Moon Hoax conspiracy

[TraitorBasher]

They didn't need air conditioning. You seem to think that outer space is hot. That is wrong. It has no temperature.QUOTE]

What?????

The temperature on the Moon ranges from daytime highs of about 130°C = 265°F to nighttime lows of about -110°C = -170°F

enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/moon/

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth.
<snip>

No. The Space Shuttle hasn't killed anyone. Seven died as of a result of a faulty o-ring on a booster and seven died as a result of damage to the thermal shielding. Neither of these scenarios is dependent in any way upon the processing power available to the spacecraft.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Leave it to the French to ruin a perfectly good Pink Floyd album.

And leave it to the Paper Moon guy to ruin a perfectly good Ryan O'Neil movie.

Anybody at this forum who hasn't seen Dark Side of the Moon, needs to.

 

[332nd]

Is that a debunking?

It's a fact.

The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth.
How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone?

Argument from incredulity:
An assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Again, astronauts are smart. alot of the problems they had to workout for themselves without using a computer. Also there was a huge set of buildings at NASA that had more powerful computers so mission control could just send data to them.

How could they have powered air conditioning in two hundred fifty degree heat for three days with batteries? Why is the "second round" of "returning" to the moon estimated to be no earlier than half a century after the first?

For the heat see here http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html

As for the "second round" once we beat out the Russians the country pretty much lost intrest and it was to much to try to justify what it cost.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

ERich, around here most still believe Oswald killed JFK, and Osama did 9/11. You won't convince anybody the moon landings were faked.

Don't pretend to speak for others on this forum. I, for one, find objective, verifiable evidence to be very convincing.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yes, that's why the Russians remained silent, the English confirmed it, and anyone with a radio reciever could have blown it open, the fact we can bounce laser beams off the Moon, all those rocks.. you know, the acutal physical evidence doesn't prove we went there.... erm. My mistake, we did.

Okay, now as to specific claims.

-> Despite what people will tell you, the guidance computer, while important, can be done without. See: Apollo 13. It's only really neccesary for re-entry scenarios, were the math is simply too hairy to do rapidly by hand. And NASA can just send numbers up. The electronics in the Apollo program were designed for a specific purpose, and did not need to be huge banks, of such things.

-> Radiaion. See my post above, Arkan's post, or the Bad Astronomy website.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Is that a debunking?

The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth. How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone? How could they have powered air conditioning in two hundred fifty degree heat for three days with batteries? Why is the "second round" of "returning" to the moon estimated to be no earlier than half a century after the first?

That's not an Add Hominy attack. You are making statements and implications (by your questions) that lead to exceedingly foolish conclusions. Instead of recklessly shooting from the hip - DO YOUR RESEARCH. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

Read the book Flight, by Chris C. Kraft.

Read the book Lost Moon, by Jim Lovell.

Read the book Failure Is Not An Option, by Gene Krantz.

Then come back here (in several months) and at least argue from a better grounding in the subject matter.

Please bear in mind the new guidelines for the CT forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
That's not an Add Hominy attack.
<snip>

[bad diner waitress accent]
You want grits with that assertion?
[/bad diner waitress accent]

 

[332nd]

They didn't need air conditioning. You seem to think that outer space is hot. That is wrong. It has no temperature.QUOTE]

What?????



enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/moon/

At high noon the average temperature of the lunar surface can reach that temperature. But that's not the same thing as saying it was 72 F (22 C) in Los Angeles today. The latter is air temperature. The temperature of various surfaces in Los Angeles might have been as high as 180 F (82 C). Air temperature has no meaning on the moon because there's no air.
280 F (138 C) may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not the temperature of any random object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter.




http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html

 

[TraitorBasher]

No. The Space Shuttle hasn't killed anyone. Seven died as of a result of a faulty o-ring on a booster and seven died as a result of damage to the thermal shielding. Neither of these scenarios is dependent in any way upon the processing power available to the spacecraft.

I didn't say it was. My point is that there were none of these fatal malfunctions 30 years earlier during 6 missions with less sophisticated equipment travelling a thousand times further.

 

[Rob Lister]

lighten up on the guy, its entirely possible he is just honestly curious (and yes, its possible hes just baiting too, but doesnt everyone deserve the benefit of the doubt the first time around?)

What about now?

 

[332nd]

Not smart enough to say "ummm, no; you aren't sending me into that radiation!"

