Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[excaza]

I am skeptical that a person could make the instantaineously adapt his experience with the LLRV to handling the lunar lander.

Maybe you should do some research into the training a US test pilot goes through. Then take into account that NASA selected the best pilots to participate in the Apollo program.

See what you get.

But my guess is that you're going to continue your pseudointellectual babbling.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Did I say the lunar lander computer had 1000 bytes?

NO! I was talking about 1000 byte memories. No mention of lunar lander, only a hypothetical computer.

Your link validated what I was recalling from memory. I suggested that the computer had about 1000 bytes of memory. In actuality, it had 2048.

Don't you hate it when you can't go back and edit your words?

Why? Because I knew it was the approximate order of magnitude and didn't care to look it up.

Please sir, I couldn't be bothered looking up the answers, but I knew them all, so you should give me 100%?

Why discuss the approximate size of the memory?
Because it puts things in perspective with today's computers. Some younger people aren't familar with the era.

The AGC wasn't anything like today's computers, it's like comparing a Model T with a XR6, of the Spirit of St Louis with Concorde; you can't do it, and shouldn't do it. The engineering of the two is totally different, the reasons for why they built the AGC are totally different to how your PC was build, and that affects everything. If you want to compare it to anything modern, then compare it to a modern FBW Flight Computer, those are its descendants, not the PC or Apple on your desk.

Now that you've flamed over something you only thought I said, you can send me my $50.

You're in the wrong place if you think what I have done so far is flaming you.

As to the $50, that's for proving you know more about Apollo than I do.

So let's have a look at what you have said so far:

Back in that era, each bit of memory was a ferrite bead with three thin wires that went through the middle. A byte is usually eight bits - eight ferrite beads each of which is about 1/16th of an inch in diameter. A 1000 byte memory took up quite a bit of space and had significant weight.

There are at least three errors in this sentence alone when dealing with the AGC. Depending on how relative the "quite a bit of space and had significant weight" that may also be wrong as while it certainly was larger than what is used to today, it wasn't that much larger and was certainly a lot smaller and lighter then the memory that came before it.

What they probably didn't have was a computer that automatically read instrumentation data, made calculations based on that data and then automatically controlled the propulsion.

Except that this is exactly the function of the AGC. The very thing you say that they likely didn't have is exactly what they did have!

Every time the astronauts had to calculate thrust, they would probably read the data from the instruments and punch it into the computer. Then they would read the computer and set another dial that would set the thrust and thrust timers.

This is an educated guess based on my knowledge of electronics of that era and my memory of all the TV programs on space flight during that time period. You are invited to research the subject on the internet.

And your educated guess is entirely wrong. You come in and make up stuff without even bothering to check it with a simple Google search. If you didn't even know about one of the primary pieces of equipment onboard both the CSM and the LM how can you possibly try and speak authoritatively and believe it's going to work?

If you didn't know about that, and it's something you obviously think yourself educated it, then I know my $50 is totally safe because what you know about the rest is going to be squat.

 

[bobc]

What they probably didn't have was a computer that automatically read instrumentation data, made calculations based on that data and then automatically controlled the propulsion. Most of the calculation of that era was done by mechanical algorithms - as in an automatic transmission.

Every time the astronauts had to calculate thrust, they would probably read the data from the instruments and punch it into the computer. Then they would read the computer and set another dial that would set the thrust and thrust timers.

This is an educated guess based on my knowledge of electronics of that era and my memory of all the TV programs on space flight during that time period. You are invited to research the subject on the internet.

My educated guess is based on being an embedded systems engineer, not just watching TV or surfing the net, but my guess is that they did indeed have automated electronic systems to read data and control thrust. These were not necessarily digital systems, you can do a lot with analog electronics.

One of the big advantages that the US had over the Soviets was a big lead in electronic systems. The Soviets used to import computer kit on the black market and reproduce it resistor for resistor.

 

[dtugg]

Moonbat, some people are just born with the ability to be exceptional pilots. Neil Armstrong, et al are definetly some of those people. This is of course enhanced by thousands of hours of training and experience.

You being "skeptical" about their ability to land on the moon and your inability to replicate it on some video game means nothing.

Unless you can provide evidence contradicting the vast amount for the Apollo missions, which of course you cannot, your conspiracy theories will be rejected by every rational person in the world.

Sent from my Samsung Epic 4G using Tapatalk

 

[sts60]

True. I would like to see them testify in a court.

Irrelevant. You haven't dealt with the problems in your claims so far.

If the new and old video footage was mixed, it would be impossible to prove anything was faked. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference...

You wouldn't, but a lot of us could. But before we get to the specifics of why, you have other problems to deal with.

I have addressed my one error with the longevity of the LLRV program.

Only partially, and then you immediately started trying to tap-dance your way out of your error (see below).

I heard an audio clip at that link.

There's a .mov video file there. I can't say what your problem with viewing it is, but there is more evidence of something you said you couldn't find with your "research".

I may have seen...

No one is obliged to address claims based on something you sort of remember seeing, but can't provide a reference to (remember, you said you would only accept "sourced" claims).

As I have said, I will never trust the video or photographs after seeing the way they 'doctored' the old video and photographs. And they did it so openly, like they weren't hiding anything.

What you're telling us is that someone like you can see through this brazen conspiracy, but all the scientists and engineers (and filmmakers, for that matter) can't? In what scenario is that credible?

The re-creations looked very good... Go to Cape Kennedy - airfare is cheap to Florida.

I've been to KSC (not "Cape Kennedy"), and to Cape Canaveral Air Station. I've worked three shuttle missions there, preflight and postflight (I was at JSC for the missions). The problem is not only is your "evidence" some vague memories of some movie you can't even name, you incorrectly assume that no one else has any more knowledge of the subject than you. That's manifestly incorrect.

The two NASA films I watched that discussed the LLRVs briefly showed one really bad crash where the astronaut just barely ejected and then changed the subject. Subsequent crashes and successes were not discussed.

We've discussed them here: hundreds of flights, >98% success rate. The flight crews praised the LLRV/LLTV program as important to their success.

GIGO

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[tsig]

I haven't disagreed with that statement. I am just skeptical that all went off so well.

Take the LLRVs, for example. They simulated 1/6 gravity with a turbo fan that provided 5/6ths of the thrust. That is NOT the same simulation as flying on the moon because the full mass is still there. The inertia of a large mass is still to be overcome by the small thrust rockets. Not only that, but look at the LLRV. The inertial characteristics are going to be MUCH different.

I am skeptical that a person could make the instantaineously adapt his experience with the LLRV to handling the lunar lander.

skep·ti·cal (US) or Brit scep·ti·cal
Pronounced:
/ˈskɛptɪkəl/
Function:
adjective
Meaning:
[more skep*ti*cal; most skep*ti*cal] : having or expressing doubt about something (such as a claim or statement)

Being skeptical after an event happened isn't skepticism.

Hint: river in Egypt.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

So you are skeptical about my skepticism and I about yours.

Show me proof they were in 1/6 gravity in those videos. Show me proof that they were on the moon.

1.) Re-creations aren't proof.
2.) BS isn't proof.
3.) ad homs aren't proof.
4.) skepticism of my skepticism of your skepticism isn't proof.
5.) pictures with earth in the background aren't proof.

Well, I guess my earlier post went in one ear and out the other.

Friend, the program from start to finish are extraordinarily documented. The people involved in them, and by extention required to be involved in any grand conspiracies (that is, multiple faked landings), would number in the thousands. There is no way any successful conspiracy could be pulled off, so one would not be attempted. Do you understand? No way. None.

Why are you so invested in this fool's errand?

 

[sts60]

Reliability predictions showed that two space shuttles would crash with the given number of missions implying only that engineers have a handle on predicting failure rates.

You're saying that engineers know their business. Agreed. I'm an engineer.

I'm saying the lunar landers were new and untried.

Wrong. Can you figure out why, or should I tell you?

They were in the high failure rate zone of new products (the steep part of the bathtub curve).

Wrong. You're misapplying an idea from one domain (mass production) to another (man-rated space flight hardware) - the classic mistake of a layman trying to sound like an expert.

They were likely to fail far from home.

Why, exactly?

If they succeeded, then they were the most successful space product ever made - considering the complexity

Try again. The LMs were elegant engineering solutions to a unique problem; they were designed and built with a minimum of uneeded complexity and a maximum of redundancy.

and lack of testing at 1/6 gravity

Wrong.

[lack of testing] in a vacuum

Wrong.

with harsh temperature changes.

A well-characterized vacuum thermal environment. Why exactly was this an insurmountable problem?

 

[sts60]

That's an insult. Just because I state my claim without source doesn't mean that I haven't previously set forth the reasons for my claim, or that I can't defend the claim.

Let's see.

Back in that era, each bit of memory was a ferrite bead with three thin wires that went through the middle. A byte is usually eight bits - eight ferrite beads each of which is about 1/16th of an inch in diameter. A 1000 byte memory took up quite a bit of space and had significant weight.

Google is no substitute for understanding. You found something about the memory, but you don't understand that the AGC wasn't organized in bytes.

Now my PC has 8 gigabytes of memory (eight billion bytes). That is eight million times more memory than a 1000 byte memory.

Irrelevant. You can buy washing machines today that practically sing and dance. By your logic, my washing machine with a mechanical timer won't clean clothes.

I would estimate that toys today have far more memory than a lunar lander.

That's funny. My kid has all sorts of toys with no memory at all. And yet they do their job just fine.

That is not an easy answer.

At this point, you'd be better served by saying, "I don't know, but I'll go study the topic and find out." Please understand that you can't bluff your way here.

Remember that they not only had to land on the moon, but they had to take off and rendevous with the orbiting module. Giant computers controlled that process on earth.

No, not really. The Earthbound computers did the heavy lifting to provide solutions. The actual control was performed by the flight computers on the CM and LM.

What they probably didn't have was a computer that automatically read instrumentation data, made calculations based on that data and then automatically controlled the propulsion.

Absolutely wrong. That's exactly what the AGC did.

Most of the calculation of that era was done by mechanical algorithms - as in an automatic transmission.

Wrong.

Every time the astronauts had to calculate thrust, they would probably read the data from the instruments and punch it into the computer. Then they would read the computer and set another dial that would set the thrust and thrust timers.

Completely wrong.

This is an educated guess based on my knowledge of electronics of that era and my memory of all the TV programs on space flight during that time period. You are invited to research the subject on the internet.

Again, you're assuming that no one else knows anything about the subject; that no one knows more than you about this. That's not only completely wrong; it's downright arrogant.

Do you actually want to learn something? Or do you want to simply stubbornly dig yourself in further?

 

[tsig]

Well, I guess my earlier post went in one ear and out the other.

Friend, the program from start to finish are extraordinarily documented. The people involved in them, and by extention required to be involved in any grand conspiracies (that is, multiple faked landings), would number in the thousands. There is no way any successful conspiracy could be pulled off, so one would not be attempted. Do you understand? No way. None.

Why are you so invested in this fool's errand?

Answered yourself.

 

[sts60]

Going from memory, weren't there three Mars missions that failed in a year or so? I remember that a retro landing failed.

Going from memory, you're probably thinking of Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander, with two separate impactors (1999).

Didn't the first few landings use parachutes

Going from memory, all Mars landers use parachutes.

and big balls to cushion the impact?

Going from memory, the first U.S. landers, Viking 1 and 2, both soft-landed with rockets.

I'm not going to look this up because, with todays' technology, it should be possible to land with retro rockets. My point was only that the first retro rocket landing on Mars failed

Wrong, at least for the U.S....

- even with today's advanced technology.

Wrong. The nuclear (isotope)-powered Vikings, the U.S..'s first two landers, both landed safely on Mars in 1976.

This is skepticism

What you are offering more closely resembles reflexive denial than what is commonly recognized as "skepticism". The problem is, you're clinging to your opinions even after knowledgeable people are pointing out the gaping holes in your claims. Worse, your track record of error after error doesn't seem to give you pause, doesn't seem to give you any motivation to question your own assumptions.

How, exactly, is that any healthy form of skepticism?

and I am not offering it as proof which remains to be the physics of authentic lunar video

You have not acknowledged that your very first claim (no video of high jumps) was refuted.

and perhaps the lunar rocks that may have been meteroites or volacanic in origin because they were so similar to what was found on earth (according to NASA).

No. Before you go running off in another direction, you need to deal with the problems with your existing claims. Please understand, many of us have seen the "Gish gallop" before.

 

[sts60]

Your link validated what I was recalling from memory.

No. It refuted what you said, and you didn't notice.

I suggested that the computer had about 1000 bytes of memory. In actuality,

Backtracking noted.

it had 2048.

Wrong. Doubly wrong. You promptly mention the Wikipedia link, but didn't notice or understand that the very article you cited showed
(a) 2K words of random-access memory, and 36K words of read-only memory, and
(b) the word size is 16 bits, not one byte.
You were well on your way to being off by an order of magnitude.

This demonstrates, again, the hazards of trying to make up an argument on the fly from something you read on the Web, especially when dealing with people who know something about the subject.

