JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So you'll be taking down your blog posts accusing NASA of faking it?
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread
- Thread starter JayUtah
- Start date
So you'll be taking down your blog posts accusing NASA of faking it?
Kyoon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,557
Here's another photo of literal tin foil from NASA, the real conspiracy theorists:
Note:
- adhesive tape, non-uniform;
- re-used Mylar and aluminum foil;
- dented panels;
- otherwise cluttered exterior that should be TIDY (similar a fighter jet, hi-tech medical apparatus);
- antenna bent
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Earth_over_Apollo_11_Lunar_Module.jpg
Note:
- adhesive tape, non-uniform;
- re-used Mylar and aluminum foil;
- dented panels;
- otherwise cluttered exterior that should be TIDY (similar a fighter jet, hi-tech medical apparatus);
- antenna bent
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Earth_over_Apollo_11_Lunar_Module.jpg
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Thank you for confirming that you have read none of the discussion that followed your first post.
Asked and answered.
Asked and answered.
The exterior panels were thin to save weight. They are not pressure-bearing panels, merely shade coverings. Bending doesn't hurt them or impair their designated function.
These are simply made-up requirements. Why must the LM exterior be "tidy?" Why would you compare it to a fighter jet -- a craft made for an entirely different environment and role. What does medical apparatus have to do with spacecraft?
Steerable antenna properly aimed.
By all means keep parading your colossal ignorance. It's amusing.
Last edited:
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
Yeah, except:
(1) The example you cite had to do with aerodynamics and thus had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lunar Module. You're too ignorant of the subject to grasp that, but it doesn't matter because
(2) I don't believe your sudden conversion, Mr. "Anybody who believes this is brainwashed"; if it was true, it would be a pitiful example of how shallow your claims are, but instead I think it's just a ham-fisted attempt at sarcasm. I would expect you to try to do a fringe reset later, but instead
(3) I think you're just here to get attention from the grown-ups by spouting conspiracist gibberish. If I thought you really believed your twaddle, I'd point out that
(4) there is no "Galactic Federation" and it's ridiculous to claim a real lunar landing/return vehicle somehow supports the existence of interstellar travelers you just made up, but why bother, because
(5) GoAT.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
Hahahaha! Troll, I'll play again.
How many spacecraft have you worked on? I want a number.
Because you have no idea what you are talking about - none whatsoever. You don't even know what you're looking at. And your clueless comments aren't even original; you're just repeating somebody else's ignorant ravings.
So I'll pretend you actually believe your secondhand twaddle, and ask you this: why do you call other people "sheep" when you unhesitatingly lap up and regurgitate such manifestly stupid drivel?
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Coming from somebody who has never seen, much less worn, a "bunny suit", the comments are laughable
But not unexpected, considering that the same source has no clue about the differences between moving in a vacuum and in an atmosphere...
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed, it's about what I expected from him. Absolutely no accurate knowledge or intelligent analysis, just mindless parroting of other sources. It's the intellectual equivalent of crapping in the punchbowl and then interpreting all the subsequent attention as approval.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
You forgot
- lander leg 2m away and earth 384,400 km away
yet both in focus
- obviously Photoshopped!
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,211
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
You know, I understood why the Lunar Module didn't need streamlining by the time I was in the second grade.
tinribmancer
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,110
In all seriousness, are you genuinely this ignorant, or is this just a performance piece intended to make you the center of attention? I guess it's a bit like asking someone if he's just pooped his pants in public because he doesn't know any better, or because he just likes the commotion it causes.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
And as an Aerospace and Mechancal Engineer (actual name of the department at the time I graduated) I LIKE that kind of control system. I can look at it and understand (with some effort) how it works. My favorite airplane is the Boeing 747. I spent 20+ years working on its mechanical control systems. Over time, electronics have, quite appropriately, been added but it's still largely "Fly-By-Wire-Rope". If you can control a 950,000 pound airplane with levers, pulleys, and cables; think what you can do on a much smaller and actually simpler spacecraft with even a simple computer!
And lets not forget that that simple computer was mostly just implementing instructions given to it by more powerful systems (and people!) on the ground.
Arisia
Graduate Poster
So I was being bilked when I contributed money to the Smithsonian's 'Reboot the Suit' campaign last year?!?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And you can easily tell where it's broken, when it breaks. "See those two pieces of cable? They're supposed to be a single piece."
I had a fun time putting the wingtips back on a KC-135 that was being prepared for display. The aileron controls are just cables, pulleys, and bell cranks that any farmer would find familiar from his own equipment. The rudder and yaw damper controls are ingenious -- the PCU summing and input levers are direct descendants of the piston valve gears on steam locomotives, whose dimensions and motions were laid out on graph paper according to a technique engineers today would find quaint yet elegantly satisfying.
I've also sat in Howard Hughes' seat on the Spruce Goose. The actual flight controls and instruments are dirt simple. But the pilot-facing panel of the central console is all detailed controls for the then-revolutionary hydraulic system.
Out at the old Wendover air force base there's the airplane from the movie Con Air. I love taking people out there for two reasons: it uses the same circuit breakers as the LM, so I can give them an object lesson in how they're vulnerable to damage when they're open; and the cockpit is largely gutted, so the cable runs are fully exposed. It boggles people's minds to see literal cables and pulleys connected to flight controls.
And on the B-17, on which I've also flown, the cable runs are overhead and fully exposed, at the two o'clock and ten o'clock positions as you face along the plane's long axis. That makes them easy to service, to be sure, but the waist gunners had to take care not to grab them for balance.
Don't knock the simple ways. The simple ways work best.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
I like you even better now, Jay!
On the 737 and 747 (until the very latest iterations) control wheel inputs and speedbrake handle inputs are combined by a sophisticated computer. A sophisticated ANALOG computer. A sophisticated MECHANICAL analog computer. It's a work of art. My admiration for the creators knows no bounds. A cam shaped like a Batman symbol and lots of levers and bellcranks. Works a treat. It was only replaced by electronics on the 747-8 to enable weight reduction -- not controls weight reduction but structural weight reduction because the electronics could do some load alleviation tricks enabling thousands of pounds to be taken out of the wings.
The big savings in FBW is in flexibility. If you just replicate the mechanical system functionality it's a loser.
This is, of course, off topic. But a reminder that the previous generation of engineers were VERY smart. Unlike conspiracy theorists.
On the 737 and 747 (until the very latest iterations) control wheel inputs and speedbrake handle inputs are combined by a sophisticated computer. A sophisticated ANALOG computer. A sophisticated MECHANICAL analog computer. It's a work of art. My admiration for the creators knows no bounds. A cam shaped like a Batman symbol and lots of levers and bellcranks. Works a treat. It was only replaced by electronics on the 747-8 to enable weight reduction -- not controls weight reduction but structural weight reduction because the electronics could do some load alleviation tricks enabling thousands of pounds to be taken out of the wings.
The big savings in FBW is in flexibility. If you just replicate the mechanical system functionality it's a loser.
This is, of course, off topic. But a reminder that the previous generation of engineers were VERY smart. Unlike conspiracy theorists.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed, try to go see some of the inertial guidance systems on WWII era warships. Or the fire control computers. They are similarly artworthy, for the same reasons.
Also, checkout the various documentaries on the Mergenthaler Linotype. That's a 150-year-old collection of what are essentially very simple machines, elegantly combined.
Mine as well. These were the masters of their craft, and I'm sad that so few engineers in training today will appreciate it. I was extremely fortunate to learn my trade at the hand of Apollo engineers. My first mentor was an engineer on the docking system. He was one of the guys they dragged out of bed to help figure out what had gone wrong with Apollo 14's docking attempts.
I don't think it's too far off-topic. Much of the conspiracy rhetoric revolves around guessing how things "should" have been done and showing that it can't have been done that way in the 1960s. Engineering was different in the 1960s, but no less ingenious or expert. Apollo was filled with expressions of the classic mechanisms you find in airliners, which most laymen are simply unaware of.
As far as computers go, I can show you contemporary computers for ICBMs. The same place where I volunteer, that tasks me with reattaching wing tips, is also a vast treasure trove of aerospace history, including a coveted Pratt & Whitney J58. And the airframe it went in. But that's neither here nor there. I can show you examples of a 1950s IMU with angular precision down to a thousandth of a degree. The Minuteman computer follows the same general principles as the AGC. I can also whiteboard a design for a guidance system that only needs six words of RAM.
It is vital to know how things were done in the 1960s, even if they were for unrelated products.
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,211
British admiralty fire control table and system that supported it:
https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/br224/part3.htm
https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/br224/part3.htm
ComfySlippers
Banned
So I was being bilked when I contributed money to the Smithsonian's 'Reboot the Suit' campaign last year?!?
I hadn't heard of this. Fascinating stuff.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,929
When I was on Frigates in the 80s the Fire Control for the 4.5 inch turret used essentially the same hardware as WW2. We had an Admiralty Fire Control Table in the Plot Room to give Solutions for low angle fire. It's design was of 1940s vintage.
High angle AA fire was a different control system of 1950s vintage with later electronics being largely automatic.
Last edited: