Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed. C'mon, Patrick...surely you can refute these power claims....right? Your silence on all these things speaks volumes about your supposed "case" against Apollo.

...or just admit you're wrong.


Patrick has been ignoring posts throughout this thread, but more frequently when it becomes obvious that he doesn't know what he is talking about, as in this case, one of many.

If this isn't the case, why won't you refute it, Patrick?

Or, as usual, will you simply ignore these posts?

It's so easy to ignore that which you can't answer, isn't it? It's ironic that you throw the "coward" blame around so easily, when you're also unwilling to face questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. C'mon, Patrick...surely you can refute these power claims....right? Your silence on all these things speaks volumes about your supposed "case" against Apollo.

...or just admit you're wrong.

This thread is an absolute scream. Patrick doesn't seem to realise that some of us actually work on spacecraft and space hardware (for the last 20 years for me). A lot of it still uses technology and lessons learned from Apollo. I loved the 1500 watt claim for the LM ECS.

The last generation TIROS NOAA and DMSP weather satellites ran on less than 1200 watts......the entire bird with all the loads up and running...reaction wheels, transmitters, receivers, camera systems...the whole spacecraft. I've worked on those power sytems. It's a good thing we don't use 1500 watt blower motors on spacecraft anymore. :rolleyes:
 
I'm sure Jay will explain this in more detail, but there really was an escape chute that led from the the top of the tower to a sealable bunker underneath the launch pad. In an emergency the astronauts and/or anyone else in the area could slide down and shut themselves in. Here is a video with James Burke demonstrating.

The entrance to the chute is actually at the base of the tower, on the pad surface itself. As I discussd previously, the crew has to open up (which would show on telemetry), go through the White Room (which was monitored by television), cross the open-framework swing arm (visible to every long lens for miles around), take the elevator down (which is monitored by the LCC personnel), and go across part of the open pad to the chute entrance. The point of this discussion was to highlight the silliness of the fantasy, put forth by some conspiracy crackpots, that crews could have secretly been swapped out from the vehicle.

In the Shuttle era it landed at a waiting APC which the crew were to board and drive to safety.

Yes, the APC was parked near a crash-out panel in the security fence. But the crews also had the option of going into the bunker at the basket landing site. I believe the Apollo-era underpad bunker was no longer available during Shuttle.

Indeed. There were not many anticipated launch failure modes that would necessitate an evacuation yet also leave time to operate the slidewire. It's more of a psychological security blanket. That's because if anything haunts engineers, it's the "If only we had provided..." scenario while analyzing a tragic accident. ...

And the same thinking was behind the development of the bail-out pole system after Challenger. (This was a system in which the crew could deploy a pole to which they would hook up and slide clear of the aerodynamic surfaces to bail out. It was a nice thought, and the "Polecats" put a lot of work into developing it, but the probability of it ever making a difference was very small.)
 
This thread is an absolute scream. Patrick doesn't seem to realise that some of us actually work on spacecraft and space hardware (for the last 20 years for me).

About the same for me. There are two or three of us here, although Sts60 has Patrick on "ignore" and pokes into the discussion only now and then.

Not only do we still reuse a lot of the expertise, my first two employers were Apollo veterans from North American Rockwell. Patrick doesn't believe the Apollo technology was fake, just that it was used for a different purpose -- nefarious secret military purpose. But he tries to say that the technical story as portrayed in the Apollo records can't be the real story.

I loved the 1500 watt claim for the LM ECS.

Indeed. Patrick1000 is all thumbs when it comes to anything technical. It's very amusing to watch him bluster and fumble through a technical discussion. Here he just up and claimed the ECS was a power hog, but never provided any numbers. It's his style to make a knee-jerk claim, then try to weasel out of it later when people correct him. He had an annoying habit of trying to pump people for details that he could then turn around and pretend he knew all along, but we're onto him now so he just goes silent whenever he realizes he's in over his head.
 
At first I was sorta' mad cuz' ya figure that they have to know all about it, you know, be briefed as to the fact that we never went to the moon.

The "hubris" involved in this post amazes me. Patrick assumes that the landings didn't happen, and from that assumption further ASSUMES that the POTUS would have this so called "knowledge".


Sorry, Patrick, but you don't get to make those assumptions WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

...and what you have posted so far simply does not qualify...


This "dance" has become boring....
 
if you lose one or two or three dudes, you run the risk of having the whole shebang shut down, the goal, the objective, is most decidedly NOT a lunar landing.

Does that include the 3 that were lost?
 
Trivial question...

The slidewire basket for the Saturn V LUT...I assume it was obviously attached to the LUT. It was connected on/near the level of the CM swingarm, right?

I'm thinking of a scenario. as with the first Saturn V when it was hauled back to the VAB for an approaching hurricane. What sort of process was it that got these sildewires hooked up and disconnected from the tower? It's obviously a "fixed" deal with the Shuttles's FSS, but with the mobile Apollo pad/gantry...

Like I said, kind of a trivial pursuit thing...
 
And the same thinking was behind the development of the bail-out pole system after Challenger.

Indeed, the ripple through the engineering community was, "You mean the crew survived the breakup? Crap!" That was not considered a survivable scenario, hence no plans were made to support the crew in such an event. And this gave rise to the "crippled Orbiter" scenario. The Orbiter could land only in one way: on its wheels on hard pavement. Water landings were not considered survivable. Hence the corner-case abort where a downrange or RTLS flight path was inevitable, but the Orbiter was unable to reach a safe landing zone, necessitated abandoning ship.

In keeping with the "avoid the airframe" constraint (which is a problem in high-performance aircraft, not just the Space Shuttle), the early Columbia flights featured SR-71 type ejection seats for the two-man crew. However after the first flight it was determined that the ejection trajectory would have carried the crew into the SRB plume. Putting on my pilot's hat, I'd still be glad for the chance to punch out and possibly get cooked, rather than a almost certain death from booster failure or the tragedy of a "range safety destruct" with me on board.
 
In keeping with the "avoid the airframe" constraint (which is a problem in high-performance aircraft, not just the Space Shuttle), the early Columbia flights featured SR-71 type ejection seats for the two-man crew. However after the first flight it was determined that the ejection trajectory would have carried the crew into the SRB plume. Putting on my pilot's hat, I'd still be glad for the chance to punch out and possibly get cooked, rather than a almost certain death from booster failure
Yeah, I'd take that chance too. And the crews would at at least like to try getting clear of the airframe as a first step towards ...
or the tragedy of a "range safety destruct" with me on board.
When we were doing preflight integration testing before one mission, it didn't bother me when the KSC techs told us they were doing range safety circuit testing. What did bother me was that they couldn't agree on what was the difference between the RANGE SAFE ARM annunciator coming on, and the actual thing happening. When one of them suggested it was a software inhibit, I considered trying out the slidewire myself.
 
I have been absent for like 50 pages, guess I missed a lot of educational posting on the moon mission. :(
And p1000 is still dead in the water?
 
If Apollo were faked, someone out of the thousands involved would have come forward and said something by now (my money would have been on an employee of one of the private companies, not a NASA employee).
 
New member's first post, and right away I go off topic. Patrick1000's "weaponization of space" idea kinda reminds me of the "Who didn't arm their spacecraft?" scene in Iron Sky. Big lulz, right there. Now, I don't think the producers and P1k have anything to do with each other but when I saw that scene this thread came to my mind.

Big thanks to all sensible writers on this thread. I have gotten a lot of good information on Apollo missions and hardware from here. I volunteered myself to do a presentation on moon landing hoax theories this summer and this thread, along with JREF forums in general have been a big source for information.
 
Actually, no, it is rather dangerous........This is a point worth emphasizing. One of the reasons that "they" don't send men to the moon is that it is dangerous. If we can land several surveyors on the moon, we can land land men. But getting them there ALIVE and returning them ALIVE is an altogether different kettle of fish.

Or it would be if you could ever provr any of your contentions. But you haven't.
 
The other important thing to keep in mind here tsig.....In addition to that which I already mentioned, the fact that sending men to the moon is DANGEROUS,

What about other DANGEROUS activities? What about Amundsen, Hillary etc?
Are they in your mind also perps?
 
New member's first post, and right away I go off topic. Patrick1000's "weaponization of space" idea kinda reminds me of the "Who didn't arm their spacecraft?" scene in Iron Sky. Big lulz, right there. Now, I don't think the producers and P1k have anything to do with each other but when I saw that scene this thread came to my mind.

Big thanks to all sensible writers on this thread. I have gotten a lot of good information on Apollo missions and hardware from here. I volunteered myself to do a presentation on moon landing hoax theories this summer and this thread, along with JREF forums in general have been a big source for information.


Welcome to the board, Torombolo. If you haven't already done so, you'll definitely want to check out Jay's web site, which is linked in his sig.
 
If Apollo were faked, someone out of the thousands involved would have come forward and said something by now (my money would have been on an employee of one of the private companies, not a NASA employee).

Most of the Apollo workforce were contractors and subcontractors, not civil servants. But yes, out of a workforce that numbered about 400,000 at its peak, many would have recognized a fake and blown the whistle. I've worked with Apollo engineers; if you had tried to get them to buy into a fraud, you would have have had your head handed to you.

Apollo hoax believers - who have absolutely no idea how how spaceflight works in particular or large engineering projects work in general - also like to say that only a select few would have known about a hoax. This, of course, is absolute ignorant fantasy. The program relied on both broad systems awareness, and deep specialization with active collaboration among the different entities. HBs are simply incapable of doing such work and don't understand that it's not simply one guy blindly making widget A and the next guy uncomprehendingly attaching widget B to it.

Furthermore, the "hoax" would have required fooling not only the elite engineers and scientists during the program but also those of generations yet to come. In fact, the hoax would have to anticipate scientific discoveries of the future. Again, fantasy - and very badly thought out fantasy as well.
 
I have been absent for like 50 pages, guess I missed a lot of educational posting on the moon mission. :(
And p1000 is still dead in the water?
He's on permanent vacation from the forum. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8133352#post8133352

The thread is still a magnificent source of information about the Apollo program so in a way Patrick's ridiculous posturing and childish bluster has some silver lining.

Oh, and welcome to the forum, Torombolo. :D
 
I have been absent for like 50 pages, guess I missed a lot of educational posting on the moon mission. :(
And p1000 is still dead in the water?
He's really most sincerely dead. Banned at 1:34 pm. Threatening legal actions against JREF? Never a good idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom