes isn't it?

You're supposed to say, "do keep up!"

 

[JayUtah]

If the average person believes something that is not true that is not 'lying through their teeth'.

Asked and answered.

We are not talking about the average person. We're talking about the people who did the thing. They know whether they did the thing or not. So when you say the thing wasn't done, you're accusing these people of either lying or being incompetent. There is no third option.

As has been said before, it only needs a small handful of people in highest government to keep something secret, not 'hundreds of thousands'.

Asked and answered.

The secret in question is not amenable to this sort of fantasy. You can't keep the secret from the people you employed to do the secret thing.

Simply label it 'classified'.

That doesn't make something disappear. I've seen quite a bit of classified information that you'll never see. That doesn't mean no one knows of its existence or contents.

Since you seem so eager to educate us on the nature of a lie, can you explain why you keep lying about the status of the people involved in your fantasy scenario? You keep comparing them to ordinary, uninvolved people. That is not the claim. The claim is that a very large number of skilled people who worked on the project must either be incompetent or lying in your scenario. You don't get to magically wave your hand and imagine a third option that makes up different facts. In addition, some of these people were well known and eminent in their field. You can't just write them off either.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you kept up with the news as I do you'd know the plans for ISS.

 

[Smock]

If you kept up with the news as I do you'd know the plans for ISS.

So far, the only ISS "news" you appear to keep up with is a ridiculous Sci-Fi movie from 1998.

 

[Axxman300]

Only the generals are in the war room.

Why would the miltary be involved with a NASA project?

 

[Axxman300]

No, it doesn't follow at all. All of the protocols were written in advance because there wasn't any internet or digital network such as a sat nav or GPS to follow. IOW all of the exact calculations had to be followed according to a cribsheet. So of course there are reams and reams of documents. They are written in advance.

As an American, and a Californian, I need to point out my country was colonized by guys who sailed small ships using sextants and compases. The ancient Greeks started a grid system, and then much later Longitude and Latitude, and marine chronometers made navigation reliable long before powered flight.

Yet again your willful ignorance is on full diplay. This is like Only Fans, but for morons.

 

[Axxman300]

Has anyone pointed out the current lunar phase is a Waxing Crecent? Only reason I ask is because right now the "light" side of the moon seems awfully dark. Does Vixen even look up?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

As an American, and a Californian, I need to point out my country was colonized by guys who sailed small ships using sextants and compases. The ancient Greeks started a grid system, and then much later Longitude and Latitude, and marine chronometers made navigation reliable long before powered flight.

Yet again your willful ignorance is on full diplay. This is like Only Fans, but for morons.

Surely that should be singular?

 

[I Am The Scum]

For no particular reason, I'm going to share this funny post I found.

https://bsky.app/profile/depthsofwikipedia.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3mqmxwjezoc2g

 

[P.J. Denyer]

For no particular reason, I'm going to share this funny post I found.

https://bsky.app/profile/depthsofwikipedia.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3mqmxwjezoc2g

See also the third quote in my sig.

 

[JayUtah]

No, it doesn't follow at all.

...as long as you can make up a fantasy version of the events. Did they teach a lot of astrodynamics and space mission planning in accountant school?

All of the protocols were written in advance because there wasn't any internet or digital network such as a sat nav or GPS to follow.

Yet successful long-range navigation happened for hundreds of years before any of that. Buzz Aldrin proved you could fly a rendezvous using only a sextant, a stopwatch, and a slide rule. He published the method, which is still used, and proved it worked on his Gemini mission.

You might have noticed all those young men in white shirts and narrow black ties in the front row of Mission Control. They're colloquially known as The Trench, and they're the flight dynamics officers—the team of highly capable navigators that track the spaceships and relay steering commands up to the ship to carry out the various maneuvers.

IOW all of the exact calculations had to be followed according to a cribsheet. So of course there are reams and reams of documents. They are written in advance.

Almost entirely the opposite of how it's actually done.

Apollo missions, like most space missions even today, are broken up into distinct phases with entry and exit conditions for each phase. The exit condition from the prior phase becomes the entry condition for the next phase. These are usually not known precisely until the phase has been executed. The Earth launch, for example, takes place within a launch window. You can launch at any time within that window, but your launch azimuth changes continuously so that the resulting parking orbit intersects the antipode, albeit at a different inclination. Since the inclination can differ, your translunar injection burn varies in direction and magnitude.

For the missions not on free-return trajectories, the MCC-1 burn must be computed on the fly depending on your earth departure conditions. These solutions were partially precomputed by the CDC 6600 computer at LLNL, but the final burn parameters come from the RTCC computers at Mission Control and are by no means some precomputed value that can be passed around to all the "independent" observers.

