• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Vixen said:
All you seem to have in your debating tool box are insults.
Click to expand...
It's not an insult to be compared to one of the most beloved characters in the cartoon world. However, if you believe you have been insulted, please report the post for moderation. Otherwise stop complaining.

You're making mistakes constantly and confidently. Part of debate is correcting your opponent's factual errors, which in your case seems to be a full time job.
 
Vixen said:
It's one of his projects lined up for SpaceX.
Click to expand...
The idea of using lunar water as a fuel is not Musk's. Harrison Schmitt's book from 2006 discusses it, just as a starter..

Additionally, very few if any) of that fascist runt's claimes ideas have anyrhing to do with him. Signing off budgets does not make you the inventor of anything.
 
JayUtah said:
Which of course brings us back to why we're talking about refueling at all, which was to distract from the notion that the Artemis II mission flew essentially the same trajectory through the Van Allen belts and @Vixen doesn't want to tell us whether she thinks that mission was fake too.
Click to expand...
Of course Artemis II wasn't fake.
 
Vixen said:
www.wired.com

This Startup Thinks It Can Make Rocket Fuel From Water. Stop Laughing

General Galactic, cofounded by a former SpaceX engineer, plans to test its water-based propellant this fall. If successful, it could help usher in a new era of space travel. That's a big “if.”
www.wired.com www.wired.com
Click to expand...

As almost always, you google an article, then don't even bother to read it properly (from the article, my bold/italics for emphasis):

General Galactic plans to demonstrate the two methods during its Trinity mission. For chemical propulsion, it’ll use electrolysis to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn the hydrogen, with oxygen as the oxidizer. For the electrical propulsion system—this one’s called a “Hall thruster”—it’ll split the water, then apply enough electrical energy that the oxygen becomes a plasma. From there, you use a magnetic field to shape the plasma and shoot it out.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Vixen said:
Right, and so your logic and knowledge immediately made you think, 'Ah, the Dark Side of the Moon'!

I had no way of knowing in advance that a lot of people had never heard of this mining plan so tried to correct it with 'Ah but that's a Pink Floyd LP. What is called the Dark Side of the Moon is not what astronomers call the X,Y and Z, etc'.

Maybe you personally were aware, but the usual suspects caught themselves out and tried to make out they had a problem with one of my words. As if I had Pink Floyd in mind at all.
Click to expand...
I marvel that you claim to know what I thought. That is really kind of you to let me know.
 
Vixen said:
They didn't leave the space craft for a start.
Click to expand...
Neither did the Apollo astronauts while they were transiting the Van Allen belts.

Vixen said:
Completely modernised spacecraft structure to safeguard the spacecraft inhabitants.
Click to expand...
Are you conceding that spacecraft can be built to properly protect their inhabitants from the Van Allen belts?
 
Vixen said:
Err! Obviously.
Click to expand...

Err, you were claiming that if they found "oxygen" (hahaha) on the Moon, they would need to process it in order to make water. But precisely the opposite is true: it's the very components of water - hydrogen and oxygen - which need to be separated in order to be usable as part of a rocket's propellant.

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, strange how the insulters are 'always right'. It's kinda Trumpian to blurt out insults at perceived opponents.
Click to expand...
If you believe you have been insulted, report the post for moderation. Otherwise you were wrong to suggest that water is to be used as a rocket propellant and your critics were correct to challenge you on that point.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
<Makes note to go find that book on probability and game theory I never finished>

That plot suggests each computer would choose its perfect next move and then, entirely predictably, make it. But I think it's long been realised that a better strategy involves choosing your next move at random (having assigned a percentage weighting to each possible choice). Even if there's an obvious next move, it's greatly weakened by your opponents' computer knowing that's what your computer will do, so you need them to believe you have some percentage chance of acting quite differently, and they need to prepare against that too. The thing you need your computer to be brilliant at is assigning percentages to your choices. A human deviating from that optimum strategy ought to make the outcomes worse in the long run rather than better.
Click to expand...
The spoiler relates a funny story about that, from my undergraduate class in psychology.

To provide the psychology department with a cheap source of involuntary human subjects, and to give students taking the course a better idea of what psychological experiments can be like, everyone taking the course was required to act as a human subject for a couple of experiments.

I was assigned to an experiment in which the human subjects were paired. The rules of the game were explained to both subjects, and the subjects were then separated to play the game in isolation, with the experimenter popping into each room at intervals to provide information on how the game was progressing.

The game was a classic two-person zero-sum game. Both subjects were shown the payoff matrix. It was immediately obvious (to me) that the optimal strategy would be a mixed strategy that involved a bit of randomness. I estimated the probabilities as best I could in the time provided, without the use of pen and paper, and proceeded to generate randomness with the appropriate probabilities by flipping a coin multiple times.

After each round, the experimenter came in to tell us how much we had won or lost in that round. When he realized I was flipping coins, he admonished me to take the game seriously, because this was a Serious Psychological Experiment. I told him I was taking the game quite seriously: "Go read your von Neumann and Morgenstern."

After the game was over, each of the human subjects was told to write a short essay in which they were to explain why they performed so well or so poorly in the game. I had performed poorly. In my essay, I speculated that my opponent must have understand the importance of mixed strategies as well as I did, and had either done a better job of estimating the optimal probabilities or had just been luckier. Mostly luck, I thought and said.

After we gave our essays to the experimenter, he told us the game was called Attribution. The point of the experiment was to study a hypothesis that said the winners of the game would be more likely to attribute their success to skill and the losers to bad luck. Or maybe vice versa; I forget which. The game had been rigged, of course. I had performed poorly in the game because no matter which pure strategy my random choice had selected for a round, the experimenter would tell me my opponent had selected one of the pure strategies that most effectively countered my choice of a pure strategy. He said he was unaware that optimal strategies for such games usually involve some degree of randomness, and had not anticipated that any of his human subjects would incorporate randomness into their game-playing. He said he wasn't sure what he was going to do with my essay; he might have to discard the results of my participation.


Vixen said:
Nobody said it can't. But remember how the Soviets had their module crashed into the surface (they claim) just before Apollo 11, in an effort to beat them? So whilst landing on earth, one has the buoyancy of air to help deaccelerate - hence the multiple parachutes and rapid deacceleration on earth-reentry and splashdown - and into an ocean - there is no atmosphere on the Moon, no air to cushion the impact with the ground, and no body of water. Being 1/6th of Earth's gravity doesn't make it any less highly dangerous.
Click to expand...
My own body has a volume of approximately 75 liters, which means I displace about 75 liters of air. The density of nitrogen, at room temperature, is a bit less than 1.2 kg/m3; the density of oxygen is a little over 1.3 kg/3. The air I displace is almost 80% nitrogen, and most of the rest is oxygen, so the density of the air I displace is about 1.2 kg/m3. 75 liters is 0.075 cubic meters, so the air I displace has a mass of about 0.09 kilograms.

When I'm overweight and out of shape, my bathroom scale says I weigh about 75kg. But my bathroom scale measures force, not mass, so it fails to take the buoyancy of air into account. If I were to weigh myself in a vacuum, to prevent my weight from being affected by the buoyancy of air, my scale would say I weigh about 75+0.09kg = 75.09kg. The buoyancy of air therefore reduces my weight as measured on a bathroom scale by about 0.12%. One part in eight hundred.

A similar calculation could tell you how much the buoyancy of air reduces the weight of any falling object. In a vacuum, the weight of a falling object would not affect the rate at which it falls, but heavier objects do fall slightly faster in air because their weight helps to overcome air resistance and (when deployed) the braking effect of a parachute. Taking that into account would involve a far more complex calculation, but changing the weight of a falling object by a small fraction of 1% isn't going to make a whole lot of difference to how rapidly it descends.

Vixen said:
We were talking about mining the craters on the Moon believed to be full of ice - or rather elements that make up water - where the sun has not shone for billions of years.
Click to expand...
The phrase I highlighted says the craters are full of elemental hydrogen and oxygen rather than ice. That is not true, but it is what @Vixen believed when she wrote that.

Vixen said:
Electrolysis splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Click to expand...
Jack by the hedge said:
Those elements would be hydrogen and oxygen. Lunar craters are not going to be full of those gases. They are the materials you might hope to make from the water that might be found.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, even the craters whose depths are permanently sheltered from direct sunlight are exposed to sunlight reflected from the crater walls. That reflected sunlight appears to be one of the more significant reasons why there is so little ice in those craters.
We found that the reflectance of boulders, bedrock, fresh craters, and ejecta can be around 10% to more than 100% higher (i.e., higher radiance values) than the surrounding regolith in ShadowCam data in lunar PSRs. [....] The increased brightness is likely due to their relatively less weathered surfaces or because they are tilted toward the reflected light sources, resulting in lower incidence angles and, thus, higher radiance.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Err, you were claiming that if they found "oxygen" (hahaha) on the Moon, they would need to process it in order to make water. But precisely the opposite is true: it's the very components of water - hydrogen and oxygen - which need to be separated in order to be usable as part of a rocket's propellant.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


You called me Pattie Peppermint, whose characteristics are:

She is widely known for receiving a D− grade on every school assignment or exam (in 1999, the final full year of Peanuts, her teacher presents her with a certificate naming her to the "D-Minus Hall of Fame"). In one comic strip, Peppermint Patty gets a Z−, which she calls "sarcasm". In a series of strips in 1984, Peppermint Patty is held back a grade for failing all of her classes—only to be allowed to return to her old class when her old desk in front of Marcie starts to emit snoring noises, leading both students and faculty to suspect that a "snoring ghost" haunts the classroom.
Click to expand...

Care to apologise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom