• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

sts60 said:
It so happens the Madrid DSN station was the one that reacquired the Artemis 1 spacecraft after it passed behind the moon, preparing to enter Distant Retrograde Orbit.
Click to expand...



I'm looking forward to a new generation of whackjobs denying that Artemis is really going to the Moon. I'm 99% sure part of their evidence will be, "The pictures look just like the Apollo photos!"
 
sts60 said:
A bit of thread necromancy in “honor” of cosmored/fatfreddy/etc.: the strident Apollo hoax true believer who said he lived near Madrid. It so happens the Madrid DSN station was the one that reacquired the Artemis 1 spacecraft after it passed behind the moon, preparing to enter Distant Retrograde Orbit.

That guy was a piece of work. Anyone who disagreed with him for any reason at all was automatically a liar. He literally refused to accept that anyone else could honestly believe the Apollo missions occurred.
Click to expand...

I only had one encounter with him, not sure now where it was but it was a place he was subsequentially banned.
 
There is a well known Australian moon hoax proponent who is part of a Facebook group where many such people gather to show off just how dumb they are.

His current stance is that it is a genuine mission, and is defending it against all-comers, which is massively hilarious.

Another admin on that group, who claims to work for the Chinese Space Agency (he doesn't) and is a physicist (he isn't), holds that Artemis is genuine, will land on the moon and once it does NASA will 'come clean' about Apollo. He claims China knows it's a hoax and is going along with it for some nonsense reason or other.

The rest of the drooling slack-jawed morons in that group, and elsewhere, are as wrong about this mission as they are every other space bound object, and it's a miracle they can feed themselves unaided.
 
Horatius said:
I'm looking forward to a new generation of whackjobs denying that Artemis is really going to the Moon. I'm 99% sure part of their evidence will be, "The pictures look just like the Apollo photos!"
Click to expand...


Oh, but the evidence is already overwhelming. Their real-time website is so CGI generated, it's comical. Seems even cheaper than the Apollo missions' supposed films, except they finally added stars. From:

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/trackartemis/

Screenshot (27).jpg

Screenshot (28).jpg



Okay, back to reality. Even pretending to be a hoax supporter in my first paragraph left me feeling shameful, dirty, and a bit nauseous. This is still a neat site to monitor the progress of the mission.
 
Whenever my dog sees another dog on the TV she instantly starts barking in rage at it, then stops when it goes off screen. Space-deniers when they see the words "telemetry driven animation"...
 
threadworm said:
It's the blunder from down under, Jarrah.
Click to expand...

I just glanced at some YouTube video where he is begging his supporters for $2,000,000 to buy his grandmother's home. Couldn't stomach sticking around to learn any more.
 
threadworm said:
It's the blunder from down under, Jarrah.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, that's it.

Last I saw of him he'd apparently been taking college courses in physics, or something, and was affirming new space exploration missions like the Mars landers, but was still obstinately refusing to admit he got it so embarrassingly wrong about Apollo.
 
Somewhere on the forums that I visit, an individual suggested a flight back to A12 and capture the Surveyor 3 with the descent stage of the LM still setting on the Moon. I would agree with that, but it is unlikely in my opinion that NASA will undergo a mission to a place it already visited. The only aspect that would be new, bring back pieces of Surveyor 3, again, and pieces of A12 to understand what 50+ years of radiation damage has occurred to both.
 
That might have been me on Apollohoax (different name there!). While Apollo 12 isn't as spectacular (or maybe as geologically interesting) as elsewhere, we do have two objects where we know exactly how long they've been there. The chance to study their degradation seems sensible if you're looking at establishing a permanent presence.
 
threadworm said:
That might have been me on Apollohoax (different name there!). While Apollo 12 isn't as spectacular (or maybe as geologically interesting) as elsewhere, we do have two objects where we know exactly how long they've been there. The chance to study their degradation seems sensible if you're looking at establishing a permanent presence.
Click to expand...

Yes it could have been there.
 
threadworm said:
That might have been me on Apollohoax (different name there!). While Apollo 12 isn't as spectacular (or maybe as geologically interesting) as elsewhere, we do have two objects where we know exactly how long they've been there. The chance to study their degradation seems sensible if you're looking at establishing a permanent presence.
Click to expand...

We did a whole massive spacecraft for this back in the early STS era: the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF). Its job was to expose various materials (both human-made and natural) to the space environment for a prescribed period. Then the Challenger accident happened and it had to stay in orbit for far longer than intended.
 
JayUtah said:
We did a whole massive spacecraft for this back in the early STS era: the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF). Its job was to expose various materials (both human-made and natural) to the space environment for a prescribed period. Then the Challenger accident happened and it had to stay in orbit for far longer than intended.
Click to expand...

https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/mic/ldef/

However, as a result of LDEF's unexpectedly long exposure time (5.7 years) and the heightened awareness of the man-made debris collisional threat, it was decided to utilize the entire spacecraft as a meteoroid and orbital-debris detector. The Meteoroid and Debris Special Interest Group (M&D SIG) was organized to achieve this end.
Click to expand...

So what was the final analysis of the material on the spacecraft? Was it what was expected? More?
 
The LDEF findings are extensive and hard to summarize succinctly. But atomic oxygen emerged as the primary factor in whether materials survived or were degraded to the point of engineering concern. Some materials performed exceptionally well beyond expectations; others did not.
 
JayUtah said:
We did a whole massive spacecraft for this back in the early STS era: the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF). Its job was to expose various materials (both human-made and natural) to the space environment for a prescribed period. Then the Challenger accident happened and it had to stay in orbit for far longer than intended.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this! I thought I was aware of all the missions NASA had flown in the last forty years or so, but your comment was the first time I'd ever heard of this one.
 
bknight said:
Oxygen being the extender of the degrader?
Click to expand...

Degrader. Atomic oxygen is very reactive. We had a materials science satellite which required exceptional cleanliness on one side; before release, the Shuttle crew would use the arm to point that side into the velocity vector (sort of like sticking your head out of the window of your car while going down the highway) to let the monatomic O “scrub” the area.
 
sts60 said:
Degrader. Atomic oxygen is very reactive. We had a materials science satellite which required exceptional cleanliness on one side; before release, the Shuttle crew would use the arm to point that side into the velocity vector (sort of like sticking your head out of the window of your car while going down the highway) to let the monatomic O “scrub” the area.
Click to expand...

I know that oxygen is very reactive, however I didn't think much is in free space around the Moon to degrade materials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom