Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[tsig]

Interesting point about Harrier (and other people use helicopters for the same example) but in the end it fails.
Firstly a harrier jet never takes off from a ricketty platform supported by 3 legs, widely spread and not under the point of lift off. They take off either from concrete on top of impacted earth or from specially constructed reinforced runways on a ship - that presumably are engineered to cope with such stresses.
Secondly, a harrier jet and helicopter depend on lift heavily on the movement of atmosphere to supply support and lift. So a helicopter certainly won't work on the moon. Nor would a harrier jet, although probably something not entirely dissimiliar to a harrier jet might work. A harrier jet is still very dependent on lift and/or support for its wings. And I assume that a harrier jet has a ceiling that once the atmosphere is too thin it can go no further.

In the end, I don't think you can get past Newton's 3rd law and you to sending an equal and opposite force down on whatever you lift off from and frankly I don't think something with this structure has the capacity not to collapse in the middle
[qimg]http://www.rodoh.us/images/img1/misc1/apollo_02.jpg[/qimg]

Although admittedly this was taken on earth, how heavy were those suits again?

Your misunderstanding of Newton's third law noted.

A rocket doesn't push against anything.

 

[likelystory]

That's why the heavier a land animal is, the more likely it is to have four legs.

T-Rex and his cousins only had two legs

 

[tsig]

T-Rex and his cousins only had two legs

Never heard of forelegs?

 

[JimBenArm]

T-Rex and his cousins only had two legs

Ahem. When someone says "more likely" that does not mean "this will happen 100% of the time in all cases".

Reading for comprehension is your friend.

 

[phunk]

In the end, I don't think you can get past Newton's 3rd law and you to sending an equal and opposite force down on whatever you lift off from and frankly I don't think something with this structure has the capacity not to collapse in the middle

You're right, Newton's laws are important here. You should realize that they imply that the downward force of a slowly rising craft is not much more than the force it exerts standing still on the ground. A harrier taking off is blowing air downwards over a wide area, with a force slightly higher than its own weight. A harrier sitting on the ground is exerting it's own weight on an area the size of its tires' contact with the ground. They don't use any specially reinforced runway, that's nonsense. If the ground can support a parked harrier, it can support one taking off.

It's simple really. Take the weight of the ascent module, and the size of the engine bell, and you can figure out how many PSI the exhaust needs to create at the mouth of the engine for it to lift off. I believe it was 1 or 2 psi for the ascent module. Does that sound like it would blast apart the descent module?

 

[TjW]

They had an infinite number of legs.
Consider: behind they had two legs, and in the front they had forelegs, which adds up to six legs.
Six is an even number, but you must admit it's an odd number of legs for a dinosaur to have.
The only number which is both odd and even is infinity.
Therefore, they had an infinite number of legs. Mathematically proven.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Oh, okay. This

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/lores/as11_40_5903.jpg

I am busy right now, but I will be back later this evening, if you have any further questions. But its self-explanatory, right?

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic material

You've posted the modified version of this picture. Here's the original.

110:42:14 Neil has moved to the MESA. No other Apollo photograph has been reproduced as often as this portrait of Buzz. Neil is, of course, visible in reflection on Buzz's visor. Buzz has his left arm raised and is probably reading the checklist sewn on the wrist cover of his glove, which is shown in a detail. He is moving his right foot forward, as can be seen by the mound of dirt building up in front of the toe of that boot. Note the dirt adhering to Buzz's boots and knees. Otherwise, he is remarkably clean. The "Red Apple", which he would grab and pull to open his purge valve in the event of a suit leak or a PLSS failure, is located roughly over his navel. From our perspective, the purge valve is installed in the connector to the left of the "Red Apple". Many readers will note that the scan from original film looks different from the presentation of 5903 that the world has been seeing since the image was released soon after Neil, Mike, and Buzz returned from the Moon. See a history of the image linked here.

Journal Contributor Markus Mehring has produced a rectified close-up of Neil's reflection in Buzz's visor. "I scanned the best and largest print I had available, removed the roughly 5 degree tilt that the original has in relation to the horizon, mirrored it, adjusted color in order to somewhat get rid of the golden tint of the visor, and re-projected it flat in order to kill as much spherical appearance as tolerable - hence the smear on the edges, which is impossible to avoid."

In March 2005, Journal Contributor Eric Nelson digitally removed the gold color of Buzz's visor ( 321k ) and revealed an unmistakably blue reflection of Earth. Nelson writes, " I eliminated most all of the gold visor tint, leaving a spot that wasn't white and so suggested itself as a film artifact rather than a piece of dust. On scanned slide film, dust would be black anyway, unless it might be some small translucent particle. I get the feeling the AS-11 master film scanning was done with some attention to cleanliness though, which should exclude any foreign objects of that size on the image. It is possible to verify whether any wanted or unwanted tint remains in neutrals in an image by temporarily saturating them heavily; I did that to the Spot toward 100% increase, and it turned Earth-Blue. I similarly saturated the gold-subtracted lunar surface reflections, and the open sunlit surface remained neutral while the surface in the influence of reflection from the LM turned gold: this suggests the gold subtraction was accurate and revealed a valid neutral image. This suggests the gold-subtracted spot did have a blue component...and I hope I don't take too much artistic license in exaggerating it to produce a psycho-visual link!"

Kipp Teague writes "I returned to the original June 2004 JSC scan of AS11-40-5903, cropped to Aldrin's visor, flipped and slightly rotated the image and took a stab at adjusting color to offset the gold in the visor. The linked image ( 109k ) represents the original scanning resolution. I don't see a BRIGHT blue object in the sky, but indeed, whatever is there is bluish in color, and more importantly, it is NOT single-pixel scanner noise as I can see elsewhere in the scan. Even better, when you enlarge this, you can see that the object generally matches in shape the Earth as viewed over the LM in AS11-40-5924."

In addition to investigations of the intrinsic characteristics of the Spot, it is necessary to verify that geometric factors are all correct. A check of Starry Night shows that, at 0414 UT on 21 July 1969, Earth was 59.5 degrees above the western Tranquility horizon at an azimuth of 270.6. The sun was 14.3 degrees above eastern horizon at an azimuth of about 88.1 degrees. The fact that the azimuth difference between the Earth and the Sun was close to 180 degrees, an image of Earth, if any, would be near the line of Buzz's shadow. Further, because the Earth was about 60 degrees above the western horizon, it's reflection would appear at a place on the visor where a line perpendicular to the visor surface is 30 degrees (half the Earth's elevation) above horizontal. A labeled detail from AS11-40-5875 ( 74k ) shows that this condition is met near the top of the visor.

Sharp-eyed readers will have noticed that the analysis is not yet complete. With Earth slightly north of west and the Sun lightly north of east, the reflected image of Earth should be on the opposite side of the reflected image of Buzz's shadow from the reflected LM. Nelson has produced a rectified detail ( 192k ) in which "I re-projected the visor image to flatten the horizon (effectively killing barrel distortion), rotated the horizon to level, and then horizontally skewed the image to parallel and square-to-vertical the LM descent stage sides. Finally I mirrored it to produce a normal view to the west. Some distortions remain, which suggests the visor isn't spherical, so that could explain sundry slight geometric inconsistencies in the rough analysis.". The rectified image shows the tentative Earth 'image' tantalizingly close to the line of Buzz's shadow, but on the wrong side. It is tempting to think that consideration of the actual figure of the gold visor will move the 'image' to the other side of the line of Buzz's shadow, but the necessary analysis is yet to be done.
​

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj//a11/images11.html#Mag40

What the above tells you, if you bother to read it, is that this photo is both internally and externally consistent with being taken on the moon.

 

[Andy_Ross]

T-Rex and his cousins only had two legs

But the biggest of the Dinosaurs used 4 legs.

 

[CptColumbo]

IIRC the original design called for three legs on the LM. When they realized that if one failed it would cause dagerous instability they added 2 more. When that would add too much weight they lowered it back to 4 and placed one of them in front of the hatch, so it could double as a ladder.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

No it isn't.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You admit that government agencies are capable of anything. Why won't you admit that they were capable of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth?

He shoots, he scores!

 

[JohnG]

You admit that government agencies are capable of anything. Why won't you admit that they were capable of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth?

No, they are only capable of anything sinister. For example, a friend of mine once told me that the Apollo moon landings were faked but the CIA has a secret base on the dark side of the moon. And yes, he really did believe that.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

"No it isn't"

Curse you!

 

[BTMO]

Curse you!

I live on the *right* side of the date line...

 

[little grey rabbit]

Well the fact remains,
a. the propulsion system of a harrier jet could not lift it off the ground in no atmosphere
b. if anyone can show me a picture of a harrier jet taking off from a contraption of aluminium poles and tin foil - that I would like to see.

If the system is so easy why not use it for reentry instead of those glorious pictures of Tom Hanks, teeth gritted as the capsule glows bright red before at the final moment releasing the parachute for splashdown.

He should of just applied the hover-jets

 

[excaza]

Airbreathing engine doesn't work without air, proof the moon landings were a hoax...

 

[little grey rabbit]

You cannot spectroscopically analyze a picture. You can take a picture of a spectrograph, but not vice versa. Solar radiation on the Moon is 30% higher than what makes it to the Earth's surface.

Interesting.
So if we took a picture of a parking lot at 12 noon and the same parking lot at night lit with fluorescent lighting. And then colored the sky black of both images with photoshop.

Do you think you would be able to spot a difference between the two photos?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Airbreathing engine doesn't work without air, proof the moon landings were a hoax...

Wasn't me that brought up harrier jump jets, I was just pointing out the limitations of the analogy. Seems you agree with me.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Well the fact remains,
a. the propulsion system of a harrier jet could not lift it off the ground in no atmosphere

Only because it's a jet, not a rocket. Feed the jet with canned air and your harrier could take of and land on the moon just fine.

b. if anyone can show me a picture of a harrier jet taking off from a contraption of aluminium poles and tin foil - that I would like to see.

What would that prove? You're confused about where the forces go in thrust equations.

If the system is so easy why not use it for reentry instead of those glorious pictures of Tom Hanks, teeth gritted as the capsule glows bright red before at the final moment releasing the parachute for splashdown.

He should of just applied the hover-jets

The atmosphere was used for braking. Taking along fuel to decelerate the capsule would have increased the size of the Saturn V by an unbelievable amount.

Have you done ANY research on this topic or are you just waffling on in TOTAL ignorance?

 

[BTMO]

Please don't feed the trolls...