Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[TSR]

How many bytes are in a human brain?

.
Depends how big the zombie's mouth is...
.

 

[Cavorite]

Did they ever try to test the AGC from the vicinity of the moon?

Yes, during Apollo 10. They also tested it in LEO during Apollo 9.

 

[SpitfireIX]

.
Depends how big the zombie's mouth is...
.

 

[CptColumbo]

Did they ever try to test the AGC from the vicinity of the moon?

So, you really know almost nothing about the US space program from Mercury to Apollo-Soyuz?

Every mission was a test to make the next one better. In many cases it was trial and error.

Even when the Soviets had a mission, we would try to learn what we could to make our program work better. Soyuz 1 and 11 were disasters for the Soviet program, but they learned from it and so did we (just as we learned from our own failures).

 

[Justinian2]

Yes, during Apollo 10. They also tested it in LEO during Apollo 9.

They probably found a way to test the entire system on earth.

However, I would have programmed the first AGC to descend to the moon and then return in order to test the hardware.

And if it didn't work, what then? Try, try again?

Undoubtedly there's a good answer to the test methodology.

I also would have rehearsed the whole landing on a set that simulated the moon. I would have filmed the whole landing to enable review.

And if I were to think like Nixon then I would have considered using one of my 'secret plans' if any of the lunar tests failed.

Just being the devil's advocate...

 

[Spindrift]

They probably found a way to test the entire system on earth.

However, I would have programmed the first AGC to descend to the moon and then return in order to test the hardware.

Of course they tested it on earth.

And if it didn't work, what then? Try, try again?

Yes. Would you expect them to just give up?

Undoubtedly there's a good answer to the test methodology.

I also would have rehearsed the whole landing on a set that simulated the moon. I would have filmed the whole landing to enable review.

They did. However in no way could they be mistaken for the real thing.

And if I were to think like Nixon then I would have considered using one of my 'secret plans' if any of the lunar tests failed.

You do realize that Nixon was only president for 6 months prior to Apollo 11?

Just being the devil's advocate...

No, you are just making silly statement because you refuse to accept any evidence that counters you pre-conceived notion.

 

[CptColumbo]

They probably found a way to test the entire system on earth.

They did test on Earth, but there is no way to simulate zero-g and low-g on Earth (for a prolonged period) and the effects it would have on the systems.

However, I would have programmed the first AGC to descend to the moon and then return in order to test the hardware.

And if it didn't work, what then? Try, try again?

Yes.

Undoubtedly there's a good answer to the test methodology.

I also would have rehearsed the whole landing on a set that simulated the moon. I would have filmed the whole landing to enable review.

And if I were to think like Nixon then I would have considered using one of my 'secret plans' if any of the lunar tests failed.

Just being the devil's advocate...

The missions were set up in a way that if one failed or its objective wasn't met another would take its place. Apollo 11 was never guaranteed to be the mission that landed on the Moon. After Apollo 1 all the missions had to be shifted. When the mission and crew for Apollo 8 was radically changed it caused another shift in mission objectives.
Some of the tests on Apollo 9's "Spider" were almost cancelled when Schweickart became ill. If they had not been able to perform all the tests, it would have fallen to Apollo 10, and possibly Pete Conrad would have been the first person on the Moon.

 

[tsig]

They probably found a way to test the entire system on earth.

However, I would have programmed the first AGC to descend to the moon and then return in order to test the hardware.

And if it didn't work, what then? Try, try again?

Undoubtedly there's a good answer to the test methodology.

I also would have rehearsed the whole landing on a set that simulated the moon. I would have filmed the whole landing to enable review.

And if I were to think like Nixon then I would have considered using one of my 'secret plans' if any of the lunar tests failed.

Just being the devil's advocate...

Problems hilited.

 

[CptColumbo]

BTW Happy 81st Birthday to Buzz Aldrin.


I will punch someone today in your honor.

 

[grmcdorman]

They probably found a way to test the entire system on earth.

However, I would have programmed the first AGC to descend to the moon and then return in order to test the hardware.

They did. It was called Apollo 11. ETA: The LM was not capable of unmanned operation; some operations could be automated, not all.

And if it didn't work, what then? Try, try again?

More or less. Analyze what went wrong (and, yes, things did go wrong, just not fatally so) and implement preventative measures.

Undoubtedly there's a good answer to the test methodology.

I also would have rehearsed the whole landing on a set that simulated the moon. I would have filmed the whole landing to enable review.

Rehearsing on Earth, in toto, is not possible because the Moon environment is so different. In part, though: again you are not familiar with the space program - any space program.

And if I were to think like Nixon then I would have considered using one of my 'secret plans' if any of the lunar tests failed.

Just being the devil's advocate...

Really. Evidence for such 'secret plans'? ... and they'd have to be in place before Nixon came to power, by the way.

Piece of advice: go away and read several of the many good books on the US space program. Once you understand the history of the program - from pre-Mercury to at least Apollo-Soyuz - then we can talk. Until then, you're just flinging random mud at the wall hoping something will stick, and you're making a fool of yourself.

 

[twinstead]

Until then, you're just flinging random mud at the wall hoping something will stick, and you're making a fool of yourself.

And making a big mess, too. Clean up on aisle 5!

 

[Justinian2]

The ignorant should note the meaning of devil's advocate.

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position.

If you want a serious discussion, don't bite the only antagonist.
If you want to suppress free speech, move to a dictatorship or Italy.

Clean up on aisle 5 expected.

 

[jadebox]

Compare...

....

That was just a single, isolated statement. It wasn't an argument ....

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.




-- Roger

 

[phunk]

Sorry, I'm not not going to be goaded into a silly argument over something that isn't pertinent to the topic of this silly thread.

-- Roger

It's not silly, and there's no goading going on, just me pointing out a fact. The undefined ratio (dividing by zero does not give you infinity) does not come into play at all.

The ratios "3.7 / 0" and "18.4 / 14.7" represent the situation on the moon and on the earth with the suit inflated to 3.7 over ambient. And despite the huge difference in those ratios, the suit would have the same flexibility in both situations.

What is important is only the difference between the suit pressure and the outside pressure. That's subtraction, not division.

 

[kookbreaker]

The ignorant should note the meaning of devil's advocate.



If you want a serious discussion, don't bite the only antagonist. I think far less of the ad hominem spouters here than they think of me.

A devil's advocate does not act as if they have an emotional need to keep their beliefs. A devil's advocate is designed to make people think about actions from another angle, not gripe nonsense complaints to try and salvage an untenable position. A real devil's advocate does not declare themselves to truly believe their position wholeheartedly and then declare they were just playing devil's advocate when the position is laughably untenable.

 

[excaza]

The ignorant should note the meaning of devil's advocate.

Hey, what has 2 thumbs and doesn't give a crap?

 

[grmcdorman]

The ignorant should note the meaning of devil's advocate.

So? Your statements are still laughably uninformed and wrong. Positioning them as 'devil's advocate' does not make them right.

ETA: I have yet to see you retract anything; rather, you seem to be either harping on things you know little or nothing about (AGC capabilities, space program testing/training) or engaging in a kind of Gish Gallop.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

They probably found a way to test the entire system on earth.

maybe might possibly probably

=

FAIL

(maybe)

However, I would have programmed the first AGC to descend to the moon and then return in order to test the hardware.

That would be more consistent with the Soviet "central control" model which made the cosmonauts more into interchangeable passengers. The American model relied on the experience of highly qualified test pilots, with individual initiative and decision making at the lowest levels -- ie, Armstrong manually vectoring the A11 LM away from the boulder field he was sent to and looking for a better landing zone.

The AGC was not "programmed" in the way you think. It wasn't a remote-control autopilot magic gizmo. It required human operation.

Read more about the AGC here.

The first test of the Lunar Module was in Earth orbit, during Apollo 9. Perhaps reading up on this one will help you understand the level and scope of testing engineers felt necessary.

And if it didn't work, what then? Try, try again?

That would be consistent with standard scientific and engineering practice; that said, scientifically based engineering is capable of predicting the outcome of newtonian physics quite well.

Undoubtedly there's a good answer to the test methodology.

Perhaps.

I also would have rehearsed the whole landing on a set that simulated the moon. I would have filmed the whole landing to enable review.

Using a simulator?

Or did you have something else in mind?

And if I were to think like Nixon then I would have considered using one of my 'secret plans' if any of the lunar tests failed.

You obviously know as much about Nixon as you do about the space program.

Just being the devil's advocate...

fine line you walk there.

 

[tsig]

The ignorant should note the meaning of devil's advocate.



If you want a serious discussion, don't bite the only antagonist.
If you want to suppress free speech, move to a dictatorship or Italy.

Clean up on aisle 5 expected.

Do you do this a lot? How can we tell if you're serious or 'just arguing" here or elsewhere?

 

[CptColumbo]

The AGC was not "programmed" in the way you think. It wasn't a remote-control autopilot magic gizmo. It required human operation.

Remote control would also be very difficult, considering the time it takes for a transmission to reach the Moon and return to Earth.