What's no good is to say I-meant-that-all-along, as above, or to move on and try to bluff, as in:

11.72 microseconds is a very low cycle time.

Why, exactly? And how exactly does it support your contention that the AGC was inadequate to the task?

By the way, it is NOT making things up to use memory, education and experience.

How else to describe your unfounded assertions?

Perhaps if you had more of those things you would appreciate them more.

Projection duly noted. I think you're getting frustrated.

But if 19 years in aerospace, degrees in physics and engineering, and work on multiple flight programs (civil, military, and commercial) has gained anything for me, it certainly includes an appreciation for knowledgeable and competent people.

 

[Corsair 115]

Even so, it was a case of pushing technological abilities to the limit, and the failure on Apollo 13 reveals just how close to the limit they were.

It wasn't just Apollo missions. Gemini 8 would have lost the crew had Armstrong been unsuccessful in arresting the capsule's violent rolling. Gemini 4 had a troublesome hatch; McDivitt was able to successfully close it, but had he not been able to do so, the crew would have been doomed on re-entry.

But these potentially disastrous incidents show why skilled and experienced test pilots were the prime choice for astronaut corps members.

 

[Justinian2]

Don't you hate it when you can't go back and edit your words? [...]
.

It's not my job to filter out all your logical fallacies and rule breaches to get at some truth with which to respect you.

The point is that the computer in the lunar lander had less memory and and probably less computational power than an early TRS80 before expansion. The early TRS-80 had 16K Ram and 32K ROM before adding the expansion interface and extra memory. The memory was far too small to allow much computation.

Firstly, I'm sure the code was written in machine language or assembly language on the lunar lander computer in order to maximize the efficient use of the limited memory.

Secondly, I'm also sure that the lunar lander was designed to be theoretically functional. I believe that the engineers back then were far better than today's engineers.

Thirdly, for some reason, I don't think the lunar lander was ever landed with astronauts on board. Problems found in the vicinity of the moon, I theorize, prevented a human descent.

 

[Corsair 115]

The point is that the computer in the lunar lander had less memory and and probably less computational power than an early TRS80 before expansion. The early TRS-80 had 16K Ram and 32K ROM before adding the expansion interface and extra memory. The memory was far too small to allow much computation.

Unlike today's personal computers, the LM computer was specifically built to do one job, and one job only. Specialization of that sort allows for many efficiencies of scale that are not possible with a multi-purpose device.

Thirdly, for some reason, I don't think the lunar lander was ever landed with astronauts on board. Problems found in the vicinity of the moon, I theorize, prevented a human descent.

Your thoughts and theory mean NOTHING unless you can offer proof. Or, at the very least, meaningful rebuttals to the vast amount of evidence which exists. You have done neither. Do you know what ALSEP is?

Also, six times? Why would they fake six landings? With each landing longer and more complex than the one before it? If you're going to fake it, you'd fake it once, maybe twice, then quit. Every further forged attempt only increases the chance of the forgery being uncovered.

 

[Justinian2]

No. It refuted what you said, and you didn't notice.

Backtracking noted.

Wrong. Doubly wrong. You promptly mention the Wikipedia link, but didn't notice or understand that the very article you cited showed
(a) 2K words of random-access memory, and 36K words of read-only memory, and
(b) the word size is 16 bits, not one byte.
You were well on your way to being off by an order of magnitude.

This demonstrates, again, the hazards of trying to make up an argument on the fly from something you read on the Web, especially when dealing with people who know something about the subject.

What's no good is to say I-meant-that-all-along, as above, or to move on and try to bluff, as in:

Why, exactly? And how exactly does it support your contention that the AGC was inadequate to the task?

How else to describe your unfounded assertions?

Projection duly noted. I think you're getting frustrated.

But if 19 years in aerospace, degrees in physics and engineering, and work on multiple flight programs (civil, military, and commercial) has gained anything for me, it certainly includes an appreciation for knowledgeable and competent people.

I never said that the Lunar Lander had 1000K of memory. This is a straw man argument that you are battling. If someone can recall the exact amount of memory of the Lunar Lander, it still doesn't mean that they have the future right to claim victory by reason of being the authority that knew the exact memory. I could have looked it up, but it wasn't important. Whether it was 1K or 4K, it is still pitiful small given the big job it had to do.

I will concede that the memory was probably theoretically sufficient to get the job done.

The point is that the computer in the lunar lander had less memory and and probably less computational power than an early TRS80 before expansion. The early TRS-80 had 16K Ram and 32K ROM before adding the expansion interface and extra memory. The memory was far too small to allow much computation.

Firstly, I'm sure the code was written in machine language or assembly language on the lunar lander computer in order to maximize the efficient use of the limited memory.

Secondly, I'm also sure that the lunar lander was designed to be theoretically functional. I believe that the engineers back then were far better than today's engineers.

Thirdly, for some reason, I don't think the lunar lander was ever landed with astronauts on board. Problems found in the vicinity of the moon, I theorize, prevented a human descent.

 

[Justinian2]

[...]

Your thoughts and theory mean NOTHING unless you can offer proof. Or, at the very least, meaningful rebuttals to the vast amount of evidence which exists. You have done neither. Do you know what ALSEP is?

Also, six times? Why would they fake six landings? With each landing longer and more complex than the one before it? If you're going to fake it, you'd fake it once, maybe twice, then quit. Every further forged attempt only increases the chance of the forgery being uncovered.

What if you saw an astronaut drop something in space and it didn't float? Or what if spittle or sliva went down?

Similar things happened the moon. People did notice and they noticed IMMEDIATELY. I noticed. The TV announcer said (in 1968 or whatever) "I thought they were supposed to be able to jump higher." Why aren't they bouncing around?

The video may have been altered and we may not have definitive proof unless the CIA or NASA releases a formally classified document.

I don't know where to find a complete set of authentic and original videos and photographs. I remember analyzing them, but I didn't save the links. I know they have re-created some of the video, so I can't trust everything I see.

I do not have the energy needed to make a massive effort to change your minds.

 

[Sledge]

I do not have the energy information needed to make a massive effort to change your minds.

FTFY.

Any chance of an explanation as to why NASA went for a conspiracy theory that involved landing on the moon AND faking landing on the moon? This seems more than a little silly.

 

[JohnG]

Similar things happened the moon. People did notice and they noticed IMMEDIATELY. I noticed. The TV announcer said (in 1968 or whatever) "I thought they were supposed to be able to jump higher." Why aren't they bouncing around?

Why do you continue to ignore the countless posts that have addressed the supposed jumping issue? Are you doing it out an embarrassed stubbornness or do you suffer from one of those "Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat"-style conditions?

 

[sts60]

I never said that the Lunar Lander had 1000K of
memory.

No one ever said anything about 1000K, including you, so I assume you meant "1K", which you most definitely did claim:

I acknowledge that they had a computer with a ferrite bead memory and a whopping 1K of memory.

This is a straw man argument that you are battling. If someone can recall the exact amount of memory of the Lunar Lander, it still doesn't mean that they have the future right to claim victory by reason of being the authority that knew the exact memory.

No, of course not. The problem is that you repeatedly demonstrated that you didn't know anything about it, but simply kept insisting on your version although it had nothing to do with reality.

I could have looked it up,

The information was given to you, and you still didn't understand it.

but it wasn't important.

Wrong again. If you would start listening, we could talk about design margin.

Whether it was 1K or 4K, it is still pitiful small given the big job it had to do.

I will concede that the memory was probably theoretically sufficient to get the job done.

Stundied. First of all, it wasn't 1K or 4K, as has been repeatedly explained to you; second, you just contradicted yourself.

The point is that the computer in the lunar lander had less memory and and probably less computational power than an early TRS80 before expansion. The early TRS-80 had 16K Ram and 32K ROM before adding the expansion interface and extra memory. The memory was far too small to allow much computation.

Your uninformed opinion is irrelevant. What sort of computing power, exactly, was needed?

Firstly, I'm sure the code was written in machine language or assembly language on the lunar lander computer in order to maximize the efficient use of the limited memory.

Correct, but this doesn't support your contention.

Secondly, I'm also sure that the lunar lander was designed to be theoretically functional.

No; it was designed, built, and tested to be actually functional.

I believe that the engineers back then were far better than today's engineers.

First of all, I'm an engineer, and you are not, and I find your statement amusing, since you don't know what you're talking about.
Second of all, today's engineers learned from those engineers. The guys who designed the Mercury capsule? I used to work for them
Third, this works against your own contention.

Thirdly, for some reason, I don't think the lunar lander was ever landed with astronauts on board.

The evidence says otherwise. But, again, you are certainly welcome to actually provide some evidence for this assertion.

Problems found in the vicinity of the moon, I theorize, prevented a human descent.

Changing horses again? You're not theorizing, you're simply making up... something.