Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Why the moon landings were not faked

rated by 0 users
This post has 77 Replies | 8 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 825
s burgess replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 4:04 AM

when people deal with apples say,peoples underlying view of themselves or social group would really be  threatened .(people are happy and used to in trusting tradesmen with having a greater understanding of their trade).when i feel safe mistrusting someones or a groups conclusion would first be seeing if they have they used such ideas to place themselves above the majority of people.and second do they apply critical thinking methods evenly for and against their belief  being true.if they spend 20 hours watching conspiracy doco then very little research against then they will most probably have a conformation bias.even tho they may have more knowlege on the topic than myself .

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 239
Points 5,820

Recent text I sent my somewhat statist, yet very iconoclastic friend after learning that Neil Armstrong died, and everyone in America was calling him a hero: 

"I've been thinking...why, exactly, is Neil Armstrong a hero? He ventured out onto a moon (allegedly), spending billions in tax payer dollars while he did it, and ultimately gained absolutely nothing for the people in return. And, if you really think about it, Armstrong was essentially the face of a very expensive, multinational pissing contest between the US and Russia. Some fucking hero..."

"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?" 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 6:58 PM
Shouldn't be too hard to do the math on something like that though.
I think it would be hard to get an unqualified estimate simply from maths. At some point you have to measure the atmosphere of a body in order to verify your formulas, right?
They say if you hit a golfball off the moon, it's possible to achieve escape velocity.
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1999/moon.html

this guy says its 2,370 meters per second, thats the speed of a rifle bullet. the math is....really mathy.

So, 1/6th or w/e is still a huge difference from earth. Solar wind alone would be scouring the moon of any possible gases.
that (solar wind) does sound convincing, but then why would mainstream sources report 80,000 molecules per cubic centimeter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 7:01 PM
whenever a conspiracy like this 911 vaccines come along i find it easy just to demise out of hand.
whatever makes you happy broseph. Some of us are happier avoiding the regular injections of biochemical weapons.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

whenever a conspiracy like this 911 vaccines come along i find it easy just to demise out of hand.

You know what is funny?

"whenever a conspiracy like this 911 vaccines come along"

"i find it easy just to demise"

"out of hand."

hahahahaha res ipsa loquitur

 

 

 

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 825
s burgess replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 8:00 PM

Aristophanes ''res ipsa loquitur''why do i have a responsibility to take such claims seriously do i also have to take scientology ,heaven's gate etc any of my time disproving them. sorry i dont see why i have such  duty.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 8:03 PM
You dont have a duty to disprove anybody but its stupid to run your mouth when youre uninformed, as you obviously are. You need to educate yourself on a given topic in order to discover whether its ridiculous bullshit or not.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 825
s burgess replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 8:18 PM

'Some of us are happier avoiding the regular injections of biochemical weapons'this is why it so easy to dismiss people with such grandiose claims.any argument against the  reasoning behind such beliefs will be meet with some kind of personal attack . it just couldn't be you in the wrong could it i bet you have never considered that as a possibility. bill clinton couldn't keep his blow job secrete and you mean to tell me such people can pull off such lies.sorry i dont give government such credit.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 8:30 PM
Its not a secret, bill gates told everybody vaccines are for population control. Thats something you might have already known if youd taken the time to read about it. Not a personal attack, just a fact.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 825
s burgess replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 8:35 PM

''but its stupid to run your mouth when you're uninformed, as you obviously are''ok again with someone doesn't agree with me so they must be stupid.nice argument.if i told you binlarden was hidding on the other side of the moon would you realy go try to educate your self in before you  dismiss it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 8:44 PM
Youre obviously uninformed, so youre obviously uninformed. I didnt say you were stupid but you were acting stupid when you made...basically all of your posts in this thread. Yes, I would probably try to figure out who "binlarden" was, and what "hidding" meant, then try to find out who had performed lunar reconnaissance in the significantly recent past (time frame based on who "binlarden" is and why I care).
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 275
Points 4,000

Hey, I have this really outlandish claim that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fraud. Don't go look into it. That's obviously crazy.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 825
s burgess replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 8:53 PM

'Not a personal attack''try to keep it that way calling people stupid even if they are is never going to convince people of your reasoning.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 8:58 PM
Why would I be trying to convince you? youre not interested in changing your mind.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Aristophanes ''res ipsa loquitur''why do i have a responsibility to take such claims seriously do i also have to take scientology ,heaven's gate etc any of my time disproving them. sorry i dont see why i have such  duty.

I was making a joke about your post.  You used the word "demise" where you wanted to say "dismiss."

I know it is weird, but those words have different meanings and the way in which you made your grammar mistake actully reversed the intention of your statement.  It made it seem as if you don't refute the conspiracies because you just die.

You said :

"whenever a conspiracy like this 911 vaccines come along"

"i find it easy just to demise" - demise means to die.

"out of hand." - This is just icing because it implies that your death is out of your hands...

You said(I'll add your unspoken punctuation for you) , "Whenever a conspiracy like this, 911 & vaccines, come along, I find it easy just to demise; out of hand."

given the context I thought it was hilarious.

So, I guess not res ipsa loquitur.  res ipsa non loquitur...

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 825
s burgess replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 9:10 PM

your right im not interested in giving such topics my time.i said convince people not convince me.id love to here your logic on how calling people stupid is for the greater good. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 9:16 PM
Truth in advertising.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 825
s burgess replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 9:26 PM

Aristophanes.yea my grammars shit.its not my fault i got educated  to the worlds first state high school.                                                                                                                              

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

its not my fault i got educated  to the worlds first state high school.                                          

Yes, it is.

What was the world's first state?  Liquid?  Persia?  Probably gaseous, but maybe Atlantis/Lemuria did have some kind of government!

They still have a high school?!!?

Plasma Atlantis High School - "Gooooooo PAHS!"

=D

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

Moon landing?

http://www.kasmamagazine.com/images/relativebabble/surface-of-moon.jpg

More like frickin' Nevada!

http://nursinglink.monster.com/nfs/nursinglink/attachment_images/0004/0013/nevada.jpg?1208293928

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 10:24 PM
 
 

Malachi:
Shouldn't be too hard to do the math on something like that though.
I think it would be hard to get an unqualified estimate simply from maths. At some point you have to measure the atmosphere of a body in order to verify your formulas, right?
They say if you hit a golfball off the moon, it's possible to achieve escape velocity.
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1999/moon.html

this guy says its 2,370 meters per second, thats the speed of a rifle bullet. the math is....really mathy.

Yeah, you're right. No way he got escape velocity on the golfballs.

Malachi:
So, 1/6th or w/e is still a huge difference from earth. Solar wind alone would be scouring the moon of any possible gases.
that (solar wind) does sound convincing, but then why would mainstream sources report 80,000 molecules per cubic centimeter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon

Well, to be blunt, how strong are your maths and chemistry? >_> 80,000 molecuels in a cubic-centimeter is essentially a vacuum compared to the earth equivalent:

"Avogadro constant = 6.022 × 10^23 molecules per mole

The density of air at sea level is about 1.2 kg/m^3 (or 1.2 g/L).

Assuming you are asking about how many molecules are there in 1 cubic centimeter or 1 cm^3 of air, then

mass of one mole = 29 grams

the density of air tells us that there are 1.2 grams of mass within 1 cm^3 of air

1.2 g/29 g = 0.04 moles of air in 1 cm^3

Therefore the number of molecules = (0.04) x (6.022 × 10^23) = 2.49 x 10^22 molecules"

2.49 x 10^22 molecules is a gigantic f*ing number. To put your number in equivalent terms, 80,000 is 8.0 x 10^4. Each number past 10^4 is a power of ten >_> And that's of difference of 18 powers of ten.

That's almost the different between the size of an atom and the size of a human being. I suppose that analogy fails if you don't grasp the true size of an atom tho... as most people don't. I probably don't fully grasp it myself <_<

You can understand it in reverse tho more easily, since we are familiar with large things and not familiar with very small things.

So then, the size of an atom compared to that of a human being is a lot like the size of a human being compared to the size of the sun. (or was that person to the size of the entire universe? Been a long time since I've seen Powers of Ten.)

How many 'yous' could fit in the area of the sun? Possibly many trillions.

So, if there's 80,000 'yous' contained in an area the size of the sun, that should give you an idea of just how sparse 80,000 molecules per cubic centimeter there would be on the moon, and why it's perfectly reasonable that only a few of these would likely touch each other before escaping into space :P

Here's the Powers of Ten movie if you haven't seen it, enjoy :)

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Wed, Sep 26 2012 5:23 PM
Well, to be blunt, how strong are your maths and chemistry? >_> 80,000 molecuels in a cubic-centimeter is essentially a vacuum compared to the earth equivalent:
I was thinking about this today and I figured you might say something like this. I agree that 80,000 molecules isnt very many when you spread them out over a cc, as you have ably demonstrated. My argument isnt the contrary position. When I envision solar wind sweeping all those molecules away, I dont envision there being 80,000 molecules left, but as you alluded, when we get out of observational physics these things have a tendency to become less intuitive. So perhaps solar wind does the job and only these few molecules are left.

My problem is actually more to do with trust and the way "facts" are reported. Instead of doing what you just did, for years people were taught "the moon has no atmosphere." nowadays theres more information, just like theyre willing to admit that theres water on the moon. After your science review it seems like lunar atmospherics is an excellent example for teaching people how to work in moles. But I think I lost my point because I am now bitching about what they taught in school a million aeons ago when I was a student, and popular "science" publications which we already know are full of misinformation. So lets just say that the normal nasa explanation passes, and I wish people used words like "minimal" and "negligible" instead of "no[ne]" for the sake of accuracy. When someone tells me there is no atmosphere, then I find out there actually is one, its just "not important enough to mention" I get suspicious.

thanks for the chemistry review.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

Nevada, like I said, Nevada, nothing but Nevada.

http://nursinglink.monster.com/nfs/nursinglink/attachment_images/0004/0013/nevada.jpg?1208293928

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Wed, Sep 26 2012 5:58 PM
We read you the first time, thats not very informative. You could at least post a picture of the moon where the terrain looks like the nevada picture. Surely there must be one of those somewhere, right? Or do we have more pictures of the moon than we have of nevada and so I could flip it around, and question whether anyone had ever been to nevada, as the landscape looks awfully lunar....
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Sep 26 2012 7:45 PM
 
 

Malachi:
...thanks for the chemistry review.

Sure thing, and point taken on disinformation.

I've had a thought for a long time now that we should create a digital textbook that allows you to drill-down into detail and out of abstractions.

At it's top level, it would be science at a first grade level. The text might only be 20 pages long, with incredibly basic explanations of basic science.

But, with a click you could have it expand into say a 5th grade level, or a 12th or graduate level, almost like zooming in for more detail in Google Maps.

What might be a page on the 1st grade level could turn into an entire book by the graduate level. The mere introduction of a concept on the st grade level could turn into a reference library at the graduate level primarily concerned with that one aspect of the field! All with a single click.

This would allow students to drill down and pursue self-study as desired. How I've wanted to do such a thing in the past.

---

Anyway, back to our discussion. I think that the science writers, in saying the moon has no atmosphere, mean that there is no ring of gases which are held in place by gravity. Pretty much the only air that earth loses are the incredibly light gases like helium and hydrogen. The rest are held in place despite exposure to the vacuum.

In that sense, it's not misleading.

As for water on the moon, I've always been deeply suspicious of the claim, for the simple reason that any water thus on the moon would be exposed to extreme of cold and heat and vacuum, and the phase-change diagram of ice show that cold + vacuum = sublimation, meaning ice turns directly to a gas, skipping the liquid phase, which means any existing ice would simply turn to gas and be lost to space in no time. Not to mention being boiled if the sun hit it.

I finally understood that they meant that water is trapped in the form of chemical hydrates on the moon, chemical compounds with water which cannot simply boil away as a gas.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

Malachi:
We read you the first time, thats not very informative. You could at least post a picture of the moon where the terrain looks like the nevada picture. Surely there must be one of those somewhere, right? Or do we have more pictures of the moon than we have of nevada and so I could flip it around, and question whether anyone had ever been to nevada, as the landscape looks awfully lunar....

 

 

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

NASA MOON LANDING FILMED IN NEVADA DESERT

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Sep 26 2012 8:20 PM
 
 

Buzz Killington:

I'd like to think libertarians are a breed apart, able to take the correct approach to things like this :\ Anyway, some rebuttal:

"- No stars appear in any of the pictures that were allegedly taken from the moon nor were any mentioned by the astronauts. Because the moon has no atmosphere to diffuse their light, the stars should have looked spectacular."

The moon is bright. Because the sun is bright. To take a picture on the moon is not quite like taking a picture on earth. The ISO value would be quite low to compensate for brightness. Depending on the luminosity of the stars then, which wouldn't be significantly different from that of seen from earth, if you block really bright light (the sun) to get a photo, then it's perfectly obvious that you do so at the expense of dim lights. Thus why the moon photos had no visible stars. This actually ends up being exactly what you'd expect, and evidence for the moon landing rather than against it. Could you see stars, we'd know it had been faked. And since photoshop didn't exist back then it would've long since been detected.

- NASA has never released any photos in which the moon can be seen in relationship to planets other than Earth, because those relationships would be almost impossible to fake, said Kaysing.

This assumes its conclusion, and thus is ridiculous. It also casts aspersions on motives, a weak rhetorical move if any.

- Pictures of Earth that were allegedly taken from the lunar surface are patent fakes, he added, because the Earth appears much too small in relationship to the lunar horizon.

To know that you'd need to be able to accurately measure the distance, in the pictures, to the perceived horizon. However, they landed in a crater, didn't they? Therefore we're not seeing the actualy horizon, just the like of the crater, I believe.

- Lunar landers should have kicked up tons of dust and debris as they landed on the moon but photos show that the areas directly under the modules’ rocket engines are undisturbed. If powerful rockets didn’t affect the lunar surface as the module landed, asked Kaysing, why are the astronaut’s bootprints clearly visible in the dust?

Really relies on an argument from analogy, the analogy being to how thrust works on earth. On earth, wind and thrust create large vortices because it's pushing against an existing atmosphere. But thrust on the moon works primarily by mass-expelling. The mass being expelled isn't going to hit very much stuff, much less rile them up. The logic simply fails a basic science-literacy test.

- Pictures taken with the sun behind the astronauts show bright detail on helmet visors and the front of their suits. This could only be done with artificial lighting of the type that is used on movie sets.

I assume this is referring to the old canard that only an atmosphere can scatter light, shouldn't all the shadows be perfectly black? A moment's thought will show you that, even without an atmosphere, light can reflect just fine in a vacuum and hit things with their back to the sun, no atmosphere needed at all.

- It would have been a simple matter for astronauts to signal Earth and all mankind with silver foil or a laser device after they reached the moon but they didn’t. It’s hard to imagine how NASA could have overlooked such a public relations stunt.

It's also a (fairly) simple thing to send a cheap satellite to the moon with a hi-rez camera and film the landing sight. And you're going to find all the bootprints still there, in perfect correlation with the photos we have now. That would be essentially unfakeable. Then you'll know for sure. If the Russians had doubted us, they could've verified the landing. I don't doubt they did in fact, because if the US had faked it, the revelation would've been a tremendous propaganda victory.

- If Apollo astronauts had really flown to the moon they would have passed through radiation belts that would have burned them to crisps. Astronauts who merely orbit Earth don’t encounter these belts and return unharmed.

Ridiculous on so many levels. I'm done here. Not worth the effort.

Naysayers gonna nay.

 

 

 
 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Sep 26 2012 8:40 PM

So, you're basically claiming that the cameras could not resolve any stars? Consider this photo taken of Earth on the way to the Moon during Apollo 17:

There is no moon surface here, no Sun in the frame. What bright object is responsible for the blacking out of all the stars? Since the path of the moon rocket would have had to be nearly in the ecliptic plane (the Moon is tilted just 5 degrees from the ecliptic, there should be any number of planets visible in these shots. Venus is the brightest astronomical object beside the Sun and Moon (and, in this case, Earth itself) with an apparent magnitude of around -4.9 from the Earth's surface on a clear night - sans Earth's atmosphere, its apparent magnitude would be even greater.

I'll do some more digging on this because it seems too obvious a point to have been overlooked. The conspiracy-theoretic explanations for simply blacking out the stars that I've seen given is that the astronomers could not have been fooled. But then it seems like this is an even more incredible story. "Our cameras were too insensitive to pick up any stars." Seriously?

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Clayton have you ever taken a photo of a star?

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Sep 26 2012 9:04 PM
 
 

Clayton:

So, you're basically claiming that the cameras could not resolve any stars? Consider this photo taken of Earth on the way to the Moon during Apollo 17:

God, are -you- a conspiracist too? ...I suppose I should've realized with your musings on the Catholic church and Blavatsky.

I believe you've quoted here a picture of the famous photo known as The Blue Marble.

Brightness is certainly a factor even here. The sun in reflection is just as bright as the sun in reflection on the moon. In both cases there is no atmosphere to scatter.

But, in reality, this picture does have stars showing in it, despite the adjustment for exposure, as can be seen in a hi-res copy of the original, enjoy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

Clayton:
I'll do some more digging on this because it seems too obvious a point to have been overlooked. The conspiracy-theoretic explanations for simply blacking out the stars that I've seen given is that the astronomers could not have been fooled. But then it seems like this is an even more incredible story. "Our cameras were too insensitive to pick up any stars." Seriously?

Again, view the larger image. The human eye is so good at adjusting for luminosity disparities that I think you're being tricked by your own human experience.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Sep 26 2012 9:36 PM

Anenome:

God, are -you- a conspiracist too? ...I suppose I should've realized with your musings on the Catholic church and Blavatsky.

lol wut?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Sep 26 2012 9:46 PM

God, are -you- a conspiracist too?

Yes. I'll admit Lew Rockwell got me started on this but the more I've looked into it, the more I realize that it really, really just does not add up.

1) Motive issues. Praxeologically, the Moon missions serve the same function the Pyramids did for the Egyptian Pharaohs. They are big, impressive monuments to the massive swinging balls and unsurpassed excellence and "can-do" of the USG. Superlatives like "heroic" "superhuman" "titanic" are regularly invoked both in respect to the operational achievements of the lunar astronauts and in respect to the technological achievements of NASA.

Also, in terms of basic risk analysis, the lunar plunge just doesn't make any sense. Going to orbit the Moon is insanely impressive and the risk of just going and orbiting the Moon is many, many orders of magnitude less risky than descending to the lunar surface. While descending to the lunar surface is more impressive than merely orbiting, it is not nearly as much more impressive as it is more risky. Cost-benefit wise, it's just not worth it. The final moments of a beloved American hero being broadcast across live TV as he burns up and suffocates to death, stranded on the Lunar surface is just beyond unthinkable and USG would be 100% to blame for it.

2) Technical issues. The biggest hang-up for me is the blatantly insufficient testing of the lunar landing. They should have gone back after Apollo 10 at least three or four more times before even dreaming of taking the final plunge. If the program really was so reckless as to move straight from Apollo 10 to Apollo 11, then the flawless* record of success from there on out is simply unbelievable. The risks in getting down to and back up off the lunar surface are almost incalculable.

There are other, less glaring - but still fatal - technical issues. How the modules were kept cool, how the astronauts survived the radiation, and so on.

3) Evidentiary issues. Look at the footage in the videos I linked above. It's simply not believable. They must have faked those portions of the footage. This leads me to want to dig further in terms of evidence. I'm generally uninterested in evidence unless I suspect somebody's lying. Then I want to find the proof they are lying. And you only need one piece of evidence. You do not need to build a "preponderance" of evidence. This isn't a court case.

Clayton -

*Sans 13, but you know what I mean... zero deaths above LEO.

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Sep 27 2012 5:55 PM
I like your textbook idea.

as for ice in space, are you suggesting that whenever (or most times) scientists mention it, they are referring to hydrates? That seems like another pesky detail that the reader would like to know. Because astronomical literature contains many references to ice in what is typically considered a vaccuum. On the moon, from what I have been reading, the story is that there is solid water in the bottom of craters that are deep enough to escape direct solar radiation. Theres also supposed to be millions of tons of it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2162505/More-water-moon-NASA-finds-mile-deep-crater-ice-scattered-quarter-surface.html

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Sep 27 2012 6:37 PM
1) Motive issues. Praxeologically, the Moon missions serve the same function the Pyramids did for the Egyptian Pharaohs. They are big, impressive monuments to the massive swinging balls and unsurpassed excellence and "can-do" of the USG. Superlatives like "heroic" "superhuman" "titanic" are regularly invoked both in respect to the operational achievements of the lunar astronauts and in respect to the technological achievements of NASA.
first of all, you cant say that apollo served the same function as the pyramids since the function of the pyramids is still an open question. That question is beyond the scope of this thread, so lets just leave it there. Secondly, I argue that the apollo program was a reconnaissance campaign. Dont confuse the propaganda that surrounds the program and uses it for other purposes with the actual program. Humans have recorded transient lunar phenomena for over a thousand years, when ballistic missile tech got to a point where people believed it was feasible to explore luna, they did.
Also, in terms of basic risk analysis, the lunar plunge just doesn't make any sense. Going to orbit the Moon is insanely impressive and the risk of just going and orbiting the Moon is many, many orders of magnitude less risky than descending to the lunar surface. While descending to the lunar surface is more impressive than merely orbiting, it is not nearly as much more impressive as it is more risky. Cost-benefit wise, it's just not worth it. The final moments of a beloved American hero being broadcast across live TV as he burns up and suffocates to death, stranded on the Lunar surface is just beyond unthinkable and USG would be 100% to blame for it.
This is built upon the paragraph before it, and so I contend that only a manned reconnaissance mission (or series of missions, i.e. a campaign) could have returned the data that they wanted. As for the risk, the planners and powers that be were not astronauts, they operated through intermediaries and used regular folk to do the dangerous work. I also contend that if the lethal accident on apollo 1 where three americans died in a training/test sequence, and the public reaction to that incident, reveals that the risk of dead, dying, or marooned astronauts was not so bad as you suppose. The public accepted the risk because of many reasons, the astronauts were largely active-duty military pilots, they were volunteers, and people identified with them.
2) Technical issues. The biggest hang-up for me is the blatantly insufficient testing of the lunar landing. They should have gone back after Apollo 10 at least three or four more times before even dreaming of taking the final plunge. If the program really was so reckless as to move straight from Apollo 10 to Apollo 11, then the flawless* record of success from there on out is simply unbelievable. The risks in getting down to and back up off the lunar surface are almost incalculable.
I tend to agree that the risks are incalculable, but that causes me to reject this argument. I dont understand what further testing you would have done between the flyover and the landing. And I dont believe that repeating apollo 10 three or four times wold have been worth the cost, when those missions could have gathered data from the lunar surface. Theres also precedent for nasa deleting what they considered to be superfluous tests from the schedule.
There are other, less glaring - but still fatal - technical issues. How the modules were kept cool, how the astronauts survived the radiation, and so on.
http://www.wartnaby.org/ideas/space_radiator.html

I dont think that lethal amounts of radiation are a given.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm sorry, Clayton, I saw that bare url and got to thinking how much time and effort you put into your posts and thought it might seem kind of disrespectful to just bleh with the bare url. So I will explain, I did a search and found out they used space radiators, the thing is that space is actually very cold in that it doesnt have much thermal energy, indeed there isnt much of anything. So they convert the heat into infrared radiation and beam it out into space. This works inside an atmosphere, but the inbound thermal radiation is almost as bad, so its not worth the trouble.

3) Evidentiary issues. Look at the footage in the videos I linked above. It's simply not believable. They must have faked those portions of the footage. This leads me to want to dig further in terms of evidence. I'm generally uninterested in evidence unless I suspect somebody's lying. Then I want to find the proof they are lying. And you only need one piece of evidence. You do not need to build a "preponderance" of evidence. This isn't a court case.
I agree with you that nasa lies, and has lied countless times about the moon and the space program. The existence of a lie does not mean that any story that contradicts it is true. In fact, you cold prove that every image that nasa had released was fake, and that still would not resolve the issue at hand. Fake pictures dont prove that someone didnt do something.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Thu, Sep 27 2012 8:26 PM
 
 
 
 

Malachi:
I like your textbook idea.

as for ice in space, are you suggesting that whenever (or most times) scientists mention it, they are referring to hydrates?

No, not always. Comets, for instance, certainly have actual ice on them. But they must have come from recent explosions of planets or something, 'cause it seems like the ice would have sublimated off eons ago.

Or maybe the rate of sublimation drops very much as ice gets colder. That seems more likely to me. Since space is very, very cold, unless sun hits it of course, but more importantly it's always very low pressure.

We'd be talking about the extreme lower left of this diagram, and moving right, but not up, when sunlight hits it:

So, ice is quite reflective, it's  a question then of how hot ice gets when sunlight hits it when it's already near absolute zero. It's certainly imaginable that the rate of sublimation could be extremely low still, dunno for sure. Would be a good question to ask a NASA scientist.

As for the moon, these guys talk about calthrate hydrates: http://permafrost.gi.alaska.edu/content/possibility-clathrate-hydrates-moon

Malachi:
That seems like another pesky detail that the reader would like to know.

It's all theory till someone lands a mining bot in there. Water on the moon could make a settlement viable, be it in hydrates or ice or some combination. We do know that water is everywhere in space. I only wondered specifically if there's actual ice on the moon in large quantities.

Malachi:
Because astronomical literature contains many references to ice in what is typically considered a vaccuum. On the moon, from what I have been reading, the story is that there is solid water in the bottom of craters that are deep enough to escape direct solar radiation. Theres also supposed to be millions of tons of it.

Well, your question prompted me to look up the phase change diagram and consider if maybe the coldness and vacuum might mean incredibly low sublimation rates that would make such a thing possible. Having done skimmed that info, I think now that it may be possible for ice to live a long time in space after all.

Comet's tails are probably sublimated ice, and they last quite long after all.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 1:18 AM

"So, you're basically claiming that the cameras could not resolve any stars? Consider this photo taken of Earth on the way to the Moon during Apollo 17:

There is no moon surface here, no Sun in the frame. What bright object is responsible for the blacking out of all the stars? Since the path of the moon rocket would have had to be nearly in the ecliptic plane (the Moon is tilted just 5 degrees from the ecliptic, there should be any number of planets visible in these shots. Venus is the brightest astronomical object beside the Sun and Moon (and, in this case, Earth itself) with an apparent magnitude of around -4.9 from the Earth's surface on a clear night - sans Earth's atmosphere, its apparent magnitude would be even greater.

I'll do some more digging on this because it seems too obvious a point to have been overlooked. The conspiracy-theoretic explanations for simply blacking out the stars that I've seen given is that the astronomers could not have been fooled. But then it seems like this is an even more incredible story. "Our cameras were too insensitive to pick up any stars." Seriously?"

I might have explained it wrong.  The problem with the pictures has to do with shutter speed.  To make the pictures look good, as opposed to taking pictures of the stars, they used a really low shutter speed that could make the lit  objects look good.  However, because the shutter speed was so fast, the stars did not appear, because not enough light from the stars got onto the camera.  Reducing the shutter speed would overexpose the image, unfortunately, due to the relative brightness of everything but the stars.  This is a realistic limitation of photography.

For an explanation of why some people don't accept this as proof of a hoax, read item 4 under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Photograph_and_film_oddities

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 1:47 AM

@eliot: Yeah, I agree that the visibility of the stars is definitely not one of the pressing issues.

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (78 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS