LLL..you go on about the badly constructed LM. you have been shown photos of the LM under construction, showing the "beefy" parts of the structure. You have been pointed to links showing it's construction. You should KNOW by now that the flimsey looking external panels are not structural, and for insulation/micrometeroid protection. You are not doing proper debate, you do not understand, nay..refuse to understand, your opponents arguments and evidence. You've been shown photos of satellites, far more vulnerable to VAB/cosmic radiation than the human organism, protected in the space environment in much the same fashion. Do you understand that the LEO/GEO environment is much the same as that of the Moon, if not worse?

Turbonium, you say that "only a few" needed to know of the hoax. Were this true, the rest would be busy building functioning, operational Moonships. Able to withstand the understood environment of the lunar mission...the VABs, the surface, everything. The international space community had built a wealth of knowledge on what Apollo would encounter throughout the mission. The Apollo workers designed and built a craft capable of withstanding that environment.

But...a "few" determined that all these folks from around the world were wrong, that the prip was impossible. What did they alone know? Why was the mission impossible? Why did they need to create a PARALLEL hoax mission, alongside the real, public, multibillion dollar effort? And who staffed it...more than just "a few" folks.

In short...why the hoax??

Awesome job...succint, factual, and just shreds Jarrah...again. He knows nothing of orbital mechanics, this has been shown before. I'm living proof that you don't need to be a full up rocket scientist to understand the basics. Jarrah just can't be bothered with such minutia...pity.

Nicely done, TNT! You really do have a talent for videos. Since YouTube is so popular these days, it's great to see good, technically accurate stuff being posted there to counter the trash put out by people like Jarrah. Might just convince those who are truly curious to dig a little deeper and learn the true facts.

Sorry to disappoint you, Czero, but you're way off the mark. The only 'dirt' you've really uncovered here is due to a single word ("supposedly") I forgot to add, in a hastily written post last night. The error came to me soon after I posted it, but I had no time to go back and correct it, until now.

I had a feeling somebody might try and jump all over it today...and danged if I wasn't right!!


But I have to admit, it's kind of nice to know how some folks are so diligent in combing through my posts, and pointing out any problems they can find...even the most trivial ones!

Wishful thinking on (and a little sleep dep.) my part, Turbs...




Cz

I have to say - and it does pain me - I thought the latest rebuttal to Jarrah was a little more personal than it needed to be.

I fully appreciate how frustrating it is to argue with some of these people, how they will simply ignore reason and happily trek off on a wild path because it suits their needs. I really do feel like slapping them across the face and saying "WAKE UP! Are you LISTENING to what you are saying? BRAIN! START WORKING!" but have to restrain myself.

Just point out where and why they are wrong.... although if they blatantly lie, then point that out.

be sure, though, to differentiate between a lie and ignorance. A majority of these people make claims based on ignorance; some downright lie to further their own purposes.

Those who do not know and do not know they do not know are fools - shun them

Those who do not know and know they do not know are children - teach them

little addendum for the apollo 14 liftoff video , i just noted a strange incoherent picture (mislabelled maybe who know ?)



this picture is taken post EVA-2 on apollo 14 , they will not leave the lunar module anymore , they are inside , look the flag shadow , look the PLSS on the lower left of the picture , you see that casted lunar module shadow on the PLSS right ? also look the overall gap between the flapole and the shadow of the MET (i think) at 7 O'clock of the flapole , you see it ? pretty close to the flagpole and just under a little bootprint , note the clearly visible shadow of the large S-Band Antenna on the right of the picture.

let's double check it is really the S-Band antenna (just in case of a mislabelled shadow !).

1
2

now compare this picture with the liftoff scene ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yleuZBQVcLk

do you see this ? at 25 seconds , the S-Band Antenna seems to have vanished of the scene , and this is strange because you can see that the PLSS still have his casted shadow at roughly the same place , so the sun didn't move that much between the two frame , and we can double check that quickly , because the shadow of the MET (or something like that) is still near the flagpole base and near that bootprint as we saw on the picture (the view is not the same angle but pretty clear the shadow didn't moved much) also note the flag seems to have rotated about 180 degree , and we should see the S-Band antenna at the lower right of the frame , yet there is nothing there , the S-Band antenna is missing , and remember that they didn't left the craft between the two frame , because they where already pressurised back inside of the LM.

-edit- apollo 14 not 15 ...

This constant rehashing of the "mislabeled picture" issue in almost every post since that discussion is childish, LLL, and is getting very tiresome.

You made a claim about a picture that was eventually discovered to be mislabeled, thereby negating your point. Was glad to see that you agreed with it, after a fashion, but it's no longer an issue.

I mean, is it really necessary that you bring up the whole "mislabeled" thing every time you post about one of your new opinions...?

Move on already.



Cz

MID, comments like this are not helpful. Please try to avoid anything that can be construed as a personal attack.

I said...

So Apollo 8 - 17 were pretty lucky the Belts didn't cause a single problem, for any astronaut, or any capsule?

I'm not sure what NASA's current position is on that.

Does anyone else know?



The Belts are more hazardous during major solar events, obviously. But you've failed to mention that the VA Belts are considered hazardous for manned travel at all times....not just during/around major solar events.

Radiation hazards are an enormous problem beyond LEO. Before we can ever start sending humans to the moon, we'll need a 'Master's Degree' in deep space radiation. And as it stands right now, we're probably in 3rd or 4th grade elementary.



I've come across this explanation from the pro-Apollo side quite often. But, to be frank, it's merely rhetoric without any substance.

To say things like 'NASA did the best they could at the time' ...is really quite meaningless. It certainly has no relevance to this discussion, at any rate.

The best they could do in 1969 was put astronauts into LEO, and safely return them to Earth. It still is the best we can do. But it's not meant to diminish the significance of such a feat, because I do consider manned LEO to be mankind's greatest achievement, and shows how far we've advanced, technologically, over the past 50 - 60 years.

Although I'd love to see men land on the moon by 2020, as would everyone else, it won't be doable in 2020, imo.

I sincerely hope that we're all still alive and well, X years from now, so we really can see humans set foot on the moon, for the very first time!, and safely return them to Earth.

Hi LLL,

Yes, the erectable S-band antenna really is missing in the liftoff video. It was knocked over during the hot-fire test of the LM reaction control system thrusters a little less than an hour before liftoff. The exhaust blast from this test also moved the flag. Here are the relevant quotes from the mission transcript:

QUOTE (Apollo Lunar Surface Journal)

140:27:18 McCandless: Antares, this is Houston.

140:27:24 Mitchell: Go ahead.

140:27:25 McCandless: Roger. Having passed you the changes through the comm configuration at minus 1 hour and 15 minutes, we'd like to hold off on going into the Down-Voice Backup mode and ICS/PTT until lift-off minus five-zero minutes. That is, just prior to the RCS hot-fire check, as we're advised that on Apollo 12, the hot-fire check blew the erectable antenna over. If the erectable antenna is still standing after the hot-fire check, we'd prefer to come back into the Normal voice configuration until sometime shortly before lift-off. Over.

140:28:12 Mitchell: Okay, Bruce. Why don't you call the comm in real time and we'll respond?

140:28:18 McCandless: Wilco ("will comply"), Ed.

QUOTE (Apollo Lunar Surface Journal)

140:49:50 Shepard: Houston, are you ready for the hot-fire of the jets (on Sur 8-7)?

140:49:56 McCandless: That's affirmative, Antares.

[Jones - "Tell me about that hot-fire check. I understand that you're firing the RCS. One at a time?"]

[Mitchell - "No, you have to fire them at least two at a time. I think he was checking all positions of the handcontroller and the thrusters."]

[Jones - "Did it rock the LM at all?"]

[Mitchell - "Oh, yeah. (Reads checklist page 8-7) He checked the different modes of the PGNS."]

140:50:02 Shepard: Okay. Here we go. (Long Pause) Okay, Houston. The antenna blew over.

140:51:01 McCandless: Roger, Antares. (Pause) How about the flag?

[Comm Break]

140:53:40 Shepard: Okay, Houston, the hot-fire check's complete. We're satisfied here.

Sorry Turbs.. you're going to have to do better than that.

Just because YOU THINK it couldn't have been done back then, or because YOU THINK they hadn't done enough studies, doesn't make it so.

I have produced links to period documents, including the Mission Reports and the the document that SPECIFICALLY discusses radiation protection.

You have produced nothing but supposition, misinterpretation and un-educated opinion and you have failed to prove your opinion.

Since you continually and apparently willfully ignore the documented evidence I and others have provided, continuation of this discussion is pointless.

Find some documented evidence to back up your otherwise meaningless opinions and maybe this discussion can go somewhere.

Have a good night.


Cz


EDITED for spelling and content

ok , it got blowed away as the script said , by these tiny thruster right ? why not , just notice that these tiny thrusters can blow a large antenna at about 3 meters distance with their sole exhaust gas , while the main descent engine rocket allegedly can't blow a crater at less than 40 centimeters under is nozzle , funny heh ? , where did the vacuum spread-out effect goes ? what is the dynamic velocity of these thrusters , do you know this just in case ? but no problem , let's say this antenna issue is solved anyway this was just a bonus in case this shadow was 'really' missing , because the motion of the craft is still unresolved , as well as the apollo 11 one and their instant stops all the way around.

Turbo,

You have no expertise - in any form - regarding radiation, radiation protection, effects of radiation, etc.

These people DO:

FRANCIS A. CUCINOTTA
WALTER SCHIMMERLING
JOHN W. WILSON
LEIF E. PETERSON
GAUTAM D. BADHWAR
PREMKUMAR B. SAGANTI
JOHN F. DICELLO
MYUNG-HEE Y. KIM
LEI REN

Look them up. Contact them. Argue your case with them. Submit your own data to the peer-reviewed journals that these people do. I'm sure the world awaits your stunning revelations.

Typical...

Hoax Believer makes claim that something is "amiss".

Evidence is provided why it is not "amiss" and actually has a logical, rational explanation.

Hoax Believer doesn't understand the concept of WHY the logical, rational explanation is logical and rational.

Rather then actually LEARN about the answer given, Hoax Believer then claims that the answer was actually part of the "cover up" but (since the Hoax Believer can't provide ANY form or serious rebuttal) decides to condescendingly accept the answer by essentially saying

"Alright, I'll humor you and accept what you have said.... for now.... *WINK*... so what about THIS thing that looks "amiss" to me?"


Sound about right so far?


And you accuse Apollo of being scripted :rolleeys:



Cz

Fine. No problemo. But please post a little earlier on next time, because you act like such a grouch-ass when you're up too late.

I posted as soon as you replied... or at soon as I noticed it at any rate. If I happen to be up when you post, and I have a rebuttal for it, I generally try to reply right away while the ideas are fresh in my head.

Plus, when I am genuinely tired, I do say so in my post. The other times what you're terming as my "grouchiness" is just my frustration at having the evidence I and other have given being ignored showing through a bit too much. Some of my longer posts to you in the past have taken upwards of 4 hours to compile, taking into account time to locate the correct information.


Cz

My God!!! LLL you found a very interesting picture here!!! Look at the flag!!! It rotated 180 degrees!!!!!!! MID,I would appreciate to hear from you about it.

I do wonder if any of you read this thread at all.

Under the hat, this has been discussed quite thoroughly on the last page by Pericynthion. I suggest you go back and read his post.

Also everyone else, thanks for positive comments on the video

How can an engine blow a huge antenna like that away and rotate the flag 180 degrees towards the LEM?? It is impossible!

A conversation writen in a piece of paper is very easy to make.Even a recorded conversation is very easy to be done.It could be done at any moment.It could be done yesterday,if NASA needed it to explain the unexplainable.And this is the case here.
LLL you found something very special here.This is a real pearl.Congratulations!!!

yes this is impossible , they stopped instantly , they should have a little decceleration before the stop , like a curve , it can be a steep curve , but still a curve , here it is an instantaneous stops , and not only one time , but several times in the same scene , did you watched the video by the way ? did you missed the ~3'05" instant stop one at least ? and did you see the instant stop in ascent of apollo 14 at 1'09" ? this is simply impossible to stop that way , they instantly stop you can't ignore that , these craft have 1) a secret technology (apparently mastered already) that allow the to defy the law of motion like this , or 2) these are models of these craft filmed to roughly simulate what could eventually looks like a rendez-vous scene while orbiting the moon.

I appreciate your support UTH , but i think 'pushing' that hard on my little 'find' , would not worth the time , i also think that they could very well have added that script aftermath , but they could have just done that at the time as well (don't underestimate them) , so this would be too much time for a minor detail , if this transcrip wouldn't have existed , sure this details would be major , but there is just nothing serious , and in a way , this transcrip strenghten the evidence that the descent engine should have left a visible crater , so it's not that bad afterall , since there is more serious and clear evidence , let's better focus on these ones , for example the famous 'waving flag' , the radiations , the lunar landing and liftoff (that all looks so fakes...) , and also the rendez-vous prior to docking , i don't see if you saw the video , don't miss them just in case .

Translation: "They could have faked the radio transmissions" without presenting any evidence that this was the case.

P.S. You have yet to present any evidence that the DPS should have left a blast crater. When you get around to researching this, look up the Harrier jet and the DC-X.

P.P.S. Why do you put blank quotes in your replies? When I reply to you, I have to strip them out before the software will accept it.

Deflection-




As for the Apollo 11 lunar ascent video, maybe it was a choppy video due to editing and so-many generations of film copies, and youtube compression, etc.

i left blank quotes because you can click on them and see the full message , to not overdone the page with repetition of messages , but if you insist i left the full quots no problem , so for the harrier , the harrier don't have a rocket engine , this is the first and major point , the exhaust gas of the harrier will be very slow compared to a CD-Nozzle rocket engine , plus the exhaust gas will be 'slowed down' by atmosphere , and will 'float' in the surrounding atmosphere , also the harrier have a 4 nozzles engine , so /4 , also the harrier engines doesn't puch 90° perpendicular to the ground , but with an angle , so it is a bit softer , and to finish , an imaginary harrier with his engine at 40 centimeters of the ground will leave a crater on a dusty surface in a 1/6th g environment (imaginary because he need atmosphere ) , and for that DC-X i heard several times about that losy story , did anyone saw an official video of that DC-X landing in a dusty desert without leaving a crater ? because WE DID see the lunar module descending and blowing away dust as long as the engine isn't off , and we know that the nozzle is most of the time at less than 40 centimeters of the dusty 1/6th g ground at the end , and there is not a single crater , not even a start of crater , that's why i know this lunar module should have left a visible crater under is CD-Nozzle rocket engine (several mach velocity for the exhaust gas , not a single harrier will do that sorry).

1. Show us that the fact that one is a rocket and the other is a jet makes any difference. Thrust is thrust.

2.When a harrier is hovering, the nozzles are perpendicular to the ground.

3. If you do the research, you can find plenty of dusty, desert, craterless DC-X video.

4. Give us your calculations of the velocity of the DPS and how much pressure it should have impinged on the lunar surface. don't just handwave. (P.S. You do know, don't you, that several of the LMs cut off their landing thrust several feet above the moon and fell the last few feet, don't you?)

turbojet is not a rocket engine , the thrust is generated much more softly in a turbojet than in a rocket engine combustion chamber+nozzle exit , in a rocket engine the working fluid is the exhaust gas , in a turbojet its the atmosphere + a bit of exhaust , i don't know the exit velocity of the descent engine , but as a CD-Nozzle rocket engine we can imagine several mach at nozzle exit , apollo 14 don't seems to have cut off his engine before landing at all , yet there is absolutely no crater under.

I will save you the hassle. The LM descent engine, when throttled down (as it was just before landing) put out a pressure of 1.5 ish psi. When you go walking around, you exhibit a pressure of 4-5 PSI on the floor. Tell me, LLL. Do you leave a blast crater with every step you take?

you are funny

the thrust is generated much more softly in a turbojet than in a rocket engine combustion chamber+nozzle exit



Show us this, don't just say it.


CD-Nozzle rocket engine we can imagine several mach at nozzle exit


Show us this, don't just imagine it.

Also show us how it makes any difference to the thrust pressure produced vs. a turbojet.


Show us why a DPS should have produced a crater.

seriously , can't you understand that in a turbojet the air is 'pumped' in prior to anything else ? in a rocket engine NOTHING is pumped in (no thrust generated by this then) , from that point you understand that a turbojet thrust is much more soft than a rocket engine explosive reaction , where only an explosion occur in the combustion chamber generating a tremendous pressure that pass on a throat where mach = 1 then go in a divergent part (the nozzle) where the exhaust epand and accelerate (so mach = >1) , both system generate thrust , but the rocket engine methoc is so much explosive that it generate high velocity exhaust .

You're still handwaving. Thrust is thrust. Pressure is pressure. Show us the thrust figures and show us why jet thrust pressure and rocket thrust pressure of the same magnitude is any different on an impinged surface.

the exhaust gas will exit much faster in a rocket engine , and in this case the surface is 1/6th g affected (so light) and dusty , and we can clearly see a constant blowing-away of dust as long as the engine isn't turned OFF , yet there is absolutely no crater in that soft /light (1/6th g remember) dusty surface , despite the fact that these astronauts leaves clear and deep bootprints all around , during all the missions.

So what's the pressure on the lunar surface? This can be calculated, you know.



Didn't trinitrotoluene just finish saying that the astronauts boots left greater pressure on the surface than the DPS?

Quote: I will save you the hassle. The LM descent engine, when throttled down (as it was just before landing) put out a pressure of 1.5 ish psi. When you go walking around, you exhibit a pressure of 4-5 PSI on the floor. Tell me, LLL. Do you leave a blast crater with every step you take?



If he is wrong, I'm sure that you have the calculations to prove it.

ROCKET THRUST CHART.
here

JET THRUST CHART.
here.

hope they help?

the pressure will be a continuous pressure of a flow of gas , and i don't know that official pressure at all , but given the video of the landing (that i know are total fakes anyway) based on these video we should see a crater under these nozzle (less than 40 centimeters of the ground for most of them) , if you want the real official pressure , you need to know the density and velocity of the exhaust gas at exit nozzle at least , but nasa didn't say anything about this specification , because as always they lost every single technical specification of the historical masterpiece that allegedly landed man on the moon , how strange is this ?

yes he is wrong , the calculation is density x (velocity squared) /2 , and 1,5 psi is the result of P=F/A so he is wrong yes .

Handwaving again. Trinitrotoluene has given a figure. Is it correct? If not, why not? What is the correct figure? Why should this thrust have produced a crater? Can you show us a thrust crater? If you can, can you show us the engine specifications of its producer as opposed to the DPS specifications?

Oh? So what is the correct answer?

is 1,5 psi the result of P=F/A yes or not ? if yes , he is wrong , if not show full calculation , i have given the calculation , but i miss the datas , directly from nasa site , dynamic pressure = density x (velocity squared) /2 , static pressure is not the pressure we need to know for that crater issue.

You have not calculated anything. You have just reposted the equation. If you understood it, then you could have taken the specifications of the DPS and the LM, performed the calculations, and given us a figure in PSI or Newtons.

did you know the throat area , the nozzle exit area the density and velocity of the exhaust gas ? i don't , and if you don't have the density and the velocity you can't have the dynamic pressure (relevant pressure) and whatever this pressure is , it will be a continuous flow of exhaust gas and not a static solid pressure , so clearly completly different froma footstep.

-edit-

but nonetheless we can see the landing video (even if total fakes) showing a constant blowing-away of dusty/sandlike surface as long as the engine isn't turned off , proving that they didn't swept all the surface of its dust at all , and since the trails of dust don't seems to decrease , we can confidently say that there is still quite a lot of dust under that nozzle , obviously from that point , there should be a clear crater under the nozzle (less than 40 centimeters of the ground once again) , and this even if we don't precisely know the dynamic pressure , because the video speak a lot already.

So? Look it up. I did.

oh you know the throat area the density and velocity of the exhaust gas at nozzle exit ? cool quickly phone to nasa they lost these psecific datas a while ago i think , they will be happy to recover them for their next fak... , humm , next historical odyssey ...

-edit- i forgot you need to know the temperature as well (but in theory if you have the official velocity it include the temperature i guess).

So. You're saying that you can't prove that the DPS should have left a crater. Because you're telling me that you can't show the thrust pressure at the surface.

Math is the language of science. Your arguments would have more credibility with more figures and less handwaving.

LLL-

You will need to mention the relevant regolith, and lunar surface sub-regolith compaction type of information, if that is available. The nature of the landing spots, themselves, is what I refer to.

Also, if I was unclear about the deflection of the RCS test firing, from the Apollo 14 quad, let me post again. Thanks.








Link

maths will not prevent the official landing video to show a constant blowing-away of dusty surface as long as the engine isn't turned off , so they can't prevent the logicall expectation of a crater under that nozzle , math will not prevent these rocket engine nozzle to be seen at less than 40 centimeters of the ground above a dusty surface where astronaut make deep footprints , so math will do nothing else than increase any incoherence of these scene , because they can't confirm such a fraud unless if your math are faulty , i also doubt that any maths will accept the motion of these lunar ascent modules making instantaneous stops every 10 seconds like if they've found a secret technology on the moon just before liftoff , and i confidently say this even if im a not very good in maths.

-edit-

but since you say you have found these famous mising datas , what are they ? i already say i didn't have them so i didn't find them anywhere obviously , share your secret please.

density
velocity (so temperature needed also)
throat area
nozzle exit area

with these 4 datas i think we have a start (if you did find them of course).

Well? Why would a blast crater be left with a pressure of 1.5 ish PSI?

the pressure you are reffering to is a static pressure , i know this because roughly every single 'firm believers' drop that pressure when the crater issue is raised , yet you perfectly know that they have calculated this pressure by dividing the force (in this case the thurst) by the nozzle exit area (P=F/A in other words) , and this is just a simple static pressure , so at whatever pressure this >mach 1 exhaust gas will exit , it will not be a static pressure , it will be a continuous flow of gas and not a static solid object pressure , nothing to do with a footstep , nothing to do with any simple object laying on a ground , because it will be a constant moving flow of gas (as long as the engine is on) this pressure we need to know is the dynamic pressure then.