Similarly, arrival at the Moon was precise in terms of the lunar orbit insertion criteria, but how those criteria were aimed at depended on MCC-1 and MCC-2, which were not known ahead of time. Those burns were based on very careful tracking by The Trench. The effect of LOI was not known precisely until AOS after the burn, after which ten more LOS/AOS cycles had to occur in order to calibrate the descent orbit. All this is visible to several parties on Earth. Even if you can't decipher the telemetry, all you need is AOS and LOS timings.

All that is just for the outbound journey. Similar on-the-fly requirements apply to the return.

So yes, good agreement among multiple independent records of the actual flown trajectories is strong evidence that they all independently observed the spacecraft traveling to and from the Moon. And no, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

[Smock]

Every time I read a reply by @JayUtah it brings to mind a (obscure to some) scene from the outstanding TV drama Homicide: Life on the Street. Main protagonist Det. Frank Pembleton (Andre Braugher) has a serial killer (Steve Buscemi) in the box, and he's trying to break him. The killer is bragging about his intellectual superiority. Pembleton presents a copy of Plato, written in Greek. He asks the killer to translate, and the killer gives this loquacious BS answer, full of flowery language but no substance. Pembleton lets him pontificate until he is truly spent, then leans over and whispers "Well let me show you what the Jesuits taught me . . ." after which he translates the Greek passages in full, revealing the killer really doesn't know squat.

The only difference is Steve Buscemi's character knew when he was beat.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

At least one extraordinarily uninformed person's uninformed yakking has suggested the computational power available to the Apollo program was so limited as to be useless for solving the rather simple differential equations that pertain to basic navigation. I'll say a little about this.

These solutions were partially precomputed by the CDC 6600 computer at LLNL,

The CDC 6600 is widely regarded as the world's first supercomputer. With its superscalar pipelined architecture and a cycle time of 100ns, it could perform about 3 million 60-bit floating point operations per second (3 MFLOPS) when executing carefully hand-written assembly code, or half a million FLOPS when executing pedestrian Fortran code. Intel x86 processors did not begin to approach that level of performance until the year 2000, and the ARM family of processors that are typically used in cell phones did not approach that level of performance until the first 64-bit version of the ARM family (Armv8-A) was announced in 2011.

I have written code for the CDC 6600 in both assembly language (COMPASS) and in Fortran.

Programmers often joked about the 6600 being so fast that, when an instruction faulted in such a way as to bring execution to a halt, the machine couldn't bring itself to a complete stop until it had (partially) executed several instructions past the faulting instruction. That joke was all too real. Because of the pipelining, the program counter shown in a core dump would point several instructions past the instruction at fault. This peculiarity was especially troublesome when the faulting instruction was followed by a jump instruction, causing the program counter to point into a portion of the program that was often far removed from the source of the problem.

 

[Steve]

At least one extraordinarily uninformed person's uninformed yakking has suggested the computational power available to the Apollo program was so limited as to be useless for solving the rather simple differential equations that pertain to basic navigation. I'll say a little about this.

The CDC 6600 is widely regarded as the world's first supercomputer. With its superscalar pipelined architecture and a cycle time of 100ns, it could perform about 3 million 60-bit floating point operations per second (3 MFLOPS) when executing carefully hand-written assembly code, or half a million FLOPS when executing pedestrian Fortran code. Intel x86 processors did not begin to approach that level of performance until the year 2000, and the ARM family of processors that are typically used in cell phones did not approach that level of performance until the first 64-bit version of the ARM family (Armv8-A) was announced in 2011.

I have written code for the CDC 6600 in both assembly language (COMPASS) and in Fortran.

Programmers often joked about the 6600 being so fast that, when an instruction faulted in such a way as to bring execution to a halt, the machine couldn't bring itself to a complete stop until it had (partially) executed several instructions past the faulting instruction. That joke was all too real. Because of the pipelining, the program counter shown in a core dump would point several instructions past the instruction at fault. This peculiarity was especially troublesome when the faulting instruction was followed by a jump instruction, causing the program counter to point into a portion of the program that was often far removed from the source of the problem.

But Vixen has a cellphone you see. In her view it is the ultimate in computational power.

 

[Mojo]

Programmers often joked about the 6600 being so fast that, when an instruction faulted in such a way as to bring execution to a halt, the machine couldn't bring itself to a complete stop until it had (partially) executed several instructions past the faulting instruction. That joke was all too real. Because of the pipelining, the program counter shown in a core dump would point several instructions past the instruction at fault. This peculiarity was especially troublesome when the faulting instruction was followed by a jump instruction, causing the program counter to point into a portion of the program that was often far removed from the source of the problem.

Do you mean that it could start with, "I think therefore I am", and get as far as deducing the existence of rice pudding and income tax before anyone managed to turn it off?