But they were smart enough to say "Well we won't be exposed to the radiation long enough to cause harm."

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I didn't say it was. My point is that there were none of these fatal malfunctions 30 years earlier during 6 missions with less sophisticated equipment travelling a thousand times further.

The first tragedy to strike the fledgling space endeavor didn’t even make it into space. The Apollo/Saturn 204 (later known as Apollo 1) mission was performing tests on the launch pad when a fire broke out, killing all three crewmembers.

On April 23, 1967 the Soyuz 1 took off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, carrying a single cosmonaut. Troubles began almost immediately, and the sole crewmember perished.

The second crew of the first space station, Salyut 1, launched aboard Soyuz 11 on June 6, 1971. After problems aboard Salyut 1 shortened the mission from 30 days to 24 days, the crew attempted to return home. They never made it alive.

http://space.about.com/od/spaceexplorationhistory/a/spacedisasters.htm

 

[TraitorBasher]

What do the 2 Russian examples have to do with it?

 

[332nd]

ERichardson-

What computational tasks were required for going to the moon?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Cheaper to fake it, and claim victory.

But what did they give to the soviets to prevent them from busting it wide open?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What do the 2 Russian examples have to do with it?

All three are relevant examples of technology failing, resulting in the death of astronauts, from times much closer to Apollo than to the STS disasters.

 

[apathoid]

What do the 2 Russian examples have to do with it?

My point is that there were none of these fatal malfunctions 30 years earlier during 6 missions with less sophisticated equipment travelling a thousand times further.

You wrote this not too long ago. Try to keep up...

 

[ArmillarySphere]

1) The most dangerous part of any trip into space is launch. Next comes reentry. That's also when we've seen the shuttle accidents happen.

2) Simulation is vastly more complex and demanding than doing something for real. Most of what the on-board computer did was follow very simple instructions such as "keep the craft at this attitude", "hold engine thrust at this level". Both of these tasks could be done by the astronauts themselves if necessary - the onboard computer was there to make it simpler and more resource-efficient.

How much computing power does it take to run a racing game? How much computing power did a car have in 1969? Apples and oranges.

3) The integrated circuit was first built in 1959, by a Texas Instrument scientist. Nasa pioneered its use, buying most of the production from 1960 to 1963. After that, production took off to exceed the demand from the space industry.

4) The so-called "fake" video footage was a dress rehearsal prior to the live broadcast. These recordings (3 in all from Apollo 11) have been part of the public record since the program took place, but weren't intended for public viewing. There's nothing secret on them, just the astronauts figuring out how to operate the camera in a weightless environment. Not something you want to show on national TV.

5. The radiation environment in Earth's vicinity had been studied since the discovery of the Van Allen belts in 1958. Some 30+ unmanned probes were sent up over the decade predating Apollo, which thoroughly investigated the distribution and intensity of the radiation. This enabled NASA to plot a trajectory which minimised dosage, and also provided sufficient shielding (mainly polyurethane plastic plus the aluminium shell of the spacecraft) to reduce the intensity to acceptable levels.

The belts themselves consist of primarily high-energy particles; protons and alpha particles in the inner belt and electron (aka beta particles) in the outer belt. Particle radiation is fairly easy to protect against - alpha radiation is stopped by a piece of paper, while beta radiation requires about an inch of material. Cathode ray TV tubes in fact contain a powerful beta particle generator, but the rays are completely stopped (and deliver their energy) by the viewscreen.

The radiation from a nuclear accident is of a completely different type - much of the immediate effect is electromagnetic; gamma rays, and a secondary but more dangerous type is radioactive substances that are ingested and emit their highly damaging but short-ranged particle radiation inside the body itself.

Note that there's a difference between radioactive and radiation - radioactive materials emit radiation. The belts contain radiation but no radioactive substances, since the particles originally came from the Sun.

Sorry if it came off a little dry, but it might benefit some doubter, I hope...

 

[ponderingturtle]

They didn't need air conditioning. You seem to think that outer space is hot. That is wrong. It has no temperature.QUOTE]

What?????



enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/moon/

Of course is can be well below 0 degree's f in a shadow.

With no atmosphere you are just getting the effect of the light. so they are basing the temperature on the light incident on the surface. As this is only on a part of the surface and the rest is incredibly cold, you don't need to worry so much about cooling, as much as evening out the temp and not freezing.