• 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

Jrrarglblarg said:
.... Their gear looked like it would work and it was far less fussily over engineered than NASA hardware, so it was dumb and tough like all Russian machinery.
Click to expand...

Weren't the closed staged engines for the N-1 more advanced and with a higher impulse than the open cycle engines on the Saturn? I thought it was the fuel control system that doomed the N-1 to exploding death.
 
Ranb said:
Weren't the closed staged engines for the N-1 more advanced and with a higher impulse than the open cycle engines on the Saturn?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that this is the case; the N-1's engines were refurbished for use on the Antares launcher, so the basic design was good.

It's a bit tricky to figure out what went wrong with the N-1 since it never actually survived in flight long enough for the second stage to light up. Since it never worked, we can't confirm what "fix" solved or would have solved its problems.

Personally, I have two suspects.

First, with 30 advanced engines all firing at once, the N-1 first stage was "fussily overengineered" compared to the relatively simple, robust Saturn V first stage. On top of that, no N-1 first stage was ever tested on the ground. While individual components were tested, the assembly was not, making it quite possible that it was simply too delicate to survive its own launch.

The second suspect is KORD. The automated flight control system had to manage thirty rockets at once. That seems like a tremendously complicated system, and like the N-1 first stage itself, it was never tested on a flight stand. IIRC some of the launches failed after KORD shut off all the engines.

So it's likely there were a number of issues with the N-1 first stage, which were never identified and addressed because it was never tested on the ground as a single unit.
 
Octavo said:
Without wishing to derail this most interesting thread, what exactly do flat earthers believe about the moon?

Do they accept it as spherical, or are all the solar system bodies discs in their delusions?
Click to expand...

whenever they are caught with their pants on the knees, they just invent nonsense like "I never claimed it to be exactly like that".

To sum it up, if you show them that, they will claim they never said the moon was FLAT as a disc. But that it´s more like a captain america shield. :rolleyes:


their answers are always moronic.


this is a known Lunar Conspiracy Video, now with a spin to prove the Earth is flat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdFqK1wTx0A


I am debunking tons of Flat Earther's there. Still waiting for some to explain the Southern Cross seen from Brazil and Australia at the same exact moment of the same night.
 
Last edited:
threadworm said:
Wow - there is so much wrong with that video I don't know where to start...
Click to expand...

a suggestion
barf-bag-big-rear.jpg
 
Trebuchet said:
Except that one blew up on a test stand and another probably caused the Antares ORB-3 failure.
Click to expand...

I worked on the designs that would become Antares as a contractor up until around 2005. I never trusted the NK-33. In a staged combustion design you can send the preburner all the oxidizer and a little fuel, or all the fuel and a little oxidizer. There are efficiency advantages to the former (in many bipropellant formulations) but there is a huge metallurgy problem sending superheated oxygen through ferrous fuel lines as the iron itself burns. The Russians solved this problem by using exotic metallurgy in their lines from the turbine discharge to the powerhead. However, no one really knew how that would fare after sitting in a warehouse for decades without temperature or contamination controls.
 
Last edited:
AcesHigh said:
whenever they are caught with their pants on the knees, they just invent nonsense like "I never claimed it to be exactly like that".

To sum it up, if you show them that, they will claim they never said the moon was FLAT as a disc. But that it´s more like a captain america shield. :rolleyes:


their answers are always moronic.
Click to expand...

Mate, some of them think that the actual moon itself is a hoax that was built by aliens, or someone, in that past, or something?
 
Maybe this was behind Kyoons Tidal Lock hoax comment...

IIRC it went something like:

"tidal lock is a BS explanation hiding the fact the moon is so positioned in order to prevent the other side being seen because there is stuff there"
 
I don't know whether you have ever encountered a guy called Allan C. Weisbecker, but he is a proponent to this theory. He pops up every so often on Apollohoax peddling his nonsense, and is a regular guest on James Fetzers absurd "show" ( a better met pair it would be difficult to imagine)
 
To sum it up, if you show them that, they will claim they never said the moon was FLAT as a disc. But that it´s more like a captain america shield.
Click to expand...

Given the apparent intellectual capacity of flat earthers, that sounds like the reference one could expect.
 
smartcooky said:
I don't know whether you have ever encountered a guy called Allan C. Weisbecker, but he is a proponent to this theory. He pops up every so often on Apollohoax peddling his nonsense, and is a regular guest on James Fetzers absurd "show" ( a better met pair it would be difficult to imagine)
Click to expand...

Alan: I guarantee you can't show one reference to radiation hazards during Apollo!
AH regulars: (cite several mentions)
Alan: See! I told you you can't cite any references!
AH regulars: (cite more references, highlight text and show diagrams exactly matching what he mentioned)
Alan: It's pure evil on display here! Plus, no one could cite any references!

Later, another thread..
Alan: And what about this other topic! Just like no one could cite any references to radiation during Apollo!
 
"Who stayed behind to film the liftoff?" has got to be the "but why don't we a crocoduck?" of the moon hoax world.
 
Jrrarglblarg in #48 said:
I would demand an explanation for how they managed to get 800 and some pounds of moon rocks and moon dirt including 3-meter soil cores.
Click to expand...


The problem: In addition to unexplainable natural remanent magnetism comparable to terrestrial magnetism [1], these Apollo samples also coincide with the wrong, then prevailing Hypothesis of a Dry Moon.

"By the early 1970s the Dry Moon was settled science, especially among lunar geologists in the United States." [2]​

In the meanwhile the moon has turned out to be much wetter and to agree rather with the Soviet than with the NASA moon samples.
"The Soviet Luna 24 mission of 1976 drilled two meters down and extracted 170 grams of lunar soil, which it brought back to Earth for analysis, taking every possible precaution to avoid contamination. The scientists found that water made up 0.1 percent of the mass of the soil, and published their results in the journal Geokhimiia in 1978." [3]​

The findings of the Soviets disagreeing with NASA's Dry Moon Hypothesis were simply dismissed.

"The three Soviet lunar sample return missions (Luna 16, 20 and 24) from 1970 to 1976 brought back a total of 327 grams of lunar soil. The six Apollo lunar landing missions in 1969 – 1972 returned 381,700 grams of rock and soil. Apollo won the samples race. No other author has ever cited the Luna 24 work, as of this writing." [2]​

In any case, all Apollo landing sites had to be declared in the meanwhile by NASA "to be geochemically anomalous":

"All six of the Apollo missions on which samples were collected landed in the central nearside of the Moon, an area that has subsequently been shown to be geochemically anomalous by the Lunar Prospector mission." (Wikipedia)​

Cheers, Wolfgang
Moon rock samples faked by NASA?


[1] MIT – Paleomagnetism Laboratory – Lunar Magetism: "Before the Apollo missions, the Moon was commonly envisioned to be a primordial, undifferentiated relic of the early Solar System. Such a body would have never formed a core or a dynamo magnetic field. Indeed, it was well known before the first lunar landings that the Moon today has no global magnetic field. It was thus a great surprise when the Apollo missions identified a strong, stable remanent magnetization in lunar rocks. This magnetization must have been produced by ancient magnetic fields, yet the timing and origin of these fields have remained a mystery more than thirty years since the Apollo era."

[2] Water on The Moon, Historical Overview, Arlin Crotts (Columbia University)

[3] Soviet find of water on the Moon in the 1970s ignored by the West, Lin Edwards, 2012
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom